I totally agree with what you wrote. Perspective is hard won and it absolutely matters.

There are multiple paths to get here. We can all throw out the outliers re: guys/gals that we didn't think were prepared to be airline pilots. I have my preferences, and I'm sure you have yours. In the end, we all got here, continue to meet standards, and continue to pull (we all hope) on the same end of the rope.

Scott

 

Your going to find that 10% of the group cause 90% of any problems. True in any business. Most guys you fly with are professionals and act that way.

 

agreed.

Also, the fact that the scabs are getting old now and retiring in droves is really helpful. Also helpful is that they are mostly in one fleet.

 

A good discussion. However, it should be noted that a discussion about experience, former interns, and whether they have short changed their aviation education includes Scott. When it really really counted, he made a split second decision and the only call that kept a plane load of people alive and probably saved United Airlines based on its tenuous financial state at the time.

The discussion about knowledge vs experience is as old as aviation. There are some great pilots who are relatively low timers and some horrible pilots who have been here 30 years. There are incredible aviators coming out of the military, and some from the same branch who really struggle to see "the big picture". I've given IOE to former regional check airman who I didn't think I was going to be able to pass, and flown with some brand new pilots who water my eyes every time they touch the stick.

As the "pilot shortage" grows, airlines large and small are going to have to get smarter about how to find and hire pilots who have more going for them than a big number in the "total flight hours" column.

 

Return of the sim ride perhaps?

 

I never agreed with the removal of the sim ride.

1. It makes it an HR focused process and not a flight ops focused process.

2. It removes the pilot evaluator from the process at a very critical time. We want to have confidence in the applicant's ability to get into and out of the training program.

3. We really want to know how the applicant flies.


I do agree that airlines will need to get smarter on their hiring processes. What will drive that is prolonged IOE. If we have people not making it through IOE in a reasonable time frame, or not coming off of probation due to lack of Captain endorsements then the airlines will have to get smarter.


For me personally, I really am glad I had to cut my teeth flying 135 charter and commuters/regionals before getting hired. The weather experience and the judgement I gained from that was very valuable. I don't look at it as numbers in a log book. I look at it is opportunities to make decisions, decide on an outcome, execute a plan, and learn from it. Hours in a logbook in a static/controlled environment don't mean much to me. If it were my airline, I would look at a logbook, engage in conversation to make sure the logbook matches the experience presented and then figure out what he/she learned along the way that they feel was beneficial to them, and then fly the simulator to see if it all matches up.

I guess you can say. More flight ops, and less HR.

 

100 million percent. Actually I'd love to see an expansion of the previous SIM portion

 

If you think that's bad, take a quick look at what adds points to the application process. We have basically turned the application process into an extortion scheme. The job fair process forces applicants to spend $500-1000 for about 15 minutes of face time. Join an organization you wouldn't have, reserve a space, pay to get in, probably pay to get there and pay to stay a night, work it around your schedule and hope that the line isn't too long to see a recruiter. It is nothing short of extortion IMHO.

On the sim, not sure I agree. When I interviewed (94) we were using the Frasca. What a waste of time and resources. It evaluated nothing frankly. It most certainly didn't evaluate flying skills, decision making or CRM. How is sticking a potential new hire into a sim for an airplane they have probably never flown judging anything? We earn our keep with our decision making. That can much more easily and accurately be judged with scenario based discussions. The flying, is, or at least should be the easy part. The hard part of our job is the head work. I am not fundamentally against a sim ride in any way, but it needs to be structured to evaluate something valuable. The Frasca didn't do that, and based on what I've heard from buddies the newer sim ride was more of the same. Honestly, most of us that are flying glass cockpit airplanes and have been for years probably couldn't pass the ride that we were requiring of our new hires when the ride was part of the process.

Scott

 

I see.

I was in a 737 classic for my sim ride. half were in the md 80 and the other half in the 73. Haven't flown a Frasca since instrument training. I agree Frasca not a good choice.


I also agree on the whole "points system." I understand how it could be viewed as extortion. I just think its jumping through meaningless and useless "hoops." Like "checking the box syndrome". Let's check a box. Like...........that box is stupid, so why check it?

There seems to be an association for every type of pilot these days. We got the 99's. We got OBAP, we got the GPA, We've got so many special interest groups (clubs/associaitons) that it is mind-boggeling. let me see... Can we start a pilots association for everyone else? I call it the EVEPA. If you aren't gay, not female, non black you can join the everyone else pilots association. EVEPA. It's a joke, so don't get your knickers in a knot....

 

I would donate $1000 to this EVEPA tomorrow. $1069 if you come up with a really cool hat with maybe a logo of a middle aged mustachioed white pilot's head wearing aviators and resting on a set of Icelandic Snow Owl wings holding knee pads and white flag.

Is that Ray cyst? Oh, and google "knickers". Thank me later.