DL Hiring: New Process
04-01-2023, 11:43 AM
#3701
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2006
Position: 737 FO
Posts: 2,370
Originally Posted by gloopy
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.
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.
Everyone gets that you think military pilots' skills are not to be questioned or tested in an interview. Delta disagrees. You did finally admit that you don't like skills tests unless they are for pilots you deem to have not demonstrated appropriate skill levels in their background, but you are fine with it for them. So shouldn't a military pilot be able to pass the same tests as a pilot from a dual pilot kingair?
You'd have a better result just saying you think the test is too hard, which I think many on here would agree it's quite difficult. Of course we don't know what part anyone actually failed either.
04-01-2023, 11:52 AM
#3702
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2016
Posts: 6,716
Originally Posted by gloopy
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.
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.
04-01-2023, 03:08 PM
#3704
Roll’n Thunder
Joined APC: Oct 2009
Position: Pilot
Posts: 3,552
Originally Posted by Notarealpilot
Had anyone heard how many pilots they plan on hiring the rest of this year and next year?
04-01-2023, 04:33 PM
#3705
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2022
Posts: 107
FWIW I can’t imagine much emphasis being placed on much of the mind games. I’d guess the only real part evaluated is the personality section at the end. I totally bombed sudoku portion, crashed the flying plane (mouse was wigging out), pretty sure at least 50% of my RMI questions were answered incorrectly, and took a bit to get a good rhythm going on the multi task……
Still got an invite. Now haven’t interviewed yet and I could still get a TBNT based on the scores if they compile them with your interview. But as poorly as I performed on the mind games I wasn’t at all expecting an interview invite.
Still got an invite. Now haven’t interviewed yet and I could still get a TBNT based on the scores if they compile them with your interview. But as poorly as I performed on the mind games I wasn’t at all expecting an interview invite.
04-01-2023, 05:10 PM
#3706
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Oct 2021
Posts: 183
Originally Posted by Notarealpilot
Had anyone heard how many pilots they plan on hiring the rest of this year and next year?
04-02-2023, 09:09 AM
#3707
Can’t find crew pickup
Joined APC: Jun 2021
Posts: 1,985
Originally Posted by Verdell
2000 pilots in 2023 (about 600 of those already on property in Q1), then numbers "stabilizing" come 2024.
04-02-2023, 01:02 PM
#3708
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2015
Position: Gramercy Riffs
Posts: 492
Originally Posted by OOfff
again so many words to excuse exempting only certain pilots you personally prefer from an equal evaluation approach to hiring.
04-02-2023, 02:58 PM
#3709
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2010
Position: window seat
Posts: 12,522
Originally Posted by OOfff
again so many words to excuse exempting only certain pilots you personally prefer from an equal evaluation approach to hiring.
But sure, let's keep justifying the silliness. 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.
04-02-2023, 03:02 PM
#3710
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2018
Posts: 3,191
Originally Posted by gloopy
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.
Man you are old Gramps
edit. Did the 747 with an engine failure at the NW interview. Being a single engine, single seat guy that was "different". Must have done OK cause I got a CJO there too. but one does walk away going "Hmmm, what did that accomplish other than weeding out the 'ole arsehole or someone with a "God" complex.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
