ANY pilot that meets the airline's minimum requirements is deemed qualified.

Which gives the airline a TON of flexibility in who they choose to interview and find out whether or not they're the kind of person they want working for them.

There's simply different levels of competitiveness amongst ALL the qualified pilots. Whereas a pilot may not have many technical boxes checked, they're making up for it elsewhere via affiliation, who's recommending them, whatever.

 

As I get older, I have come to the realization that a piece of paper from a university doesn't mean bupkus in the big scheme of things. That being said, my guess is that if one did well in a technical degree, even 20 years ago, he has a few nicely oiled synapses, meaning that he can be trained. JMHO

 

Just out of curiosity, what did you think AK would say? Even if Delta did have to meet a quota, the last thing the guy in charge of hiring would say is you are here because we have to fill a block.

You have to ride along for observation rides once you get out of training. I had a guy on my jumpseat that was 24 years old just out of IOE and had a familiar last name. I asked him if his dad was so and so and he immediately went into a rant about being qualified for the job. Fact of the matter is he got hired right at the mins, which is not unusual for fighter guys, but not usual for civilian only.

The point of this is "No one cares what you did before you walked through that door to training except your mother"

 

True, and even if someone did a non STEM discipline, THEN learned something technical (like flying) they probably posses these same well oiled synapses, meaning they can be trained as well.

Sorry, I've me guys from BOTH min and civ backgrounds with degrees that really weren't that tough to attain and are STILL very competent pilots, never mind just great people in general. Which circles BACK AROUND to your point, it's a "piece of paper".

 

Yeah I didn't mean to intimate any difference between civilian and military pilots' skills. What I was intending to say was that it is not necessarily WHAT the degree is but having one is an indication... not a guarantee.. that one can be trained. When you think about it, it really doesn't matter what the degree is, after obtaining is everything one does in life is simply production work. From factory work to heart transplants, after you have done the work for awhile, it is more of the same every time you go to work. The only difference is the severity of irregularities and the repercussions of screwing up those irregularities. But one thing I always tell a young gun who is thinking about this profession is to go get a degree in something that you can use in the event of a furlough... NOT a degree in anything aviation related, because it is pretty hard to use a degree in your own field when it is a contraction phase. Sorry for the ramble.

 

I've heard the argument many times over about whether a technical skill minded individual makes a better pilot type than the more *liberal arts* type of person.
Technical people can excel in certain aspects (maybe the systems for example), but bigger picture thinkers (meaning not necessarily black and white) can handle the uncertainty and fluidity of the the flight circumstances and are more likely to be able to handle situations that don't have right/wrong answers.
I'm sure there is a study to back up the point of view that each makes the better pilot candidate.

 

I'd agree with that. And I'm sure with your background, you've seen it. Whether at your current job, the FRS, at OCS/TBS, working with a TAC/FAC/JTAC, etc.

I'm a firm believer that one can either do this job, or they can't. They have the apptittde to be trained, or they don't.

Doesn't matter if the piece of paper says "Science" or "Arts", nor how many pieces of paper there are.

 

Absolutely I beieve that some can do the job and some can't.
I believe some can do that job is given enough time to train, and others can't in a strictly control timeframe.
I believe some can do parts of the job - for instance flying from point A to B but not all can be firefighting pilots (different environments, skill sets, etc...).

I wonder how the great *perfect aviator in the sky* computer at NAMI for instance weights the difference degrees. Being that the USAF seem to prefer technical degrees for their aircrew scholarships when I was in AFROTC, I'd say the institution has a preference.

 

While I'd agree the branches have a preference, if you were ever a UPT instructor, you don't see that translate to success one way or another. So, my observation even within the subset of people who select pilot on their dreamsheet, there are variations within that group in ability, drive, motor skills, 3D thinking, multitasking etc.

I've seen Aero Engineers wash out in 9 T38 rides and I've seen 2.0 history majors DG their class.

Additionally, after pilot training, some initial slow learners sharpen their skills to a fine point and some initial fast learners start to coast.

I don't think the degree, the aviation aptitude tests, or 1000 hours in a 172 are predictors of military pilot success. You have to have the hands and the head.

 

Ha well don't wait too long. I've got a number in the 270s so I'll be there a while...then it's a long drive back to Little Rock and I'm flying on Saturday with the Reserve unit. This is gonna be a busy weekend.