Originally Posted by
rickair7777
It's possible that a young, inexperienced person could get caught up in a bad situation in part 91 and rack up a bunch of failures... general aviation (including 141 to a degree) is pretty inconsistent. With some experience, that person might be a great pilot.
It's also possible that someone with multiple failures just sucks. "Checkride-itis" is unfornuayely not a valid excuse, because employers need pilots who can not only fly safe but also complete training events in a timely and cost effective manner. Honestly a lot of them hire for the later criteria, and "assume" that completion of training will then correlate to safe pilot.
Employers don't know which you are, and they are not required to give anyone a "fair shake", so they'll typically move on to other candidates whose records don't pose an analytical dilemma.
Bottom line, it doesn't matter how good a pilot you are, or will become, a big part of the game you're playing is to keep your nose clean.
I completely agree with you and in some cases is not fair at all..is why I say that failures doesn't mean un-safe... is true that can mean difficult to train (checkride-itis) which also is important from the business perspective.
Agree also that is more easy choose the "clean" candidate but in the real 142 training you see which one are trainable and which are not... and that is not related his incident/accident/ride failures.
In Europe the airlines cannot see applicant failures because is personal data, so they do an full simulator assessment before hire anyone, and under my opinion... thats is quite more realistic and effective about pilot skills.
Also, all this things are related to market moment... someone told me that DAL hired recently individuals with DUI/Incident/Accident records, something unthinkable some time ago.