DL Hiring: New Process
04-02-2023, 03:03 PM
#3711
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2010
Position: window seat
Posts: 12,522
Originally Posted by Baradium
The cog test replaced the sim eval, the idea being it was a better comparison since invariably some pilots either flew the same type aircraft the sim was in or had to spend a lot of money if they wanted to get time in one.
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.
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.
The tests are silly and prove nothing. I'll put a career's worth of actual flying experience in the real world over those silly tests any day.
04-02-2023, 06:04 PM
#3712
Line Holder
Joined APC: Dec 2022
Posts: 26
Originally Posted by jozwales
This gets asked every once in awhile, but what is the most recent date that people who have received a "Top Tier" email are getting the link for the AON assessment? I've been patiently waiting since 2/9.
Last edited by datuputi3; 04-02-2023 at 06:31 PM.
04-02-2023, 07:04 PM
#3713
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2016
Posts: 6,716
Originally Posted by gloopy
I don't see much value in those silly "tests" for anyone. But if we're heck bent on justifying them, then any shred of applicability could maybe be justified to the very few backgrounds and experience levels where there is the least consistency.
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.
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.
04-03-2023, 08:40 AM
#3714
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2010
Position: window seat
Posts: 12,522
Originally Posted by OOfff
You could just say that you believe military pilots should be held to a different standard
I'm trying very hard to play devil's advocate and justify the silly test by philosophically carving out an extreme case for it.
Military pilots shouldn't have to do it. (Feel free to just quote that sentence for another out of context discussion point). Neither should regional pilots. Or (at least) most corporate pilots. Or Boeing/Airbus test pilots. Or most (if not all) other cases.
If...and it's a big if...there is any real predictive prowess in the silly after the fact "aptitude" tests, the only case I can see for them even in high theory is for extreme cases like low time, mostly 172, bare minimum time in something turbine/jet with much less structure, supervision, standardization or quality control than the vast majority of other career paths. And I'm not even advocating for it there; merely attempting to come up with some philosophical justification for them.
Perhaps these types of tests are of some value for pre-career applications, like determining who is suitable for a primary flight training scholarship or something like that. But for a room full of dark blue suits and red ties, ATP's with military training and/or Part 121 type ratings and thousand(s) of hours of proven flight time (and training, and recurrents, and OE, and line checks, and FAA observations, etc) using a theoretical test to measure pilot aptitude to do the very job they've been doing successfully and consistently is just silly.
Unless you're in the "interview/test prep" business. In that case its as rock solid as it gets.
04-03-2023, 09:14 AM
#3715
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2016
Posts: 6,716
Originally Posted by gloopy
Nope. Just that pilots (mil plus many, many other common pathways) shouldn't have to do the silly ab-initio aptitude nonsense. It proves nothing.
I'm trying very hard to play devil's advocate and justify the silly test by philosophically carving out an extreme case for it.
Military pilots shouldn't have to do it. (Feel free to just quote that sentence for another out of context discussion point). Neither should regional pilots. Or (at least) most corporate pilots. Or Boeing/Airbus test pilots. Or most (if not all) other cases.
If...and it's a big if...there is any real predictive prowess in the silly after the fact "aptitude" tests, the only case I can see for them even in high theory is for extreme cases like low time, mostly 172, bare minimum time in something turbine/jet with much less structure, supervision, standardization or quality control than the vast majority of other career paths. And I'm not even advocating for it there; merely attempting to come up with some philosophical justification for them.
Perhaps these types of tests are of some value for pre-career applications, like determining who is suitable for a primary flight training scholarship or something like that. But for a room full of dark blue suits and red ties, ATP's with military training and/or Part 121 type ratings and thousand(s) of hours of proven flight time (and training, and recurrents, and OE, and line checks, and FAA observations, etc) using a theoretical test to measure pilot aptitude to do the very job they've been doing successfully and consistently is just silly.
Unless you're in the "interview/test prep" business. In that case it’s as rock solid as it gets.
I'm trying very hard to play devil's advocate and justify the silly test by philosophically carving out an extreme case for it.
Military pilots shouldn't have to do it. (Feel free to just quote that sentence for another out of context discussion point). Neither should regional pilots. Or (at least) most corporate pilots. Or Boeing/Airbus test pilots. Or most (if not all) other cases.
If...and it's a big if...there is any real predictive prowess in the silly after the fact "aptitude" tests, the only case I can see for them even in high theory is for extreme cases like low time, mostly 172, bare minimum time in something turbine/jet with much less structure, supervision, standardization or quality control than the vast majority of other career paths. And I'm not even advocating for it there; merely attempting to come up with some philosophical justification for them.
Perhaps these types of tests are of some value for pre-career applications, like determining who is suitable for a primary flight training scholarship or something like that. But for a room full of dark blue suits and red ties, ATP's with military training and/or Part 121 type ratings and thousand(s) of hours of proven flight time (and training, and recurrents, and OE, and line checks, and FAA observations, etc) using a theoretical test to measure pilot aptitude to do the very job they've been doing successfully and consistently is just silly.
Unless you're in the "interview/test prep" business. In that case it’s as rock solid as it gets.
However, the attitude that “I shouldn’t have to take it because I did x” should be the real discriminator
04-03-2023, 12:57 PM
#3716
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2006
Position: Various
Posts: 428
Originally Posted by OOfff
the test is part of the hiring process. everyone should take it as long as that’s the case. And clearly those in charge agree.
However, the attitude that “I shouldn’t have to take it because I did x” should be the real discriminator
However, the attitude that “I shouldn’t have to take it because I did x” should be the real discriminator
04-04-2023, 06:56 PM
#3719
Line Holder
Joined APC: May 2015
Posts: 44
I attended some university in Europe and I am having an issue getting the transcripts, they will either give me just a copy that’s not “An official copy bearing a seal from the registrar’s office in an unopened envelope” (or whatever that means) or have me wait one month to get that document legalized by the Chancellor.
I am going to to email the recruiting team about it, but was curious if anybody here had a similar situation.
I am going to to email the recruiting team about it, but was curious if anybody here had a similar situation.
Last edited by BarbaraPalvin; 04-04-2023 at 07:07 PM.
04-04-2023, 09:05 PM
#3720
Gets Holidays Off
Joined APC: Sep 2021
Posts: 357
Originally Posted by BarbaraPalvin
I attended some university in Europe and I am having an issue getting the transcripts, they will either give me just a copy that’s not “An official copy bearing a seal from the registrar’s office in an unopened envelope” (or whatever that means) or have me wait one month to get that document legalized by the Chancellor.
I am going to to email the recruiting team about it, but was curious if anybody here had a similar situation.
I am going to to email the recruiting team about it, but was curious if anybody here had a similar situation.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
