Start here
The short version
The mistake almost everybody makes is treating the Australian process as one test. It is three, spread over months, and they get harder in order. The first two happen at a recruiting centre and are gates. The third is a four day residential program at RAAF Base East Sale, and that is the one that decides whether you fly.
3
separate testing stages, in three different places
7
scored domains at East Sale, each with its own minimum
2
lifetime attempts at the screening program
10-20%
of candidates at screening reportedly leave with a pilot offer
How sure am I about each point?
Every point below carries a grade rather than being presented as equally solid. The grade matters here, because the evidence base is small and several key points rest on one or two accounts.
Well established
Reported, treat with care
Probably wrong or out of date
Unresolved
Thinner than it looks. A few detailed candidate write-ups, from 2019
to 2023, supply a large share of what follows. They agree with each other closely, which is
reassuring, but they are still a few people. Where only one or two of them say something, it is graded
amber no matter how confident they sound.
Vocabulary
What everything is called
The process is mostly acronyms, and they mean nothing until somebody expands them. This is what each one means.
| Term | What it means |
|---|---|
| YOU session | Your Opportunities Unlimited. The first recruiting appointment, with general aptitude testing. Everyone does this, for every job in the ADF. |
| OAT | The online aptitude test you are sent after applying. Low stakes. |
| Additional testing | The pilot specific test at a recruiting centre. Sometimes called the OATB. This is the second gate. |
| ASP | Aviation Screening Program. The four day residential assessment at RAAF Base East Sale, Victoria. |
| MACTS | Military Aviation Candidate Testing System. The computer based test battery sat during the ASP, and the thing that actually decides your result. |
| ACMC | Aviation Candidate Management Centre. The building at East Sale where the testing happens. |
| DFR | Defence Force Recruiting. Your point of contact throughout. |
| OA | Officer Aviation. The employment category covering pilot and the mission roles. |
| Mission Aircrew | The RAAF role you actually apply for if you want weapon systems officer. Which mission stream you end up in (WSO, air battle manager, maritime patrol and others) is decided later in training, not at selection. |
| CLAN | Colours, Letters and Numbers. The multitasking test Australian candidates report sitting in MACTS. See below. |
| OSB | Officer Selection Board. Comes after the ASP, and is an interview and group exercise, not aptitude testing. |
| FSP | Flight Screening Program. The older, longer, actual-flying screening. Superseded. See below. |
Flight screening, where you were assessed flying a real light aircraft over roughly two weeks, was replaced around 2018 by two days of computer based testing.
A candidate describing the change: “The main test that will determine your natural aptitude to pilot an aircraft will be determined by MACTS. It is a new computer based assessment that you will undergo in Aviation Screening Program (over two days). No more Flight Screening over two weeks.” The date is consistent across accounts: candidates in early 2018 were already calling it “the new ASP”, one in 2020 recalls it starting “late 2018 / early 2019”, and a 2022 candidate describes the screening as having been in place “over the last 4 years”. Older accounts and guides describe flying CT4s at Tamworth. If you find advice about logging hours or studying mental dead reckoning for flight screening, it is describing a process that no longer runs.
It is tri-service. Air Force, Navy and Army aircrew applicants are screened together, at the same place, on the same test.
Candidates are briefed by all three services during the ASP and receive offers across them. One reports leaving with “ADFA Air Force and Army pilot, ADFA and DEO mission (RAAF), and also ADFA and DEO AvWO”, the last being a Navy aviation role. Another notes their course produced five pilot offers, three Air Force and two Navy. So there is no separate Royal Australian Navy aptitude test to prepare for, and any guide promising one is describing something that does not exist.
The pipeline
The three testing stages
Each stage filters, and each is a completely different test. The most useful thing one candidate wrote about the relationship between them was blunt and worth quoting in full.
A candidate on the three stages
“YOU session aptitude test = do you have a functioning brain? Additional testing = quick maths, plus
can you read numbers and letters on the speedometer, plus do you at least know where you are or
figure out where you are if the information is given? MACTS = sorry, your lifestyle and life…”
The same candidate elsewhere: “MACTS is nothing like YOU session assessment or additional testing.”
- Online aptitude test. Sent to you after you apply. Pattern recognition, number sequences and simple worded maths. One candidate reports it taking about ten minutes and unlocking every job in the ADF despite not finishing it. Low stakes. Do some general pattern practice and move on.
- YOU session. Historically a computer based session at a recruiting centre with a general reasoning test of about 75 questions in 60 minutes and a mathematical reasoning test of about 30 questions in 30 minutes. More recently reported as a roughly 20 minute phone conversation about motivation and fitness, with the aptitude testing moved online. If you do badly, one account reports a six month wait before you may repeat it.
- Additional testing. The pilot specific one, at a recruiting centre. Four separately timed sections. This is the stage the guide below covers in detail.
- Assessment day. Psychologist interview, medical and a defence interview. Since around 2023 these have been split into separate appointments rather than one day, with the medical at an external clinic and the psychologist interview often virtual.
- ASP at East Sale. Four days, two of them testing. MACTS. This is the one. Just before it, you rank every Officer Aviation role across all three services, so think about your second and third choices before you go.
- Officer Selection Board. Group activity, written task and a board interview. Not aptitude testing.
Watch the prerequisites. Several aircrew roles require senior
secondary mathematics to even sit the additional testing. One candidate with strong YOU session scores
was blocked at that point and completed a nine week online mathematics course specifically to become
eligible. If your school maths does not meet the standard, that is a separate problem to solve early,
and it is not solved by doing well on the tests.
Stage two
Additional pilot testing
This is the best documented stage, because it is short, it happens at a recruiting centre, and candidates remember it clearly. Two independent accounts describe four timed sections, and they agree on the shape.
The four sectionsAdditional testing
Section one is instrument reading. Six to eight dials on screen, and each question asks you to read one of them.
The gauges reported include RPM, airspeed, altitude, temperature, fuel, oil, fuel-air ratio and voltage. One account gives roughly 40 questions in about 10 minutes and says they did not finish. The advice that actually helps comes from a third candidate: use the instruction pages at the start to memorise what each division on each dial is worth, because the test is measuring how fast you extract a number, not whether you understand instruments.
Section two is aircraft orientation from written instructions. You are shown an aircraft, given manoeuvres, and pick the resulting attitude from a set of pictures.
Instructions of the form “roll 45 degrees left, nose up 60 degrees”. About 30 questions in 15 minutes. One account says five options and another says four, so do not rely on the number. The candidate who described it warns that the wrong answers are deliberately similar and offers one concrete tip: keep straight in your head that down is towards the wheels and up is towards the roof, because that is where people invert themselves under time pressure.
Section three is the same idea from the other direction: read an artificial horizon and compass, and pick the aircraft’s attitude.
About 30 questions in 15 minutes. Reported as the easiest of the four by the candidate who described it, with one specific complaint worth knowing in advance: the ground and sky are not always differently coloured, so working out whether the aircraft is climbing or descending is harder than it should be. Note that this section is reportedly skipped for some non-pilot aircrew roles, which sit only the simpler spatial test.
Section four is maths and estimation, and it is the one nobody likes.
Roughly 40 questions in 9 minutes by one account, and an older one describes 60 questions in 60 seconds, so the exact format has moved. The useful insight is about technique rather than speed: “Some questions don’t require exact answers, and you can easily rule out several answers because they are obviously wrong. Other questions are just estimations to the nearest hundred or thousand.” You are given pen and paper. The same candidate says do not bother using it.
Every section is scored on speed and accuracy together, and answering more matters.
Stated directly by one candidate: “They are all marked on speed and accuracy, that is, it’s better to do more and get close to the right answer than do less but get them all 100% correct.” That sentence changes how you should sit the whole thing, and it is consistent with the accounts that report not finishing sections and passing anyway. One candidate who went for pilot reports being told they passed everything except the instrument section, where they had not answered enough questions, and were offered a mission role instead. Graded amber because no official source confirms the marking.
On the maths section, a far-off answer reportedly costs you marks, so do not guess blind.
The same candidate describes the scoring in detail: “There will typically be two answers very close to the right answer and the closest answer gives you the most points, while the second closest is still a positive score. Picking either of the two completely wrong ones will cause a negative mark against that question so don’t guess.” So the two pieces of advice fit together: estimate fast and commit to a close answer, but skip a question rather than stab at one you have no feel for. One source, so amber.
Bring photo identification. Trivial, and it very nearly cost one
candidate their sitting. You need a licence or passport to sit the test.
Stage three
The Aviation Screening Program
Four days at RAAF Base East Sale in Victoria. You are flown in, put in a flight suit, accommodated on base and fed in the messes. Two of the four days carry the testing.
- Day one, arrival. Fly to Melbourne, met by a chaperone, driven to Sale. Visitor pass, accommodation, fitted for a flight suit, briefed at the ACMC, dinner in the officers’ mess. Every account says the same thing about the evening: sleep.
- Day two. Briefings from Air Force, Navy and Army, a look at the PC-21 and the cockpit procedural trainer, sometimes the simulators. Then the first testing block in the afternoon. Dinner, bed.
- Day three. The second testing block, first thing. Then tours of the School of Air Traffic Control and the air mission training school while results are processed. Then, one by one, the debrief: your scores, your options, and whether you are being put forward for the role you came for.
- Day four, departure. Early start, driven back to Melbourne.
Expect about eight hours of testing: two blocks of roughly four hours, with short breaks.
Four separate accounts from 2021 to 2023 give the longer figure. A 2022 write-up: “The test will be two 4-hour periods over the second and third days.” A 2023 account describes “4 hours of cognitive testing each day” with a five minute break every hour, and another from the same year says the group was “pretty exhausted after completing the 8 hours in total of testing”. Only a 2019 write-up disagrees, with “two 2 hour session over the 2 days”, which may describe an earlier version. An early candidate advises taking a water bottle and a snack for the breaks. Graded amber rather than green only because that one account still stands against the rest.
Read every set of instructions twice, and use every practice round you are offered.
Three separate candidates make this point, one of them the hard way: they reached the ASP and then, by their own account, did not read the rules of one test fully, and it ruined their score for it. An early candidate: “Read the instructions twice and do the practices as many times as it allows, there are no bonuses for completing it first.” A third says being able to read and understand instructions “will be crucial for MACTS testing”. Each test is new to you on the day, so the instruction screens are part of the test.
The testing is designed to make you feel like you failed, and everyone reports feeling exactly that.
This is the most consistent theme in every account. “These tests are designed to make you feel like that.” “After each session you WILL feel like trash, but don’t let it get to your head, you most likely did better than you thought.” “I came out feeling like I totally stuffed up and all other 8 candidates felt the same way.” One candidate who was certain they had failed was offered pilot. You are given no score or indication after the first block either, so there is nothing to go on except that feeling. Do not let it change how you attack the next block.
The first testing block is scheduled for the afternoon on purpose, when you are already tired.
One candidate is emphatic about it: “Remember they purposely make you sit the first test session in the afternoon so that you are already tired!” A 2023 account says the same about the second block from the other direction: “You are taken asap in the morning to see how you think off minimal awakeness.” Whether that is genuinely the design or a candidate’s reasonable inference, the scheduling is consistently reported, and the practical response is the same either way. Protect your sleep and do not treat the first evening as revision time.
You are given your scores in person and told which roles you are being put forward for, before you leave.
Candidates are called in one at a time on the final afternoon, given a breakdown of how they performed in each section, and told their options across all three services. One account describes then having about ten days to decide between the roles offered. This is a substantially more informative outcome than a pass or fail, and every account treats the tours of the other trades earlier that day as deliberate preparation for it.
Not getting pilot is the normal outcome, and the program is built to sell you the alternatives.
Candidates describe the tours of air traffic control and the mission training school as the “softening up” tour, and they are frank that it works. Roles that come up repeatedly as outcomes are weapon systems officer, electronic warfare officer, air battle manager, maritime patrol, air traffic control and the Navy aviation warfare officer. Two separate accounts say that most people who sit the ASP are offered mission aircrew rather than pilot. Going in with only one acceptable outcome is the mistake the write-ups warn about most.
The battery
What MACTS contains
Defence publishes no list of the MACTS tests, and candidates are not supposed to describe them in detail. What follows is pieced together from the ones who did. It is enough to know how you will be scored and which kinds of test to expect, not a question by question description.
You are scored across seven cognitive domains, and each role has its own minimum in every one of them. Falling short in a single domain closes that role, however well you did elsewhere.
Three candidates describe exactly this, independently. One “just missed the required standard for pilot in one domain (they test seven cognitive domains)” and was offered mission aircrew. Another “just missed the required benchmark on one of the 7 testing domains”, on their second and final attempt, having “blitzed all the other domains”. A third “scored well in 6/7 cognitive domains, but was a fraction under the bar for Symbolic Reasoning”. The practical lesson is the same one UK candidates learn about their own battery: a weak area costs you more than a strong area earns, so spread your preparation rather than polishing what you are already good at.
Your multitasking test is CLAN, the Colours, Letters and Numbers test.
An Australian candidate, posting in a UK practice community the day they sat it: “My test didn’t actually do FLAG... We did have the CLAN test or whatever it’s called, with the colour diamonds, maths and remembering codes.” A candidate who went through the whole process for RAAF pilot names “CLAN (really important)” as one of the tests that mattered most. A 2026 Army aviation candidate, listing every test in their battery, names CLAN and not FLAG. CLAN runs three tasks at once: coloured diamonds moving towards colour coded bands, a letter code to hold in memory and pick out of near-identical options, and quick sums against the clock. Three candidates is still not many, so this stays amber, but nobody Australian describes sitting FLAG.
MACTS includes FLAG, the same multitasking test as the RAF.
Several practice sites list the MACTS tests as though they were the RAF’s CBAT list with a new name on it, FLAG included, and cite no source for it. Every Australian candidate who names the multitasking test calls it CLAN. The software is shared between countries, but each military picks its own tests from it (see Preparation): the RAF picks FLAG, and the ADF picks CLAN. FLAG is close enough in shape that practising it is not wasted, but it is not your test, and a practice plan built from a copied UK list will be wrong in the one place it matters most.
The coordination test uses a joystick and rudder pedals together, and it is where some candidates lose the most.
A 2019 candidate: “in the coordination test on the day you use pedals as well as a joystick, but you are still trying to keep the ball in the centre.” A 2022 candidate lists “hand-eye-foot coordination” among the things to prepare, and one who failed their first ASP names it as their “biggest fail point”. The pedals are the part almost nobody has practised. An early candidate’s advice was to play video games and “use a joystick if you can”.
One candidate’s full list: about twenty tests, covering almost everything on the RAF’s CBAT except FLAG and Vigilance.
A 2026 Army aviation candidate, a week after their ASP, matched every test they sat to the nearest game on the SkyWatch Academy practice site. Their list: Target, ANT (airborne numerical), Symbols, Code Duplicates, Angles, Instruments, Trace 1 and Trace 2, CLAN, DPT (dynamic projection), ACT (auditory capacity), Numerical Operations, DAD (directions and distances), CUT (cognitive updating), SAT (situational awareness), RTT (rapid tracking), SIT (spatial integration), SLT and VLT (system and verbal logic, which they list as one combined test), MATF (table reading) and SMA (the stick and pedals coordination test). These are our names and the RAF’s codes, not necessarily what MACTS calls its tests. Because MACTS runs on the same software as the RAF’s CBAT (see Preparation), each one is most likely the RAF test of that name, though details such as timings can still be set differently for each country. Two things make the list worth trusting. A 2019 candidate independently described the British battery as having “all 20 test” and said the RAAF uses the same software, and roughly twenty tests fits the reported eight hours of testing. What the list leaves out matters too: no FLAG, which fits every other account, and no Vigilance. It is still one person, so it is amber.
Specific warnings about the trace, dynamic projection, directions and distances, symbol and speed, distance, time and fuel tests.
These come mostly from the one candidate quoted above on CLAN, so they are amber. Their specific warnings are worth having. Directions and distances chains several waypoints on intercardinal bearings (“X is 500m NW of Y which is 300m SE of Z”), and the directions are given from the pilot’s point of view, which they did not realise until the last minute. Dynamic projection, in their words, caught out everyone. In the symbol test the mapping of symbols to numbers changes every ten or so questions. Separately, an early candidate reports that the speed, distance, time and fuel questions give you the formulas but no pen and paper, so it is all mental arithmetic, and calls working with bearings left or right “probably the biggest tip”.
Flying experience does not give you much of an edge, by design.
One candidate describes the only person at their ASP with a commercial pilot licence as the only one not offered a pilot role by any service, while they themselves had one hour of flying and were offered all three. Their reading of it is that pilot training starts from zero, “so the tests at ASP are designed to prevent having stick and rudder experience from helping too much.” If you have hours, that is fine, but do not treat them as preparation for MACTS.
The numbers
Odds, attempts and outcomes
Roughly 10 to 20% of candidates at screening come away with a pilot offer.
Two independent accounts give the figure. A 2022 candidate: “only about 10% get a pilot.” A 2023 candidate: “the reality is that only about 10-20% get a pilot job offer”, adding that a pilot at the base told them some courses go months without anyone being offered pilot at all. Their own course produced five from a group of around ten, which they present as unusually good. Note this is not a pass rate for the test as a whole, it is the share of an already filtered group who clear the top band.
Two attempts in a lifetime, at least twelve months apart.
Stated by a serving officer writing up their own path: “you get to attempt it twice in your lifetime”, and by another candidate: “You can choose to wait and use your 2nd and final attempt at ASP after a minimum of 12 months time.” Two is not many, and it is the most important structural fact about the ASP: there is very little room to treat the first sitting as reconnaissance. There is a more hopeful side. One candidate was told by staff that most people improve on their second attempt, and another came back two years after their first and unlocked roles they had missed the first time.
How long a result stays valid is unresolved. Accounts say two years and three years.
The serving officer above: “ASP scores are valid for 2 years.” A 2018 candidate says a Major at the ASP told them the MACTS result is “technically valid for 3 years”, and a 2023 commenter is “fairly sure” of three as well. If the timing of your application depends on it, ask your case manager for the current rule rather than trusting either figure.
Clearing the minimum score does not get you the job. You are ranked against everyone who passed that year.
A serving officer explains the three ways people miss out: not reaching the minimum score for the role, reaching it but not being competitive enough against everyone else who passed that year, or not meeting the academic standard. They give a specific example of each, including a candidate who met the pilot minimum, was compared against the year’s other successful candidates, and was not progressed. Another was competitive on score but held back by year 12 results and had to complete a university degree with a strong grade point average first.
You are told how you did against the bar in each domain, not handed a percentile.
Candidates describe their results in terms of domains and bars: “a fraction under the bar for Symbolic Reasoning”, “met the requirements for pilot overall with each respective testing domain, but am just not competitive enough”. That second candidate was not progressed for RAAF pilot but was offered Army pilot instead, so competitiveness is judged per service. When somebody online claimed a 97th percentile result, a commenter who had sat MACTS answered that the test “doesn’t give you a score” in that form, and added that “most people meet the requirements” for pilot, so the ranking is what decides it. Treat any specific MACTS number you see quoted online with suspicion.
Preparation
What candidates actually used
Australian candidates are unusually specific about preparation, partly because so little official material exists and they have had to assemble their own.
MACTS is not an IQ test you cannot prepare for, whatever you may be told. Prepare for it.
A 2026 Army aviation candidate who failed their first ASP puts it down to exactly this: “I thought the testing was IQ based and didn’t require prep.” Looking back a week later: “Recruiters don’t always have the best tips.” With two attempts in a lifetime, that belief cost them half their chances. Every test in the battery is a skill you can practise, and the instruction screens and practice rounds on the day go much better when you already know what each test is like.
The skills candidates name for MACTS are speed, distance and time, multitasking, instrument comprehension, arithmetic, memory, spatial awareness and shadowing.
That list is from a 2019 candidate describing which practice modules matched what they sat, and they add a useful constraint: on the speed, distance and time questions you get about one minute each, so efficiency rather than accuracy is the thing to train. A 2022 candidate independently names angles and bearings, multitasking and hand-eye-foot coordination. The overlap between the two lists is the closest thing to a public description of the MACTS content.
MACTS runs on the same testing software as the RAF’s CBAT, and each country’s military picks which tests from it to use. That is why most of the practice material you will find is British, and why it fits.
A 2026 Army aviation candidate spoke to the psychologist running the testing at their ASP, who told them “the MACTS testing is the same software used for a bunch of countries (i.e the brits, Canadians, new Zealand and australia), and that each military ‘picks’ their own specific tests they want to assess. for example the difference between the FLAG and CLAN.” That is the first account from someone in a position to know, and it matches what candidates had been saying for years. A 2019 candidate pointed readers at a UK test description site that “has all 20 test and describes them”, adding: “this is for the British version and even though the RAAF use the same software there may be some differences.” Another put it more directly: “Look at the CBAT guides as that is where the ASP MACTS tests come from.” A third described the screening as “based on the RAF CBAT but with a higher emphasis on high scores”. The staff account is passed on by one candidate, but it agrees with every other source, so this is graded green. The practical upshot: where a test is on your list, practice material written for the RAF version of it is practice for the same test. What differs between countries is which tests are chosen and how the scores are used.
Practise multitasking as multitasking, not as a set of separate skills.
The most practical suggestion in any of these accounts: “practice multitasking by listening to a podcast while doing something else, or having someone ask you questions while also remembering a string of numbers.” This matches what the tests are actually measuring. Being good at arithmetic and good at memory separately is not the same as holding both while a third task runs, which is precisely what the multitasking tests are built to break.
A high score on a practice app is not a pass. Use apps to learn the shape of each test, not to chase a leaderboard.
A 2026 commenter knew someone who topped a practice app’s global leaderboard and still didn’t unlock pilot. Their advice is to learn what each real test asks of you, then practise that skill directly, even building your own versions (their example was a home-made table reading test in a spreadsheet). The RAAF pilot quoted above on CLAN practised holding letters and numbers in memory while hovering a helicopter in a flight simulator. That is the idea behind SkyWatch: one game for each real test, each training the skill that test measures.
The invitation to the ASP can come at a few weeks’ notice, so start preparing before it arrives.
One 2024 candidate was offered a place two weeks after their assessment appointments, for a course about three weeks later. Others on the same course had waited months. The 2023 write-up says to start “as soon as you are invited onto an ASP course”, but on that timeline the invitation may leave you three weeks. If pilot or mission aircrew is the goal, the time to start on multitasking and coordination is once you have passed additional testing.
Sleep is treated as preparation, not as recovery.
Every ASP account converges on it. “Don’t worry about studying the night before, you should have already done preparation. Sleep is your best weapon.” “Go to sleep early as you are mentally fatigued and you need it (trust me).” Given a schedule that deliberately tests you tired at the end of one day and early on the next, this is more than generic advice.
Do not prepare for the wrong stage. Most of the material online describes the recruiting centre tests, not MACTS.
The three stages test genuinely different things, and the candidate quoted earlier is right that MACTS is nothing like the two before it. Practice aimed at the YOU session, pattern sequences and basic reasoning, does almost nothing for the screening program. If you have limited preparation time and an ASP date, spend it on multitasking, arithmetic under time pressure and hand-eye-foot coordination, not on general aptitude questions.
On practice apps. Australian candidates recommend several, and at
least one was built by an Australian candidate specifically for this pipeline. None is endorsed by
Defence and none contains the real questions, a point the honest ones make themselves. The SkyWatch Academy
games are simulations built from public descriptions in the same way, and the same caveat applies.
Comparison
Using UK practice material
Most of the practice material online, SkyWatch Academy included, is written for the RAF’s CBAT. Because the two batteries are so close, that material is worth using. Here is what carries across to MACTS and what does not.
| MACTS (what you will sit) | RAF CBAT (what UK material describes) | |
|---|---|---|
| Name | MACTS, during the ASP at RAAF Base East Sale | CBAT |
| Length | About eight hours, in two blocks on consecutive days | One day |
| Residential | Yes, four days on base | No |
| Roles assessed | Every Officer Aviation role in all three services, from one sitting | Every branch you applied for, aircrew and ground, scored in the same sitting |
| Scoring | Seven domains, each with its own minimum for each role | Weighted domains, each with its own minimum, adding up to an overall score per role |
| Results | A one to one debrief by domain, with offers across the services | A results sheet with scores for each role |
| Multitasking test | CLAN | FLAG since 2021 |
| Foot controls | Yes, rudder pedals in the coordination test | Yes |
Most UK preparation carries across, with one clear exception: the multitasking test.
The tests Australian candidates name, including both trace tests, dynamic projection, directions and distances, instruments, speed distance and time, and the joystick and pedal coordination test, all have UK namesakes, and candidates have been pointing each other at RAF CBAT material for years. The exception is multitasking. UK material describes FLAG, and you will sit CLAN. They are built on the same idea, so FLAG practice is not wasted, but spend at least some of your time on CLAN itself. The one full list we have, from a 2026 candidate (see What MACTS contains), matches the rest of the RAF battery closely. That is what you would expect, because the psychologist running the testing told that candidate MACTS runs on the same software as the RAF’s CBAT, with each country choosing its own tests. The list itself is one person, so this stays amber.
Do not read UK pass marks or domain cut-offs as if they were yours.
UK material is full of specific numbers: pass marks out of 180, stanine minimums per domain. Australian candidates sometimes borrow them to guess their own targets. The idea carries across, because MACTS also sets a minimum in each domain, but the numbers do not. Nobody has published the Australian bars, and you are ranked against everyone else who cleared them in the same year. Aim to do as well as you can in every domain rather than to hit a number you read in a UK guide.