Originally Posted by gloopy (Post 3617447)

For your first question, correct. I do think that.

For your second question, I never said that only military pilots should be exempt from playing sodoku with one hand and Pong with the other silliness.

I don't think there is any significant value from it. What tiny correlation that may exist in theory could maybe apply to pilot backgrounds where there is far less consistency.

If you hauiled checks at night single engine IFR with no autopilot, then flew turboprops then jets at a regional, then went to a LCC or Part 135 job, all with structured 121/135 training programs, I don't see the value in having to prove you have a scan or whatever its supposed to do.

However, if someone comes from a background with way less structure like Part 91 King Airs or Slowtations where its common for there to be 2 pilots logging PIC in single pilot AC (but the "insurance" requires it! LOL!) then ok, I guess there may be a case for that. Pilots from backgrounds where there is way less consistency and QC in training can be more widely distributed so if a company really wants to motor skills/cog test for that there's at least some logic behind the intent.

BTW that doesn't mean any given pilot from Part 91 flying isn't awesome. They may be the best pilot in the world. Or they may have warmed the right seat of a single pilot King Air dual logging as PIC.

But for most pilots I don't see the point in it. For military pilots, I really don't see the point in it. Not because they are better pilots. Just because to get through that training and fly for the typical 8-20+ years, the consistency of meeting the minimum standard required to do so far outweighs anything the silly cog test reveals.

Its worth nothing that no part of the process is perfect. Every airline has their "one percenters" (flying skills and personality) and every airline has turned down great pilots with great personalities that end up having stellar careers at other airlines.

Its also funny that those defending the cog test aren't also screaming to the high heavens to bring back a sim eval. I don't see a whole lot of value in that either to screen most pilots BTW. But the cog test is just silly. To even get to the point of being competitive for a DL pilot interview, even at the lower end of time/experience, far outweighs some pre-abinitio "right stuff" aptitude test.

Now, if someone wants to make the point that they know its silly, but by making it a requirement you creat a motivational hoop for people to have to jump through (most pilots literally prep for that exact test) then OK, I guess there's some embedded HR personality "soft skill" type stuff behind it. Yea its silly, but maybe it screens people who will do silly things for silly reasons simply beause its asked of them.

Does that justify its existance? IMO no, but at least acknowledging it in that context makes more sense than actually thinking tests like that really screen for pilot potential among already highly qualified pilots.

Originally Posted by gloopy (Post 3617447)

For your first question, correct. I do think that.

For your second question, I never said that only military pilots should be exempt from playing sodoku with one hand and Pong with the other silliness.

I don't think there is any significant value from it. What tiny correlation that may exist in theory could maybe apply to pilot backgrounds where there is far less consistency.

If you hauiled checks at night single engine IFR with no autopilot, then flew turboprops then jets at a regional, then went to a LCC or Part 135 job, all with structured 121/135 training programs, I don't see the value in having to prove you have a scan or whatever its supposed to do.

However, if someone comes from a background with way less structure like Part 91 King Airs or Slowtations where its common for there to be 2 pilots logging PIC in single pilot AC (but the "insurance" requires it! LOL!) then ok, I guess there may be a case for that. Pilots from backgrounds where there is way less consistency and QC in training can be more widely distributed so if a company really wants to motor skills/cog test for that there's at least some logic behind the intent.

BTW that doesn't mean any given pilot from Part 91 flying isn't awesome. They may be the best pilot in the world. Or they may have warmed the right seat of a single pilot King Air dual logging as PIC.

But for most pilots I don't see the point in it. For military pilots, I really don't see the point in it. Not because they are better pilots. Just because to get through that training and fly for the typical 8-20+ years, the consistency of meeting the minimum standard required to do so far outweighs anything the silly cog test reveals.

Its worth nothing that no part of the process is perfect. Every airline has their "one percenters" (flying skills and personality) and every airline has turned down great pilots with great personalities that end up having stellar careers at other airlines.

Its also funny that those defending the cog test aren't also screaming to the high heavens to bring back a sim eval. I don't see a whole lot of value in that either to screen most pilots BTW. But the cog test is just silly. To even get to the point of being competitive for a DL pilot interview, even at the lower end of time/experience, far outweighs some pre-abinitio "right stuff" aptitude test.

Now, if someone wants to make the point that they know its silly, but by making it a requirement you creat a motivational hoop for people to have to jump through (most pilots literally prep for that exact test) then OK, I guess there's some embedded HR personality "soft skill" type stuff behind it. Yea its silly, but maybe it screens people who will do silly things for silly reasons simply beause its asked of them.

Does that justify its existance? IMO no, but at least acknowledging it in that context makes more sense than actually thinking tests like that really screen for pilot potential among already highly qualified pilots.

Originally Posted by Notarealpilot (Post 3617578)

Had anyone heard how many pilots they plan on hiring the rest of this year and next year?

Originally Posted by Notarealpilot (Post 3617578)

Had anyone heard how many pilots they plan on hiring the rest of this year and next year?

Originally Posted by Verdell (Post 3617639)

2000 pilots in 2023 (about 600 of those already on property in Q1), then numbers "stabilizing" come 2024.

Originally Posted by OOfff (Post 3617513)

again so many words to excuse exempting only certain pilots you personally prefer from an equal evaluation approach to hiring.

Originally Posted by OOfff (Post 3617513)

again so many words to excuse exempting only certain pilots you personally prefer from an equal evaluation approach to hiring.

Originally Posted by gloopy (Post 3618073)

Bring back the age 30ish and 20/20 vision requirements while we're at it. 3 hour build me an airplane orals. Back in my day a hamburger cost a nickel.