Some post career fair observations from a friend

milleR said:
I’d hypothesize that if you’re at the job fair in the first place then you meet the time requirements, ergo your personality and “story” will carry you to the interview where your actual experience will get more thoroughly disected and examined.

You could be the most badass, ‘jo drivin’ piston jockey ootsk cowboy on the planet but that really doesn’t mean crap in front of an interview panel that’s hiring a person first and pilot second. The only thing in life that’s virtually unteachable is how to not be an arsehole.

And thirdly, I think Doug’s point is that in a relatively homogenous group of applicants you don’t want your time grid taking up valuable real estate on what should be a one page resume.
Click to expand...
Yeah, no arguments. I think you're correct on all three points. But none of those points really address the question I was asking.
 
Crop Duster said:
Yeah, no arguments. I think you're correct on all three points. But none of those points really address the question I was asking.
Click to expand...
Well damn. My reading comprehension needs a good oil change then.

Could you distill it down to my level please? I genuinely appreciate your viewpoint and hate missing the obvious. No :sarcasm: at all.
 
Crop Duster said:
Question: What is the magic behind Turbine Time?
Click to expand...

Experience flying in flight regimes that a reciprocating engine aircraft will never be in.

Or Glass Time?
Click to expand...

None. I think some of the regionals like to see it, but at my level, meh.

If the man says wear a yellow tie and part your hair to the left in order to come to the party, your choices are complying the best you can or looking elsewhere.
 
milleR said:
I’d hypothesize that if you’re at the job fair in the first place then you meet the time requirements, ergo your personality and “story” will carry you to the interview where your actual experience will get more thoroughly disected and examined.

You could be the most badass, ‘jo drivin’ piston jockey ootsk cowboy on the planet but that really doesn’t mean crap in front of an interview panel that’s hiring a person first and pilot second. The only thing in life that’s virtually unteachable is how to not be an arsehole.

And thirdly, I think Doug’s point is that in a relatively homogenous group of applicants you don’t want your time grid taking up valuable real estate on what should be a one page resume.
Click to expand...

Bingo.

You have a limited amount of time to ascertain if all that white shirt, red tie, dark blue coat and sharp resume is basically "lipstick on a pig" or your next new awesome coworker and numbers just don't tell the story.
 
Derg said:
Experience flying in flight regimes that a reciprocating engine aircraft will never be in.
Click to expand...

Sure, but that's kind of like the old joke about Microsoft Technical Support and the Lost Helo Pilot; a technically correct answer rather lacking in any useful information. Surely, you can elaborate.

Let me rephrase the question. What are those regimes of flight and what is it about those regimes of flight that imbues them with a premium valuation relative to all the other regimes of flight in many selection processes? I’m not asking to be snarky or contrary. And I’m not asking with a vested interest or a lack of jet time. I'm asking out of honest curiosity and a sense that we may be making unquestioned assumptions and using un-validated metrics in decision making.

Before going further, let me clarify a couple of things to prevent them from distracting us. I recognize that there are "other factors" in any hiring matrix. That's always a given. Nothing in that realm of “other” relates to my question, however. Secondly, I don't disregard the importance of jet time. Some jet time is very important, and one benefits immensely and demonstrates many desirable qualities simply by successfully negotiating the the type rating process. I’m only questioning the seemingly inordinate weight and preference often bestowed upon jet time over other kinds of time. Especially given that the vast bulk of knowledge, skills, and attitudes that make for a good airplane pilot are gained through experience in, well, airplanes, not jets or turboprops, or pistons. Again, the essential question I'm asking is, "what lends jet time its preferential and premium weight?"

When I look at a pilot -and yes, I have seen this guy- with 8000 hours, 7750 of which are in the same jet type, I don't see weight. I see a dude in an inflatable fat-man suit. Me? Assuming all else equal, I would hire the guy with a thousand hours in a couple different jets/turboprops, and a couple thousand in pistons. I'm not saying my opinion is necessarily correct. I'm just saying, all else equal, I’m going to take a well-rounded, broadly experienced pilot over a shiny jet jock in a heavily starched shirt every day of the week and Sundays. That, and I’m not entirely convinced that sitting in a cushy cockpit, being served coffee while pithily comparing the relative merits of contracted hotel chains or falling asleep while bypassing the destination airport is high grade experience. If anything, based on maintenance quality, emergency/distress event frequency, equipment MTBF rates, and workloads, I’d have to give the per-hour experience multiplier to non-jet hours. The best experience is bad experiences: difficult ones, scary ones, ones that test a pilot’s ability to integrate and execute on all that knowledge and skill he (often unquestioningly) assumes he’s accumulated, ones that leave a pilot reflecting for a good while afterwards. The most profound thing that is learned by repeating the same comfortable hour 5000 times is complacency of the most insidious kind.

So, instead of a sound byte, help me understand this. What are the elements of those "regimes of flight" unavailable to pistons that differentiate those regimes from the ones available to pistons? What experience is gained in those regimes that lends them such a veneer of value?

Off hand, I can think of only a few, virtually all of which are bundled into the rubric of High Altitude Operations. Let's assume for the purposes of this discussion that piston aircraft can not operate in the flight levels. That’s not true, but for the sake of generalizing the argument, let's assume it to be. Unless I'm missing something, with the exception of engine response/spool-up delay, that would leave the flight levels as the regime of flight unavailable to pistons. Ergo, the operational experience delta is essentially limited to those operations: High altitude emergency depressurizations and descents, rubber jungle juggling, what's bleed air and where does it come from, when to wear oxygen masks (by FAR the most busted FAR), the effect of low density air on an aircraft's performance, coffin corner, mach numbers, etc. Is there anything else? Because as I see it that high altitude stuff is the only thing that imparts the weight to those vaunted “regimes of flight” attainable only by jets. But in the scheme of things aviation, that’s not a whole lot. Yet, still, all the king's horses and all the king's in house training programs haven’t put many shiny jet jocks together in a way that prevents them from executing high altitude stalls, flameouts, botched descents, wet footprints, etc. Those events are almost always due to deficits in airmanship, not a lack of high altitude training.

So, please, don’t take my question as contrary, rebellious or in some way seeking to buck the system… I have no direct skin in the game, and I'm too old to be a rebel. That said, I am asking you a question about the system. Yet, it’s just that, a question. A good system always leaves room for questioning and self-examination. A good answer ought be more considered than the adult equivalent of “because…”
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Crop Duster said:
Sure, but that's kind of like the old joke about Microsoft Technical Support and the Lost Helo Pilot; a technically correct answer rather lacking in any useful information. Surely, you can elaborate.

Let me rephrase the question. What are those regimes of flight and what is it about those regimes of flight that imbues them with a premium valuation relative to all the other regimes of flight in many selection processes? I’m not asking to be snarky or contrary. And I’m not asking with a vested interest or a lack of jet time. I'm asking out of honest curiosity and a sense that we may be making unquestioned assumptions and using un-validated metrics in decision making.

Before going further, let me clarify a couple of things to prevent them from distracting us. I recognize that there are "other factors" in any hiring matrix. That's always a given. Nothing in that realm of “other” relates to my question, however. Secondly, I don't disregard the importance of jet time. Some jet time is very important, and one benefits immensely and demonstrates many desirable qualities simply by successfully negotiating the the type rating process. I’m only questioning the seemingly inordinate weight and preference often bestowed upon jet time over other kinds of time. Especially given that the vast bulk of knowledge, skills, and attitudes that make for a good airplane pilot are gained through experience in, well, airplanes, not jets or turboprops, or pistons. Again, the essential question I'm asking is, "what lends jet time its preferential and premium weight?"

When I look at a pilot -and yes, I have seen this guy- with 8000 hours, 7750 of which are in the same jet type, I don't see weight. I see a dude in an inflatable fat-man suit. Me? Assuming all else equal, I would hire the guy with a thousand hours in a couple different jets/turboprops, and a couple thousand in pistons. I'm not saying my opinion is necessarily correct. I'm just saying, all else equal, I’m going to take a well-rounded, broadly experienced pilot over a shiny jet jock in a heavily starched shirt every day of the week and Sundays. That, and I’m not entirely convinced that sitting in a cushy cockpit, being served coffee while pithily comparing the relative merits of contracted hotel chains or falling asleep while bypassing the destination airport is high grade experience. If anything, based on maintenance quality, emergency/distress event frequency, equipment MTBF rates, and workloads, I’d have to give the per-hour experience multiplier to non-jet hours. The best experience is bad experiences: difficult ones, scary ones, ones that test a pilot’s ability to integrate and execute on all that knowledge and skill he (often unquestioningly) assumes he’s accumulated, ones that leave a pilot reflecting for a good while afterwards. The most profound thing that is learned by repeating the same comfortable hour 5000 times is complacency of the most insidious kind.

So, instead of a sound byte, help me understand this. What are the elements of those "regimes of flight" unavailable to pistons that differentiate those regimes from the ones available to pistons? What experience is gained in those regimes that lends them such a veneer of value?

Off hand, I can think of only a few, virtually all of which are bundled into the rubric of High Altitude Operations. Let's assume for the purposes of this discussion that piston aircraft can not operate in the flight levels. That’s not true, but for the sake of generalizing the argument, let's assume it to be. Unless I'm missing something, with the exception of engine response/spool-up delay, that would leave the flight levels as the regime of flight unavailable to pistons. Ergo, the operational experience delta is essentially limited to those operations: High altitude emergency depressurizations and descents, rubber jungle juggling, what's bleed air and where does it come from, when to wear oxygen masks (by FAR the most busted FAR), the effect of low density air on an aircraft's performance, coffin corner, mach numbers, etc. Is there anything else? Because as I see it that high altitude stuff is the only thing that imparts the weight to those vaunted “regimes of flight” attainable only by jets. But in the scheme of things aviation, that’s not a whole lot. Yet, still, all the king's horses and all the king's in house training programs haven’t put a lot of shiny jet jocks together in a way that prevents them from exectuting high altitude stalls, flameouts, botched descents, wet footprints, etc.

So, please, don’t take my question as contrary, rebellious or in some way seeking to buck the system… I have no direct skin in the game, and I'm too old to be a rebel. That said, I am asking you a question about the system. Yet, it’s just that, a question. A good system always leaves room for questioning and self-examination. A good answer ought be more considered than the adult equivalent of “because…”
Click to expand...

It's what the bossman says to screen for. Right, wrong, left or right, the rationale for doing such is well above my friends pay grade.
 
Derg said:
It's what the bossman says to screen for. Right, wrong, left or right, the rationale for doing such is well above my friends pay grade.
Click to expand...
So which Hazardous Attitude is that? ;)
I'm really just looking for your opinion as a professional, not for you to change the world. :)
 
Crop Duster said:
So which Hazardous Attitude is that? ;)
I'm really just looking for your opinion as a professional, not for you to change the world. :)
Click to expand...

I literally don't know.

The only thing I can surmise is swept-wing flight and high altitude aerodynamics which, for the most part, aren't really an issue in piston driven airplanes. Just think "Let's 4-1-0 it" I guess.

Gotta wash your hands after handling raw chicken. *shrug* :)
 
Crop Duster said:
Sure, but that's kind of like the old joke about Microsoft Technical Support and the Lost Helo Pilot; a technically correct answer rather lacking in any useful information. Surely, you can elaborate.

Let me rephrase the question. What are those regimes of flight and what is it about those regimes of flight that imbues them with a premium valuation relative to all the other regimes of flight in many selection processes? I’m not asking to be snarky or contrary. And I’m not asking with a vested interest or a lack of jet time. I'm asking out of honest curiosity and a sense that we may be making unquestioned assumptions and using un-validated metrics in decision making.

Before going further, let me clarify a couple of things to prevent them from distracting us. I recognize that there are "other factors" in any hiring matrix. That's always a given. Nothing in that realm of “other” relates to my question, however. Secondly, I don't disregard the importance of jet time. Some jet time is very important, and one benefits immensely and demonstrates many desirable qualities simply by successfully negotiating the the type rating process. I’m only questioning the seemingly inordinate weight and preference often bestowed upon jet time over other kinds of time. Especially given that the vast bulk of knowledge, skills, and attitudes that make for a good airplane pilot are gained through experience in, well, airplanes, not jets or turboprops, or pistons. Again, the essential question I'm asking is, "what lends jet time its preferential and premium weight?"

When I look at a pilot -and yes, I have seen this guy- with 8000 hours, 7750 of which are in the same jet type, I don't see weight. I see a dude in an inflatable fat-man suit. Me? Assuming all else equal, I would hire the guy with a thousand hours in a couple different jets/turboprops, and a couple thousand in pistons. I'm not saying my opinion is necessarily correct. I'm just saying, all else equal, I’m going to take a well-rounded, broadly experienced pilot over a shiny jet jock in a heavily starched shirt every day of the week and Sundays. That, and I’m not entirely convinced that sitting in a cushy cockpit, being served coffee while pithily comparing the relative merits of contracted hotel chains or falling asleep while bypassing the destination airport is high grade experience. If anything, based on maintenance quality, emergency/distress event frequency, equipment MTBF rates, and workloads, I’d have to give the per-hour experience multiplier to non-jet hours. The best experience is bad experiences: difficult ones, scary ones, ones that test a pilot’s ability to integrate and execute on all that knowledge and skill he (often unquestioningly) assumes he’s accumulated, ones that leave a pilot reflecting for a good while afterwards. The most profound thing that is learned by repeating the same comfortable hour 5000 times is complacency of the most insidious kind.

So, instead of a sound byte, help me understand this. What are the elements of those "regimes of flight" unavailable to pistons that differentiate those regimes from the ones available to pistons? What experience is gained in those regimes that lends them such a veneer of value?

Off hand, I can think of only a few, virtually all of which are bundled into the rubric of High Altitude Operations. Let's assume for the purposes of this discussion that piston aircraft can not operate in the flight levels. That’s not true, but for the sake of generalizing the argument, let's assume it to be. Unless I'm missing something, with the exception of engine response/spool-up delay, that would leave the flight levels as the regime of flight unavailable to pistons. Ergo, the operational experience delta is essentially limited to those operations: High altitude emergency depressurizations and descents, rubber jungle juggling, what's bleed air and where does it come from, when to wear oxygen masks (by FAR the most busted FAR), the effect of low density air on an aircraft's performance, coffin corner, mach numbers, etc. Is there anything else? Because as I see it that high altitude stuff is the only thing that imparts the weight to those vaunted “regimes of flight” attainable only by jets. But in the scheme of things aviation, that’s not a whole lot. Yet, still, all the king's horses and all the king's in house training programs haven’t put many shiny jet jocks together in a way that prevents them from executing high altitude stalls, flameouts, botched descents, wet footprints, etc. Those events are almost always due to deficits in airmanship, not a lack of high altitude training.

So, please, don’t take my question as contrary, rebellious or in some way seeking to buck the system… I have no direct skin in the game, and I'm too old to be a rebel. That said, I am asking you a question about the system. Yet, it’s just that, a question. A good system always leaves room for questioning and self-examination. A good answer ought be more considered than the adult equivalent of “because…”
Click to expand...



Delta operates only jet aircraft. It would not be crazy if they preferred jet time over others...
 
Do most guys call in sick to go to a job fair? I am really eager to go to the NGPA one this February, specifically for United, but am unsure if I can get those days off.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top