Remember 3407 Project Strikes a Chord

[ctab5060X]

I think you can come up with difficult scenarios that will test your ability to adapt to a new situation on a familiar type of aircraft. An airplane you're familiar with put in a new chalenging situation is what you would see in real life right? I think they use jet simulators on interviews because they want someone who can learn to fly a jet in a very few number of hours which isn't the same as being a displined pilot IMHO.

You would really give someone a "difficult scenario" on a simulator ride for an interview?

I can see all I need to see in about 15 minutes (or less)... can you track a radial, hold, and fly an approach. Exactly what you see in real life on a day to day basis. Get hired with the basic stuff, then really learn the airplane and how it handles in difficult situations.

 

[Killtron2000]

I really don't know the basic dimensions of a victor airway either, but I've got some Beech 1900 time (left and right seat), 727 engineer experience, MD-88/90 time, 737-200, 757-200/767-300 domestic (a little) and international (a lot), but if a company is going to pick a candidate that can quickly regurgitate exactly what useable range of a VORTAC is to fly a 1900 (which I'm typed in), good luck to 'em!

I'm not saying I know exactly what type of questions they should ask just that if an experience pilot misses easy questions they shouldn't be hired over a less experienced pilot with better knowledge or skill. For some people I don't think experience translates directly into ability.

 

[ctab5060X]

I'm not saying I know exactly what type of questions they should ask just that if an experience pilot misses easy questions they shouldn't be hired over a less experienced pilot with better knowledge or skill. For some people I don't think experience translates directly into ability.

That is why most places give you some type of test during the interview process.

As far as what kind of questions to ask, that is easy... use questions that are similar to the ones found in the FAA bank for the ATP written.

When I interviewed with Pinnacle, there were 5000+ hour former airline pilots that were not making past the exam, but 300 hours pilots were. Don't pass the test, you are out... not even a chance to redeeem yourself in a face-to-face interview. Do you really think that an test like that is a good indicator of a pilots skill and overall knowledge?

 

[Killtron2000]

You would really give someone a "difficult scenario" on a simulator ride for an interview?

I can see all I need to see in about 15 minutes (or less)... can you track a radial, hold, and fly an approach. Exactly what you see in real life on a day to day basis. Get hired with the basic stuff, then really learn the airplane and how it handles in difficult situations.

I know that if they learned to handle something difficult on one airplane with a little time they can learn it on another. I just don't think it tests them in the right way to see if they are the type that can handle a plane when something goes wrong.

 

[ctab5060X]

I know that if they learned to handle something difficult on one airplane with a little time they can learn it on another. I just don't think it tests them in the right way to see if they are the type that can handle a plane when something goes wrong.

Think about it this way...

What is easier, teaching someone how to handle a V1 cut or how to fly a non-precision approach with 5 stepdowns?

The simulator portion of an interview is to see if you have the basic airmanship skills necessary to be the building blocks of your airline/aircraft type specific training. If you don't have those basic skills, then you certainly won't be able to handle the difficult stuff.

 

[Killtron2000]

That is why most places give you some type of test during the interview process.

As far as what kind of questions to ask, that is easy... use questions that are similar to the ones found in the FAA bank for the ATP written.

When I interviewed with Pinnacle, there were 5000+ hour former airline pilots that were not making past the exam, but 300 hours pilots were. Don't pass the test, you are out... not even a chance to redeeem yourself in a face-to-face interview. Do you really think that an test like that is a good indicator of a pilots skill and overall knowledge?

The questions ought to be original question not taken directly from the FAA question pool. Pass/fail written tests probably aren't the best evaluation tool either. You do raise a good point about comparing applicants with different types of experience. Obviously it's easier to go from one GA plane to something like a frasca simulator than it is to go from a transport category plane to a simulator of another transport category airplane.

I would take the 5000 hour airline pilot over the newbie if he had a knowledge and skill level consistant with his experience but if he knew a lot less than you would expect an airline pilot to know I would rather take and inexperienced pilot who shows potential. Right now I think the system heavily favors the experienced pilot even if he is a dunce.

 

[Killtron2000]

Think about it this way...

What is easier, teaching someone how to handle a V1 cut or how to fly a non-precision approach with 5 stepdowns?

The simulator portion of an interview is to see if you have the basic airmanship skills necessary to be the building blocks of your airline/aircraft type specific training. If you don't have those basic skills, then you certainly won't be able to handle the difficult stuff.

That's true, I'm just exploring the question of if different hiring practices maybe could have prevented someone like Captian Renslow from being hired. I think his hours at Gulfstream were a big consideration and at the interview he probably never got asked anything tough and never had to do any emergency drills.

 

[Cruise]

That's true, I'm just exploring the question of if different hiring practices maybe could have prevented someone like Captian Renslow from being hired. I think his hours at Gulfstream were a big consideration and at the interview he probably never got asked anything tough and never had to do any emergency drills.

The above statement is nothing more than conjecture. If you weren't at his interview....you have no idea what was considered for his employment. Nice try though.

 

[ctab5060X]

That's true, I'm just exploring the question of if different hiring practices maybe could have prevented someone like Captian Renslow from being hired. I think his hours at Gulfstream were a big consideration and at the interview he probably never got asked anything tough and never had to do any emergency drills.

Grasping for straws...

Who knows what his interview questions were. I know I wasn't asked anything that I thought was tough in my interview at Pinnacle, but some other pilots thought they were tough questions.

As far as emergency drills, save those for type rides in the airplane you are going to be flying. How you handle an emergency situation in a Cessna will can totally different than a transport category airplane.

The above statement is nothing more than conjecture. If you weren't at his interview....you have no idea what was considered for his employment. Nice try though.

:yeahthat:

 

[SpiceWeasel]

That's true, I'm just exploring the question of if different hiring practices maybe could have prevented someone like Captian Renslow from being hired. I think his hours at Gulfstream were a big consideration and at the interview he probably never got asked anything tough and never had to do any emergency drills.

Kinda throwin him under the bus for his past, are you not? People fail checkrides in primary training all the time and become great pilots.

However, I think for your question of different hiring practices, the best answer was giving during the hearings:

As management types go, quit being the cheap people they are and go above and beyond the FAA minimum.... the Colgan excuse for him being in the cockpit is because "all other airlines do it that way".....

The whole culture of Colgan's upper management (to include Pinnacle Corp), is to do everything as cheaply as possibly not respecting any safety, because they feel that the FAA minimum should be all that they strive for.

PS I'm too tired to look up the transcript right now, but the NTSB was unrelenting in their criticism of "bare minimums".... management has much much room for improvement.

 

[TUCKnTRUCK]

I used to do a lot of interviews, so a coupple of things to start:
1) The more time you have before coming to an airline increases the odds that you have had an honest to god, we almost died, emergency. For example, I had 3 engine failures, 1 resulting in a crash because my instructor thought I had attempted a single engine go around after I had chopped power, and he firewalled the 1 engine, nearly vmc'ing us into the ground. If you don't think having those types of experience help you make better judgement calls, then you haven't been in a really reaal bad place before.

2) I used to ask situational questions that put you in a really tight spot, and asked you to think out of your training box, and use real world knowledge. Nearly every low time pilot would not have survived a very possible real world situation, based on the terrain features and engine out procedures at an airport we ran as a base.

1) pilots with more experience almost always did better in the 1 on 1, and had better chances of doing well in the sim.

Lots of low time pilots also did very well, but we found towards the end of the hiring craze, we really had to lower our standards and ask basic aim/ far questions... Even then lots of people had a hard time.

Pilots with a fair amount of time also seem to be able to embrace the crew concept, and are less likely to turn into a 700 hr right seat captian. They also value the job more as they have put a significant amout of time into achieving that job, where as the low time pilot most likely has just finished school. There is prob a reason why you don't see guys on here with 5000 hours complaining about hiring, or acting like they deserve a job because they finished training.

Even though it is a regional, you have to EARN this job, and earning a job should take a lot of work, effort and time. Not a 90 day accelerated class.

 

[Killtron2000]

The above statement is nothing more than conjecture. If you weren't at his interview....you have no idea what was considered for his employment. Nice try though.

I guess I need a video tape. Making the burden of proof impossible is always a good cop out. If you want to think colgan does a rigorous evaluation and only takes the cream of the crop than I'm not going to argue with that.

The colgan interview I went to could have been aced by anyone who had skimmed the instrument flying handbook and practiced with microsoft flight sim. Ok a bit of an exageration but not far off.

Grasping for straws...

Who knows what his interview questions were. I know I wasn't asked anything that I thought was tough in my interview at Pinnacle, but some other pilots thought they were tough questions.

As far as emergency drills, save those for type rides in the airplane you are going to be flying. How you handle an emergency situation in a Cessna will can totally different than a transport category airplane.

It doesn't have to be a perfect representation of a real situation you could face in an airliner. If you put them in a tense situation like a simulator evaluation on an interview and give them something unexpected and bit tricky to handle I think you will weed out at least some of the pilots who react badly to emergencies.

Kinda throwin him under the bus for his past, are you not? People fail checkrides in primary training all the time and become great pilots.

However, I think for your question of different hiring practices, the best answer was giving during the hearings:

As management types go, quit being the cheap people they are and go above and beyond the FAA minimum.... the Colgan excuse for him being in the cockpit is because "all other airlines do it that way".....

The whole culture of Colgan's upper management (to include Pinnacle Corp), is to do everything as cheaply as possibly not respecting any safety, because they feel that the FAA minimum should be all that they strive for.

PS I'm too tired to look up the transcript right now, but the NTSB was unrelenting in their criticism of "bare minimums".... management has much much room for improvement.

I didn't really say anything about his checkride failures. 3407 was caused by pilot error so the question is given that what could be done to keep it from happening again. First you could have better training and tougher rules about fatigue and that would probably help and that's been discussed a lot in other threads. This thread seemed to focus on FAA minimums (or lack thereof) for 121 carriers which I have seen discussed before but not in connection with 3407. I'm trying to say it wouldn't have prevented Renslow from getting that job since he bought his time anyways. Like I said before it would make for less competition from people who aren't willing to buy the time nessisary for an airline job. Most of the rest of the discussion here is about what I would do if I was doing the hiring at an airline.

I have more hours than most CFIs I would be happy to see a minimum time requirment because than I wouldn't have to compete with so many other applicants. I don't think it would result in better airline pilots though.

 

[ctab5060X]

It doesn't have to be a perfect representation of a real situation you could face in an airliner. If you put them in a tense situation like a simulator evaluation on an interview and give them something unexpected and bit tricky to handle I think you will weed out at least some of the pilots who react badly to emergencies.

So being handed a couple of sheets of paper with v-speeds and a couple of approach charts with less than 5 minutes to review and then fly approaches you probably have never seen before isn't more than a little tense??

Putting someone in an unfamilar airplane/simulator with an unfamilar approach is more than enough to evaluate someones knowledge and skill level.

I have more hours than most CFIs I would be happy to see a minimum time requirment because than I wouldn't have to compete with so many other applicants. I don't think it would result in better airline pilots though.

I do.

Read TUCKnTRUCK's post right above yours. Couldn't have said it any better.

 

[Killtron2000]

I used to do a lot of interviews, so a coupple of things to start:
1) The more time you have before coming to an airline increases the odds that you have had an honest to god, we almost died, emergency. For example, I had 3 engine failures, 1 resulting in a crash because my instructor thought I had attempted a single engine go around after I had chopped power, and he firewalled the 1 engine, nearly vmc'ing us into the ground. If you don't think having those types of experience help you make better judgement calls, then you haven't been in a really reaal bad place before.

2) I used to ask situational questions that put you in a really tight spot, and asked you to think out of your training box, and use real world knowledge. Nearly every low time pilot would not have survived a very possible real world situation, based on the terrain features and engine out procedures at an airport we ran as a base.

1) pilots with more experience almost always did better in the 1 on 1, and had better chances of doing well in the sim.

Lots of low time pilots also did very well, but we found towards the end of the hiring craze, we really had to lower our standards and ask basic aim/ far questions... Even then lots of people had a hard time.

Pilots with a fair amount of time also seem to be able to embrace the crew concept, and are less likely to turn into a 700 hr right seat captian. They also value the job more as they have put a significant amout of time into achieving that job, where as the low time pilot most likely has just finished school. There is prob a reason why you don't see guys on here with 5000 hours complaining about hiring, or acting like they deserve a job because they finished training.

Even though it is a regional, you have to EARN this job, and earning a job should take a lot of work, effort and time. Not a 90 day accelerated class.

I would expect the more experience applicant to be the better applicant 9 out of 10 times. Would you agree that an experienced applicant who doesn't do well in the sim or with technical questions is probably a worse choice than an inexperienced pilot who does well with those things? I would think if you have a lot of time but still can't handle an airplane as well as or only marginally better than a newbie that tells me he shouldn't be flying airliners.

I know some 200 hours private pilots going through one of those 90 days progams I would trust way more than one of the 2500 hour 757/767/737 type rated ATPs I know.

 

[Killtron2000]

So being handed a couple of sheets of paper with v-speeds and a couple of approach charts with less than 5 minutes to review and then fly approaches you probably have never seen before isn't more than a little tense??

Putting someone in an unfamilar airplane/simulator with an unfamilar approach is more than enough to evaluate someones knowledge and skill level.

It's tense for a 300 hour pilot but it's nothing Captain Renslow couldn't have handled and obviously he wasn't the right guy for the job.

 

[spbrian]

If there is so much of a problem why aren't more people getting washed out during training??? Sounds like standards during training are too low.

 

[Firebird2XC]

If there is so much of a problem why aren't more people getting washed out during training??? Sounds like standards during training are too low.

Agreed. Something I kept hearing at my current employer:

When we started really going low time on new hires, check airmen could be heard to say things like: "We're giving flying lessons. The regular line captains are doing the actual IOE, that considered."

or..

"I flew with a few that I knew if something had happened to me, everybody on board was dead, because the new hire FO could not have stepped up to land the plane and manage the situation.'

or, from a regular line captain,

"I've flown with one FO who only wanted to work the radios. He was afraid of the plane."

I've got more where that came from.

Hours don't just breed experience- they breed confidence. That confidence stems from dealing with real world situations and rising above the unexpected. Being able to think on one's proverbial toes is a requisite in this job. There are too many things that could go wrong that just aren't in the book or the checklist.

If somebody has to be nursed through the training program at the simulator level, how will they fare out on the line?

 

[TUCKnTRUCK]

There were a lot of breakdowns in 3407. I would like to see anybody here try to power out of a stall when your flaps get yanked up on you. Why did the flaps go?

Training issue. As i learned in my near VMC issue above, my instructor was 2 seconds out of the loop because the first words out of my mouth were not ENGINE FAILURE Landing, but rather something like What the hell? leading him to assume i had made a mistake, not that there was a serious problem with the airplane.

The first words out of M.R mouth were not "Stalling" this is critical because the pilot identifying an issues, as I learned first hand, must get the Entire crew on the same page before ANY action is taken. This is why standards harps on call outs, and why they are so important. If shaw heard Stalling, check power, flaps 15... odds are the power levers would have gone to RATING, and the flaps would have stayed at 15 until the maneuver was recovered.

Why didn't MR call stalling? because he had never seen a stick shaker just " go off" he was surprised. no warning horn like there was in all of his primary training... just an auto pilot kicking off, and the yoke going nuts.

Why didn't the power levers go to full power? Negative learning from the saab/ In the saab/ beech if you firewall it, you blow up the engines, so common practice was on the stalling call, advance power about 3/4 of the full travel, and then the PM set MCP while the PF recovers. Sadly, the check power call never came... for reasons i assume are the same as above.

Once again, training issues. Now if MR. had a history of fails and TP
s due to call outs, then the writing was on the wall for a long time. But, this is not the type of thing that you would see in an interview.

I am not going to lie, when a lot of you guys come in for interviews with no CRM experience, and then try to "make crm" the results can be downright funny. Applicants would, upon being cleared for take off, call SET power... and never touch the Pl,s ask people to trim this, or that. Call out damn near everything and anything that moved, beeped, lit up etc. "crm" was not something I evaluated in a person that never came from a crew job. On the other hand, if i had a guy with prior experience who didn't fly the best. but worked really well in the cockpit... he got the job. A pilot with good ADM, Good call outs, and good CRM can make an entire crew fly as one... which is always going to be safer than Maverick, the top gun ace doing it alone with an FO looking on in amazement.

Nothing against the guys new to the job, but, we all hit that 700 hour mark, and think we know what going on in the world. We then start to think I can do this just as good as the guy next to me. Truth be told, under normal day to day ops, thats prob. true. That is where the greatest danger is.. because when it gets out of hand, suddenly rather than 1 "crew" you have two guys who want to be captain, and only one that IS captain. People start to do stuff that they think is right without communicating, and 90% of the time, make things much much worse.

Example .. Climbing out of DCA, we departed runway 1, with a turn to 090 to stay clear of the prohibited areas. We had a full, heavy boat, and extra flaps for departure. On climb out, i maintained v2+5 to keep the turn radius tight, and to get up to 400 feet so I could turn quickly. As we hit our flap retraction altitude, my FO yanked the flaps because he "knew" thats what was supposed to happen... and he was on the radio so he wouldn't be able to hear the call out. normally that would have been fine... except we were 30kts under our clean speed... and at low altitude I really did not want the flaps up right then. My fault because I didn't tell him not to retract the flaps, but a situation where he should have known not to touch ANYTHING until I call for it, or to prompt and wait for my response. That is something I expect from a low time pilot who has not had students try to kill him, or crew members try to kill him. Again leads to the argument, that the high time pilot may not be a better pilot, but he will prob. be a better crew member.

 

[Cruise]

I guess I need a video tape. Making the burden of proof impossible is always a good cop out. If you want to think colgan does a rigorous evaluation and only takes the cream of the crop than I'm not going to argue with that.

The colgan interview I went to could have been aced by anyone who had skimmed the instrument flying handbook and practiced with microsoft flight sim. Ok a bit of an exageration but not far off.

You went on the interview, yet you continue to instruct. Hmmm?

I never said the interview was difficult.......in fact, I'd say most regional interviews of a few years ago were not very difficult. They needed bodies to fill the void created by the upswing in 'Major' hiring. However, people have, and will continue to be denied employment as a direct result of failed interviews. So what's your point....or isn't there one?

This is an industry problem...not a Colgan one. Unfortunately, Colgan is an easy target at the moment. Also for the record, I'm not here to defend Colgan's hiring practices, either.....there is a great deal of improvement that can be done at Colgan, in ALL aspects of the operation. Along the same chord, again suffice to say that's another industry problem.

 

[Killtron2000]

You went on the interview, yet you continue to instruct. Hmmm?

No one else I went to that job fair with who interviewed with them got an offer either this was right before they stopped hiring. I heard that last time they evaluated a few people in a 767 sim and I was really hoping to get a few minutes in that but nobody got to that day.

I've just been using Colgan as an example because they seem particularly bad for example when I talked to Chuck Colgan there he was drunk.