Pinnacle hiring...

Subscribe
28  34  35  36  37  38  39  40  41  42  48 
Page 38 of 54
Go to
01-13-2011 | 02:19 PM
  #371  
More than three busts is the limit at 9E.

What has been getting guys in trouble is failing to disclose all the failures in the background (incl. oral, flight, 121, 135, etc.).

When the FOIA report comes back (Freedom of Information Act) from the FAA and it doesn't agree with the applicant's story then the individual is let go for failure to disclose.

The moral of the story - disclose all failures in your background on the application, during the pre-interview phone phase, and during the interview itself.
Reply 0
01-13-2011 | 03:00 PM
  #372  
Quote: More than three busts is the limit at 9E.

What has been getting guys in trouble is failing to disclose all the failures in the background (incl. oral, flight, 121, 135, etc.).

When the FOIA report comes back (Freedom of Information Act) from the FAA and it doesn't agree with the applicant's story then the individual is let go for failure to disclose.

The moral of the story - disclose all failures in your background on the application, during the pre-interview phone phase, and during the interview itself.
Fair enough. Thanks for clearing that up. I take it you are a 9E employee? Lying on an app has always and will always be the
end.
Reply 0
01-13-2011 | 03:16 PM
  #373  
Quote: More than three busts is the limit at 9E.
Not true, the limit is NO more than 2 busts. 3+ is DQ
Reply 0
01-13-2011 | 04:15 PM
  #374  
Quote: Not true, the limit is NO more than 2 busts. 3+ is DQ
Why don't they devise a hiring method to weed out pilots that don't have the required talents instead of just relying on number of tests failed? They are instead relying on a superficial limit which is all arbitrarily placed on someone not involved with the company and could have taken place years ago. I've seen examiners bust pilots for making errors, realizing and then fixing that error. This same examiner would then let other people make major flying errors without correction and proceed to not bust them. Some of the worst people I have meet in aviation have been designated examiners who have no business in aviation at all let alone be designated by the FAA as an examiner. And airline companies are letting these people decide who does and who doesn't work at their respective companies?
Reply 0
01-13-2011 | 04:26 PM
  #375  
Quote: Why don't they devise a hiring method to weed out pilots that don't have the required talents instead of just relying on number of tests failed? They are instead relying on a superficial limit which is all arbitrarily placed on someone not involved with the company and could have taken place years ago. I've seen examiners bust pilots for making errors, realizing and then fixing that error. This same examiner would then let other people make major flying errors without correction and proceed to not bust them. Some of the worst people I have meet in aviation have been designated examiners who have no business in aviation at all let alone be designated by the FAA as an examiner. And airline companies are letting these people decide who does and who doesn't work at their respective companies?
I would think that 1 or 2 busts would cover what you are saying.. getting in the 3+ range and there may be some underlying problem, especially if they are from different examiners.
Reply 0
01-13-2011 | 04:54 PM
  #376  
Quote: More than three busts is the limit at 9E.

What has been getting guys in trouble is failing to disclose all the failures in the background (incl. oral, flight, 121, 135, etc.).

When the FOIA report comes back (Freedom of Information Act) from the FAA and it doesn't agree with the applicant's story then the individual is let go for failure to disclose.

The moral of the story - disclose all failures in your background on the application, during the pre-interview phone phase, and during the interview itself.

hit it right on the head sir.,,,, While in training a few people were well into systems class and they got kicked out due to a undisclosed failed event from the past.

So be honest fellas,,, they are going to find out none the less
Reply 0
01-13-2011 | 05:55 PM
  #377  
Quote: Why don't they devise a hiring method to weed out pilots that don't have the required talents instead of just relying on number of tests failed? They are instead relying on a superficial limit which is all arbitrarily placed on someone not involved with the company and could have taken place years ago. I've seen examiners bust pilots for making errors, realizing and then fixing that error. This same examiner would then let other people make major flying errors without correction and proceed to not bust them. Some of the worst people I have meet in aviation have been designated examiners who have no business in aviation at all let alone be designated by the FAA as an examiner. And airline companies are letting these people decide who does and who doesn't work at their respective companies?
I have had the pleasure to fly with some of the finest pilots, both young and old, male and female in recent years. They too have a story or two to
tell about a five star D'bag who busted them on an upgrade ride for "too aggressive use of power levers". I'm sorry there are checkride standards, and those we use to fly the line. I know both AA and UAL don't want to hear it, but you have to fess up.
Reply 0
01-13-2011 | 08:08 PM
  #378  
Quote: Why don't they devise a hiring method to weed out pilots that don't have the required talents instead of just relying on number of tests failed? They are instead relying on a superficial limit which is all arbitrarily placed on someone not involved with the company and could have taken place years ago. I've seen examiners bust pilots for making errors, realizing and then fixing that error. This same examiner would then let other people make major flying errors without correction and proceed to not bust them. Some of the worst people I have meet in aviation have been designated examiners who have no business in aviation at all let alone be designated by the FAA as an examiner. And airline companies are letting these people decide who does and who doesn't work at their respective companies?
You sound like someone who has busted a lot of checkrides.
Reply 0
01-13-2011 | 09:05 PM
  #379  
Quote: You sound like someone who has busted a lot of checkrides.
Nope, no busts. Since you passed judgment on me, you sound like someone who has done no instructing. You sound like you have limited experience dealing with examiners and sending students on checkrides. There is not a single checkride ever taken where someone couldn't find something to fail you on if they wanted. Yes, every single checkride you have been on you did something they could have failed you on.
Reply 0
01-14-2011 | 03:32 AM
  #380  
Quote: Nope, no busts. Since you passed judgment on me, you sound like someone who has done no instructing. You sound like you have limited experience dealing with examiners and sending students on checkrides. There is not a single checkride ever taken where someone couldn't find something to fail you on if they wanted. Yes, every single checkride you have been on you did something they could have failed you on.
Just because you go outside PTS standards, does not mean it has to be an automatic failure. You cannot make that kind of blanket statement for the entire PTS, it is situational.
Reply 0
28  34  35  36  37  38  39  40  41  42  48 
Page 38 of 54
Go to