Your answer goes against the only instruction out there, which is the reg 61.51. So if this is the only instruction the applicant has to go by, why would you expect of him to do anything else, until surprised by your demands at the interview table?

If you demand something other than what the reg says (which would be your prerogative) why not specify this in the job requirements? I don't understand the resistance. Why create mystery games?

In explaining why they logged something the way they did, citing the regulation that says how to log that thing should be simple and clear cut... especially if that is the only instruction they have to go by. I don't see how a TMAAT question figures in.

I know that many employers want something other than what the reg says (which, again, they have a right to) and there's a general cultural understanding about this. But not everyone is gonna have that, and someone new (or at least new to civilian flying) asked a very fair question where the job description doesn't specify which version they're asking about. And it grinds my gears that people are getting snippy with him for trying to clear up what the description leaves unclear.

As pilots, one of the qualities that's expected of us is the ability to follow instructions, and rightfully so! In doing our job we have a huge amount of technical data and procedural workflow to follow (some of it not in line with common sense, either). The mentality is black and white, if A then B. Follow the checklist. So we have a reg on what goes in this box, and the application asks what is in this box. Pretty simple. So how can you introduce a secret expectation that the applicant does something else? Why leave it up to the vagaries of general cultural knowledge when you can just specify it in the job requirements and kill the ambiguity?