Are simulator portions of job interviews unfair?

nbv4 said:
Stick and rudder skills are specific to an airframe. At the time I did my Airnet interview, I had been logging 100+ hours per month for many months in a C152 as an instructor. Had the interview been in a 152 the flight would have gone perfectly. Instead it was in completely different plane where stick my rudder skills were mostly reset. Familiarity with the checklist and where the switches are located are part of stick and rudder skills along with familiarity with how the plane reacts to power+pitch changes.
Click to expand...
Have you read most of these replies, or just picked what you wanted? Stick and rudder is airframe specific? Are you reading what you write? A 152 has nothing to do with single pilot night IFR freight hauling. I think we all now officially know what happened during your interview 9 YEARS AGO.

Please, somebody take his shovel from him.
 
BobDDuck said:
They really aren't. A level of familiarity and general confidence might take a bit of time to build, but you, as a licensed pilot, should be able to jump into just about any airplane and do basic air work with it. If you can't do that you don't actually have any stick and rudder skills.
Click to expand...
Airplanes are still airplanes.
 
nbv4 said:
There is more to flying than just making the needles do what you want them to.

In my opinion, stick and rudder skills are overrated. You obviously need them to fly safely, but anyone who flies an airplane on a day-to-day basis has stick and rudder skills. Its the things like your attitude and habits and mindset that makes the difference between a good pilot and a bad one.
Click to expand...
I'm sorry. Did someone who couldn't pass a sim eval just call me a bad pilot?

Every airplane I've ever flown has had a "stick" and rudder so I would say having the skills to manipulate them properly is pretty important.
 
BobDDuck said:
but you, as a licensed pilot, should be able to jump into just about any airplane and do basic air work with it.
Click to expand...
But not to PTS standards. An interview sim evaluation is basically a checkride in a plane you've never flown before. Who do you know can pass a checkride in a plane they've never flown before?
Stone Cold said:
A 152 has nothing to do with single pilot night IFR freight hauling.
Click to expand...
Nor does a Frasca.
 
nbv4 said:
But not to PTS standards. An interview sim evaluation is basically a checkride in a plane you've never flown before. Who do you know can pass a checkride in a plane they've never flown before?
Nor does a Frasca.
Click to expand...
So start a thread asking how many Airnet pilots are on here. All of us, as far as I know, passed that exact same interview sim.

A Frasca is an instrument trainer. A 152 is a VFR airplane. So therefore, a Frasca sim is more relevant to that specific job than the 152 was. If you can't fly instruments, you won't pass. There are a lot of us on this board who passed the exact same sim you're talking about. I'm not sure where you get that it was impossible. I, along with many others passed that same sim and interview.

9 years ago. I just want to reiterate this one again. Why the angst after all this time?
 
Last edited:
wheelsup said:
Air Wisconsin interviewed someone named "Rebecca Shaw" and didn't hire her due to her lack of instrument skills on the sim eval. You might better know her as the co-pilot in Colgan 3407.

I did the same eval. It was a joke. Straight and level, some climbs, turns, a decent, and maybe an ILS.

If I were hiring for entry level jobs I would keep the sim eval. After that, if you haven't failed a checkride at the professional level, focus on the people person skills. IMO.
Click to expand...

"I've never seen so much ice"
 
nbv4 said:
Stick and rudder skills are specific to an airframe. At the time I did my Airnet interview, I had been logging 100+ hours per month for many months in a C152 as an instructor. Had the interview been in a 152 the flight would have gone perfectly. Instead it was in completely different plane where stick my rudder skills were mostly reset. Familiarity with the checklist and where the switches are located are part of stick and rudder skills along with familiarity with how the plane reacts to power+pitch changes.
Click to expand...

Bull.

Adjust. Readjust as needed. Readjust as needed. Ad infinitum.

You level off from a climb and reduce power and trim. If you are still climbing you push the nose over more and pull more power and retrim. You know this by reading the altimeter and vsi. Etc, etc, etc.

It isn't rocket surgery dude.
 
I can't remember whether it was CJC3407 or another accident, but Deb Hersman (then chairwoman of the NTSB) said something to the effect of "the actions taken at the ends of the accident crewmembers' lives were not representative of the remainder of their lives." (I'd have to probably watch a half-dozen hearings to find it, and it's dinnertime, so that's not happening right now.)

Anyway, just a thought. Certainly, neither of those pilots belonged at the controls that night. (In my judgment, enough people have peed upon their graves; I hold the decision-makers that placed Captain Renslow in command and created the culture and economic conditions that kept Rebecca Shaw from calling in sick in equal, perhaps greater, contempt. The buck may have stopped on that flight deck, but it certainly didn't originate there.)

BEEF SUPREME said:
"I've never seen so much ice"
Click to expand...
That comment, in isolation, is not (in my opinion) worth judging over; all of us, at one time or another, will be placed in a situation beyond our experience. That's how you get experience. (etc.)
 
Autothrust Blue said:
I can't remember whether it was CJC3407 or another accident, but Deb Hersman (then chairwoman of the NTSB) said something to the effect of "the actions taken at the ends of the accident crewmembers' lives were not representative of the remainder of their lives." (I'd have to probably watch a half-dozen hearings to find it, and it's dinnertime, so that's not happening right now.)

Anyway, just a thought. Certainly, neither of those pilots belonged at the controls that night. (In my judgment, enough people have peed upon their graves; I hold the decision-makers that placed Captain Renslow in command and created the culture and economic conditions that kept Rebecca Shaw from calling in sick in equal, perhaps greater, contempt. The buck may have stopped on that flight deck, but it certainly didn't originate there.)


That comment, in isolation, is not (in my opinion) worth judging over; all of us, at one time or another, will be placed in a situation beyond our experience. That's how you get experience. (etc.)
Click to expand...

Yeah I kinda feel bad now, but that part of the CVR transcript always stuck out for me.
 
BEEF SUPREME said:
Yeah I kinda feel bad now, but that part of the CVR transcript always stuck out for me.
Click to expand...
It's a tough thing, for sure.

I do expect you all to second-guess everything I do if something happens - that's enough motivation to not let it happen.
 
AAPalmTree said:
I'm not supporting current interview tactics. That being said, what's an airlines biggest problem with pilots? Bad pilots that crash planes or pilots who cause friction between themselves and coworkers/schedulers?
Click to expand...

I'd say the first is the worse, going back to that Colgan example. Most airline pilots are good enough to get along with, friendly types, but like anything, there's that 10% rule and they are the ones causing friction with other crew members. Airlines are trying to weed out the bad ones but obviously that doesn't always work.


BEEF SUPREME said:
"I've never seen so much ice"
Click to expand...

Lets be fair, that's not why they crashed though.
 
nbv4 said:
But not to PTS standards. An interview sim evaluation is basically a checkride in a plane you've never flown before. Who do you know can pass a checkride in a plane they've never flown before?
Click to expand...

If you get 125' high on a hold in a sim ride and don't get the job...it's probably not because you were 125' high.

Then again, the interviews I had with a sim ride weren't for single pilot 135 operations. One was in a full motion Saab (EFIS) sim and the other was the goofy ATC thing Skywest used in the mid 2000's. Neither ride was perfect by any means but I apparently passed. My impression was they were looking to see if you prepped at all and weren't a total doofus at instrument procedures.
 
Cherokee_Cruiser said:
I'd say the first is the worse, going back to that Colgan example. Most airline pilots are good enough to get along with, friendly types, but like anything, there's that 10% rule and they are the ones causing friction with other crew members. Airlines are trying to weed out the bad ones but obviously that doesn't always work.




Lets be fair, that's not why they crashed though.
Click to expand...

I didn't say it was. I just stood out for me. It's something I'll never forget.

Maybe I'm the odd one.
 
zmiller4 said:
If you get 125' high on a hold in a sim ride and don't get the job...it's probably not because you were 125' high.
Click to expand...
"CONSISTENTLY" exceeds tolerances etc. etc. etc.

(or was a bad pilot and a mopey...nevermind. carry on)
 
Power settings? V speeds? In a single engine piston sim? Seriously?
If you have a pretty good grasp of attitude flying and instrument skills, you can manage all of that without being ever given it. If you're going for 80kts and you're doing 100, pull the power back a little. Watch the trend. When you get to 80kts, put a tiny bit back in.
I'd expect to be able to put a pilot in such a simple machine and ask them to do that. It demonstrates mastery of the concepts and not just memorization, which is worthless in a dynamic environment.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top