Pilot Group Exercise: The Method

In the format replicated by the simulator, four candidates sit around a table. Each one spends 5 minutes reading a brief that usually contains a common text, but also information or objectives specific to their role. The group then has 45 minutes to reach agreement and submit a joint solution: a ranking, a route, a budget allocation. A panel — typically an HR psychologist and one or two pilots — observes and doesn't answer any questions.

This panel isn't scoring the “right” answer; it's scoring how you get there: listening, clarity, analysis, synthesis, decision-making, managing stress and time, the ability to bring others into the discussion, and the willingness to accept a better argument. The candidate they're looking for is neither passive nor domineering: they move the group forward without steamrolling it. A good solution helps, but it isn't enough if the process of getting there was chaotic.

While reading, don't try to memorise everything: identify what's common to everyone and what's unique to you. Your confidential brief contains information the others don't have, and in most scenarios the solution only emerges once all the briefs are cross-referenced. Also note anything that looks like a hard constraint (a minimum, an obligation, a time limit) and anything that looks like noise.

Then prepare your opening contribution: one sentence proposing a method, not giving your opinion. Whoever speaks first to organise the discussion naturally earns a useful place in the group, without needing to push their own solution.

Right from the start, suggest a two-minute round-table so everyone can share the information from their brief, then propose a time breakdown: analysis, decision, write-up. Get someone appointed as timekeeper, and keep ten minutes aside for the summary. Appointing someone to manage time is part of the exercise: if nobody does it, that's a missed opportunity for the whole group.

Share your information, including anything that works against your role or region: the panel is watching for cooperation, not stubborn defence of your own interest. Do the maths and check the group's calculations out loud, because a calculation error that slips through will come back to bite you by the end of the exercise. Also sort through the data: in the more demanding scenarios, a lot of it is there purely to distract, and some objectives are hidden.

About ten minutes before the end, a flash update changes the situation: a reduced budget, a new constraint, last-minute information. In the simulator, the four hardest scenarios each include one. It's there to see how the group reacts under pressure — and how you react.

The wrong reaction is to start everything over from zero. The right one is to build on what still holds up, reprioritise, clearly split the remaining revision work among the members, and submit a complete solution within the time left. Announce the new time breakdown out loud, even if it's rough — that's the sign you're keeping control of the situation.

Draw out those who stay quiet, rephrase before you contradict, and concede clearly when faced with a better argument: these three reflexes are worth more than winning a point in the discussion. The simulator puts you up against a range of randomly assigned profiles: dominant and in a hurry, constructive and methodical, quiet and thoughtful, stubborn and anxious. They defend their own brief, sometimes make mistakes in a calculation, and steer the group back on track when you're the one going off course.

Their role adapts to what you do. If you take the lead, one of them becomes your right-hand person; if you hold back, someone else steps up; if you stay silent for several minutes, someone asks for your opinion, just as would happen in real life. It's a good way to spot your natural tendency: too withdrawn, too dominant, or well balanced.

The simulator offers 9 scenarios. The simplest are survival-ranking exercises: La Pêche en mer, Perdus dans le désert, Perdus sur la Lune. At the intermediate level, La Ville perdue and L'avion du Grand Nord require cross-referencing information and reading a map. The four difficult scenarios are trade-off exercises with plenty of irrelevant data, hidden objectives and a flash update: Banque Mercuria, La Raffinerie, Azuréa and Budget de l'État.

Your role is assigned at random when you start, and you discover it by opening your confidential brief. On your own, you'll go through the exercise with three simulated candidates; in a group, up to four people can join the same room using a code, with any empty seats filled by simulated candidates. The round-table view shows who's speaking, the shared board and plan fill in together as the discussion progresses, and the clock only appears once someone suggests managing the time.

The debrief is the most useful part. It follows a PNT-style grid with five categories (general attitude, analysis, decision-making, interpersonal skills, and industry/professional awareness), each scored from “--” to “++”, with an overall verdict: unfavourable, borderline, favourable with reservations, or favourable. It also breaks down the key moments of the discussion with timestamps, highlighting your strengths and areas for improvement, and it's saved to your account. Start with an easy scenario to get familiar with the format, review the debrief, then move up a level, working on one point at a time.

The simulator replicates the format of the exercise; it doesn't reuse any official scenario and has no connection to any airline or selection body. The exact rules, grading grid and scenarios used in a real selection process may differ. It's a training tool for building the right reflexes: proposing a method, sharing information, managing time, and reacting to a surprise. Pricing and access plans are detailed on the simulator page and on the pricing page.