Are simulator portions of job interviews unfair?

N

nbv4

Well-Known Member
I've only ever had to do one job interview where I had to demonstrate my flying skills in a simulator. It was for a job at Airnet that I interviewed for in 2007 (right before they started layoffs)

They put me in a Frasca simulator, which I had never flown before, and wanted me to take off, do some pattern work, and then land after doing an instrument approach.

When I'm flying in real life, I'm familiar with the plane. I know the V speeds. I'm familiar with the layout of the instrument panel. I'm familiar with the feel of how the plane responds to pitch and power.In an airplane I've never flown before, all of this is unknown to me.

After I took off, I pulled out the checklist and attempted to do the "after take off" items. The checklist I had never seen before, so I had to spent a bit of time just finding the items. Once I found the items, one of them was "turn off landing light". It took me 30 seconds or so to even find the landing light switch. I even asked the interviewer "Where is the landing light switch?". He gave me no answer. In real life if you're flying a plane that you are not familiar with, there is always at least an instructor that can answer questions you will obviously have.

At one point in the interview I had to slow the plane down for the instrument approach. I had no idea what power setting was needed, so I asked the interviewer. He did not say a word. In hindsight, I should have gotten up and walked out at that point. They were evaluating how I fly when I'm put in a plane I'm completely unfamiliar with, not my actual pilot skills.

I don't feel like my performance in that situation reflects my actual abilities. Does anyone else feel the same about simulator portion of job interviews?
 
I only ever did a sim interview for a CFII position (funny how times change) and it was god awful. So pitch sensitive and the trim was broken so you could barely keep the thing under control while trying to read a paper approach chart with a DME arc. From what I've heard a lot of places that did it would give you power settings/speeds, etc to fly and you pretty much just fly the thing.

Speaking of, are any regionals (or majors for that matter) still doing sim portions of interviews?
 
I get the idea of doing a basic instrument skills evaluation on a job interview for a job that requires instrument flying but good lord, the OP's experience sounds ridiculous. Give the applicant a "profile" to fly and don't even worry about the checklists as long as the gear comes down and the instrument skills are good.
 
It seems more relevant than your basket weaving GPA or how many kittens you foster. But that's just me, and I'm not doing the hiring, I'm trying to get hired. So I don't worry about how "fair" anything is.

They set the bar, you try to clear it. Everything else is a waste of time.
 
Did the OP choose to do the sim prep offered by Airnet at the time? I did not have the experience you did during that sim time, but I also came in early and got some sim time. During the interview, I had no problems, and was able to ask questions and receive answers...
 
Boris Badenov said:
It seems more relevant than your basket weaving GPA or how many kittens you foster. But that's just me, and I'm not doing the hiring, I'm trying to get hired. So I don't worry about how "fair" anything is.

They set the bar, you try to clear it. Everything else is a waste of time.
Click to expand...
That sounds like a defeatist attitude. If the interview process companies commonly use is not fair then something should be done about it. If every pilot walks out of the interview when they insist on doing a simulator evaluation, then companies won't do simulator evaluations anymore. What if the company said they only hire people if they are jewish. Are you going to just say "well if being jewish is the bar then I guess that means I must start studying the talmud"

Also, if you ask me, somebody's performance flying a plane they have no familiarity with is about as equally relevant as their basket weaving GPA.
 
nbv4 said:
That sounds like a defeatist attitude. If the interview process companies commonly use is not fair then something should be done about it. If every pilot walks out of the interview when they insist on doing a simulator evaluation, then companies won't do simulator evaluations anymore. What if the company said they only hire people if they are jewish. Are you going to just say "well if being jewish is the bar then I guess that means I must start studying the talmud"

Also, if you ask me, somebody's performance flying a plane they have no familiarity with is about as equally relevant as their basket weaving GPA.
Click to expand...
So did you do the sim prep they offered? This was in 2007 but you are still holding on to it? Maybe you had a bad experience...welcome to aviation. I did not have the same experience as you as a 2005 new hire. I think either you or the instructor had a bad day. Sorry it happened to you, but that's going on 10 years ago now. Does anybody still do sim during interviews?
 
If I remember correctly, you had to pay like $70/hr to do the sim prep thing at Airnet. As you all probably know, you don't become completely familiar with any airplane after just one hour of flight time. It takes at least 7 or 8 hours and more importantly, spread out over at least a few days (rather than one long day or cramming). I just did have the money or time, or inclination to invest that kind of money into a freaking interview.
 
nbv4 said:
If I remember correctly, you had to pay like $70/hr to do the sim prep thing at Airnet. As you all probably know, you don't become completely familiar with any airplane after just one hour of flight time. It takes at least 7 or 8 hours and more importantly, spread out over at least a few days (rather than one long day or cramming). I just did have the money or time, or inclination to invest that kind of money into a freaking interview.
Click to expand...
popcorn.gif
 
nbv4 said:
Interviewing *is* a war. Your objective is to get hired, the interviewer's objective is to disqualify you (at least it is when there are more pilots than there are jobs for everybody). Anything that makes it a more fair fight is a good thing the way I see it.
Click to expand...

Not entirely. Their job is to recruit you to fill their need for labour. Your job is to determine if the level of pay and benefits are worth your time.
 
nbv4 said:
If I remember correctly, you had to pay like $70/hr to do the sim prep thing at Airnet. As you all probably know, you don't become completely familiar with any airplane after just one hour of flight time. It takes at least 7 or 8 hours and more importantly, spread out over at least a few days (rather than one long day or cramming). I just did have the money or time, or inclination to invest that kind of money into a freaking interview.
Click to expand...
nbv4 said:
Interviewing *is* a war. Your objective is to get hired, the interviewer's objective is to disqualify you (at least it is when there are more pilots than there are jobs for everybody). Anything that makes it a more fair fight is a good thing the way I see it.
Click to expand...
How'd you do in the "war"? I paid a little bit of money to get a decent familiarization with an instrument that would determine if I got a job. Apparently, you didn't. I'd say I won that battle.

Now, I'm trying to get a Part 91 job at home, and can't even get an interview, so right now, I've lost the war, but I did win that battle over a decade ago. Perspective is everything...
 
I can kinda relate to this.

My last job was with a local Sheriff's Department. While the job didn't require Deputy level physical fitness, since we would be out in the field with Deputies handling low priority calls, there was some physical fitness involved. The job announcement detailed the PT test: run up and down a flight of stairs, drag a dummy 30 feet, and manipulate the "arrest simulator." I didn't find out until just before the PT test that it would A) be timed, B) all three "events" had to be done one after the other, C) that one had to run from one station to the other, and D) that the time to complete the course would be used to rank applicants.

Now, was that fair? Well, while it does make sense to do the PT test that way, the job announcement should have been a lot more clear. I certainly felt that had I known I would be running from station to station, I would have prepared for that. In the end, I got the job, so it's not really a big deal. But I do understand being thrown an unnecessary curve ball during an interview, like being expected to fly an unfamiliar aircraft without any assistance.
 
I flown with maybe hundreds of different people in a simulator. During an interview, the interviewer knows and can see basic flying skills. He/She does not care about the landing light being on or off or the checklist.. Its a common defense mechanisim to blame unfamiliarity, pitch sensitive, or lack of power setting knowledge. It gets old to always hear "The plane is way easier to fly". Maybe so, but your lack of basic skills following a needle, or knowing that if your fast to pull power (regardless if you know "the setting")..

Yet you get some pilots get in that have never been in a simulator before, and they just have a natual ability to just know what to do without having to memorize profiles, speeds, or power settings.

Once your hired, then we will teach you what you need to know, We dont have much patiance to teach you how to fly in the interview process, and if your expecting that, and your attitude is such, then probabaly not going to turn out good. What is interesting is that your attitude in the simulator and being good natured and humbled, and willing to learn probabaly has a much better bearing on your going to get hired than your flying skills. Dont talk trash about our simulator (even though we all know its garbage). It freezes up during the approach? laugh it off, move on.

Just my take...
 
Last edited:
ShyFlyer said:
I can kinda relate to this.

My last job was with a local Sheriff's Department. While the job didn't require Deputy level physical fitness, since we would be out in the field with Deputies handling low priority calls, there was some physical fitness involved. The job announcement detailed the PT test: run up and down a flight of stairs, drag a dummy 30 feet, and manipulate the "arrest simulator." I didn't find out until just before the PT test that it would A) be timed, B) all three "events" had to be done one after the other, C) that one had to run from one station to the other, and D) that the time to complete the course would be used to rank applicants.

Now, was that fair? Well, while it does make sense to do the PT test that way, the job announcement should have been a lot more clear. I certainly felt that had I known I would be running from station to station, I would have prepared for that. In the end, I got the job, so it's not really a big deal. But I do understand being thrown an unnecessary curve ball during an interview, like being expected to fly an unfamiliar aircraft without any assistance.
Click to expand...
But the OP was given the information that a sim would be used, and offered some sim time, for a price. I don't necessarily agree with that aspect, but it is what it is. Pay your money, get familiar with what will be required for a job offer, and go about your day.

Or, go on a rant about it 9 years later...:confused:
 
Airline pilot interviews got millennial'ed. Gone are the days of sim evaluations, medical exams, ATP written exams, and technical interviews. Now it's all TMAAT and how much volunteer work you have. And because of the new format, pilots (in general) suck at interviewing and the overwhelming majority of those interviewing at the legacies have taken interview prep. So, the airlines are now subject to well-rehearsed pilots who otherwise wouldn't be like that if they weren't trained. While interviewing isn't a war, almost no one is going in without a $400 prep course. It's the new norm, for better or for worse.
 
nbv4 said:
I've only ever had to do one job interview where I had to demonstrate my flying skills in a simulator. It was for a job at Airnet that I interviewed for in 2007 (right before they started layoffs)

They put me in a Frasca simulator, which I had never flown before, and wanted me to take off, do some pattern work, and then land after doing an instrument approach.

When I'm flying in real life, I'm familiar with the plane. I know the V speeds. I'm familiar with the layout of the instrument panel. I'm familiar with the feel of how the plane responds to pitch and power.In an airplane I've never flown before, all of this is unknown to me.

After I took off, I pulled out the checklist and attempted to do the "after take off" items. The checklist I had never seen before, so I had to spent a bit of time just finding the items. Once I found the items, one of them was "turn off landing light". It took me 30 seconds or so to even find the landing light switch. I even asked the interviewer "Where is the landing light switch?". He gave me no answer. In real life if you're flying a plane that you are not familiar with, there is always at least an instructor that can answer questions you will obviously have.

At one point in the interview I had to slow the plane down for the instrument approach. I had no idea what power setting was needed, so I asked the interviewer. He did not say a word. In hindsight, I should have gotten up and walked out at that point. They were evaluating how I fly when I'm put in a plane I'm completely unfamiliar with, not my actual pilot skills.

I don't feel like my performance in that situation reflects my actual abilities. Does anyone else feel the same about simulator portion of job interviews?
Click to expand...


I was always under the impression that sim evals were pretty much to see if you could do a basic scan, deal with some stress, and show improvement through out the evaluation in an unfamiliar aircraft. You could screw up, but how you dealt with the screw up was more important than the screw up itself (with in reason). The evaluator likely was intentionally putting stress on you by not answering your question.

Many large airlines are not doing sim evaluations anymore. Instead, they are doing scenario based crm exercises to see how you make a difficult decision and deal with people in a stressful situation that is timed (the time limit really rachets up the stress).


Do some professional interview prep and know how the games is played. It really will help.
 
BlueMoon said:
I was always under the impression that sim evals were pretty much to see if you could do a basic scan, deal with some stress, and show improvement through out the evaluation in an unfamiliar aircraft. You could screw up, but how you dealt with the screw up was more important than the screw up itself (with in reason). The evaluator likely was intentionally putting stress on you by not answering your question.

Many large airlines are not doing sim evaluations anymore. Instead, they are doing scenario based crm exercises to see how you make a decision and deal with people in a stressful situation.


Know how the games is played
Click to expand...


Yes. And people now pay $400+ dollars to rehearse for those games. Airlines are now subject to well-trained intervieews, not necessarily pilots. And yes piloting today is more than flying an airplane, but still, anyone can be coached to answer HR questions and fool someone enough for a 3 hr session.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top