Originally Posted by
AirbornPegasus
If the airlines did not employ guys with incidents, there would be a pilot shortage. I know guys flying with incidents for Mesa, Republic, Skywest, and Compass -- I am sure others hire as well, but I know guys at these places.
This is so true... love it.
Originally Posted by
Photon
If this is off-topic, delete this post. However, question:
What's the reasoning behind leaving out anyone with an incident/accident record? Is it for insurance purposes? Or just lazy people not wanting to weed out the "good" accident/incident applicants from the "bad" ones?
Y'know I've pondered this too. IMHO it is absolutely ridiculous, not to mention irresponsible and frankly unprofessional, NOT to do due diligence and take the time to find out what the facts are. Frankly, I would rather hire someone who has been through something like this. They have no doubt gained experience and knowledge, not to mention it is the ultimate test of reflexes and training. It is a mystery to me why an airline wouldn't value that experience (except for the image thing going on overseas...which is a different soapbox.) The fact is that airlines have minimum requirements so that candidates come in with experience...
That said... if an airline doesn't want to hear what happened to you - is it a place you want to work anyway? I agree with the folks here - kudos for handling the situation. This will not stop your career.
Originally Posted by
jelloy683
I had a question...I had a "letter of warning" 3 years ago, I just checked my record with the FAA, and it's expunged completely, and is no longer with me (expires after two years). Do I still have to disclose it, even though it's not on my record. I don't want HR to pass up on me because of something that's not even on my record.
This question isn't one that anyone can answer but you. It is a moral and ethical question.
.