Are simulator portions of job interviews unfair?

At least the interview flight we have, for rotary wing, the evaluators don't care if you can fly an AStar helo, they care if you can fly a helicopter. In that, doesn't matter if you know the nuanaces and particulars to the helo you're doing the interview in, but rather can you do the basic airwork related to helicopter flying in general and common to all light/medium helicopters? That may be somewhat easier in terms of comfort and familiarity for someone who happens to currently fly or has flown the interview aircraft, but it doesn't kill the guy who hasn't, as again, the basics are what's being looked at. Nothing in terms of specific numbers or technical knowledge of the AStar is asked of the applicants, only things related to helicopter ops in general: helo aerodynamics, operations, regulations, etc.

Not too difficult, if one does some basic prep and has some relevant experience behind them.
 
I'll just go on record as saying the simulator portion of an interview should be present in all companies that hire pilots. How can a company ever consider hiring a pilot without first getting a look at his/her basic flying skills and demeanor in the flight deck? Doesn't make sense really.

I'll also say I did not get hired at TWA in 1989 because I did poorly in the simulator. It was a Sabreliner sim and I had never flown a jet before. I was way behind the airplane. I took that to heart, went away and did a bunch of prep work in a funky homebuilt DC-8 simulator in Oakland then bought an hour in a 707 simulator in San Carlos before my next interview with USAir a few months later. With that prep work I was able to do a reasonable job in the BAC-111 simulator that USAir used at the time. Back then USAir cut the group after the morning sim. Twenty of us started with fourteen making the cut.

If you wanna be a pilot you gotta be able to show that you can fly :)


TP
 
nbv4 said:
If you had the opportunity to fly a new airframe, for instance lets say P51 Mustang (I assume you have never flown that type). Would you want your maiden flight in that plane to be solo hard IMC? I sure wouldn't. I'd want my first flight to be at least with another experienced person on board and also in VMC. Once I have the hand of that plane would I want to attempt hard IMC. Even the most grizzled pilot would do it this way. Why does this company want to know how well I handle what boils down to a suicide mission? I'm not OK with this.
Click to expand...
Give me a Mustang to fly, and I'll go up in a damn hurricane.

Also, if you still haven't figured out the point, the sim wasn't the problem. You were the problem.
 
MikeD said:
Nothing in terms of specific numbers or technical knowledge of the AStar is asked of the applicants, only things related to helicopter ops in general: helo aerodynamics, operations, regulations, etc.
Click to expand...

Then if the applicant asks for the power setting needed for straight and level flight, the interviewer should say what it is. Thats the part that I think went wrong during my Airnet interview. If the interviewer had just told me what the power setting was, the flight would have gone much smoothly. Since I had to use trial+error to figure out the power setting on my own, I got behind the airplane, which snowballs into being way behind. Thats not how I normally fly. Usually I'm ahead of the airplane and I fly perfect. Its not like I was asking questions like "whats a FAF?" or "What does this number on the approach plate mean". All my questions were specific to the frasca model I was in that was completely reasonable for me not to know. If the interviewer takes the role of helpful instructor during the evaluation, then the flight can represent something real (a first flight in an unfamiliar airframe). Once the interviewer establishes "i'm not here", then the evaluation stope being realistic because I would never solo fly an unfamiliar airplane.
 
nbv4 said:
Then if the applicant asks for the power setting needed for straight and level flight, the interviewer should say what it is. Thats the part that I think went wrong during my Airnet interview. If the interviewer had just told me what the power setting was, the flight would have gone much smoothly. Since I had to use trial+error to figure out the power setting on my own, I got behind the airplane, which snowballs into being way behind. Thats not how I normally fly. Usually I'm ahead of the airplane and I fly perfect. Its not like I was asking questions like "whats a FAF?" or "What does this number on the approach plate mean". All my questions were specific to the frasca model I was in that was completely reasonable for me not to know. If the interviewer takes the role of helpful instructor during the evaluation, then the flight can represent something real (a first flight in an unfamiliar airframe). Once the interviewer establishes "i'm not here", then the evaluation stope being realistic because I would never solo fly an unfamiliar airplane.
Click to expand...

You are the poster child for why places need to do sim evals. You more or less admit to it.
 
nbv4 said:
Then if the applicant asks for the power setting needed for straight and level flight, the interviewer should say what it is. Thats the part that I think went wrong during my Airnet interview. If the interviewer had just told me what the power setting was, the flight would have gone much smoothly. Since I had to use trial+error to figure out the power setting on my own, I got behind the airplane, which snowballs into being way behind. Thats not how I normally fly. Usually I'm ahead of the airplane and I fly perfect. Its not like I was asking questions like "whats a FAF?" or "What does this number on the approach plate mean". All my questions were specific to the frasca model I was in that was completely reasonable for me not to know. If the interviewer takes the role of helpful instructor during the evaluation, then the flight can represent something real (a first flight in an unfamiliar airframe). Once the interviewer establishes "i'm not here", then the evaluation stope being realistic because I would never solo fly an unfamiliar airplane.
Click to expand...
There must be an FAA examiner out there wishing for a do over after reading this.
 
Several years ago, someone over at FlightInfo (I wish I could find the original post, as it was far more artful than I'm repeating it...) said that their ultimate airline pilot interview consisted of:

- Three (dual) trips around the air patch to a full stop in a taildragger, followed by
- Half a bottle of scotch to be finished by the interviewer and interviewee telling "there I was..." flying stories.
 
nbv4 said:
Then if the applicant asks for the power setting needed for straight and level flight, the interviewer should say what it is. Thats the part that I think went wrong during my Airnet interview. If the interviewer had just told me what the power setting was, the flight would have gone much smoothly. Since I had to use trial+error to figure out the power setting on my own, I got behind the airplane, which snowballs into being way behind. Thats not how I normally fly. Usually I'm ahead of the airplane and I fly perfect. Its not like I was asking questions like "whats a FAF?" or "What does this number on the approach plate mean". All my questions were specific to the frasca model I was in that was completely reasonable for me not to know. If the interviewer takes the role of helpful instructor during the evaluation, then the flight can represent something real (a first flight in an unfamiliar airframe). Once the interviewer establishes "i'm not here", then the evaluation stope being realistic because I would never solo fly an unfamiliar airplane.
Click to expand...

Are you for real, man? You probably didn't bust that sim ride for the reason you thought you did, so your analysis is also probably just plain wrong.

This whole thread, people have been telling you that, no, it isn't that one switch location, or that one checklist item, or that one power setting that is the magic key to passing a sim check. People -- some of whom have actually given simulator checks -- are telling you that they are looking at a pilot's overall, basic airmanship knowing fully well it is an airplane you've probably never flown before.

They are looking at your ability to take the skill and knowledge you all ready possess and apply it in a somewhat stressful first-time-sitting-in-the-seat situation.

The end objective of the sim ride is not what you think it is. They know you don't know this stuff in an unfamiliar airplane...and they expect to see you stumble and maybe even fall...but they're looking for you to use good, basic airmanship (at the experience level that it is being tested) and demonstrate that you get back up and learn and adapt to the situation. Having an "instructor" toss you bits of situational awareness would entirely defeat the purpose. They want to see you you apply your skills and handle the airmanship problem you are presented with all alone.

If your entire train wrecked because you didn't know "the power setting", and didn't exercise the airmanship to adapt to what resulted from you not having that one bit of info you wished you had, that is telling the interviewer something important about you and your airmanship.
 
Last edited:
IMG_0019.JPG
Stone Cold said:
Who's hoarding the popcorn? Pass it this way please...
Click to expand...
 
nbv4 said:
Then if the applicant asks for the power setting needed for straight and level flight, the interviewer should say what it is. Thats the part that I think went wrong during my Airnet interview. If the interviewer had just told me what the power setting was, the flight would have gone much smoothly. Since I had to use trial+error to figure out the power setting on my own,
Click to expand...

Back in '82 uncle Rico could toss a pigskin a quarter mile. He would have won state if coach would have just put him in in the fourth quarter. No doubt in my mind. Things would have been different, he'd gone pro, he'd be making millions dollars, living in a big old mansion somewhere.
 
nbv4 said:
Then if the applicant asks for the power setting needed for straight and level flight, the interviewer should say what it is. Thats the part that I think went wrong during my Airnet interview. If the interviewer had just told me what the power setting was, the flight would have gone much smoothly. Since I had to use trial+error to figure out the power setting on my own, I got behind the airplane, which snowballs into being way behind. Thats not how I normally fly. Usually I'm ahead of the airplane and I fly perfect. Its not like I was asking questions like "whats a FAF?" or "What does this number on the approach plate mean". All my questions were specific to the frasca model I was in that was completely reasonable for me not to know. If the interviewer takes the role of helpful instructor during the evaluation, then the flight can represent something real (a first flight in an unfamiliar airframe). Once the interviewer establishes "i'm not here", then the evaluation stope being realistic because I would never solo fly an unfamiliar airplane.
Click to expand...

Don't feel bad bro. I bombed my Airnet interview because I questioned the CP on how awful the weather was, how could people stay fit with such weather and what on earth people did for fun in such a crappy environment.

We weren't even talking about Airnet at that point just the surrounding area where they were based. The CP got pretty hurt about it, got defensive enough to say something about how this town is really great.

Looking back at it I probably came off as a jerk and it wasn't even reflective of who I was. This just happens sometimes. I picked myself up dusted myself off and got back on the horse. 3 jet types later I'm confident in myself as a person and a pilot. Huzzah.




Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
My first 121 interview had a sim eval in a BE-1900. I had never flown anything like it before, nothing remotely close to it. Nothing went well. Apparently my seat wasn't positioned properly so, when I advanced the power levers on the takeoff, my seat slid back and I couldn't reach the rudder pedals very well any longer. So right from the word GO, I was already scrambling to keep it together. Once in the air, I got caught up and did a decent job and the air work was alright. Then, came the ILS to a full stop. ILS went fine, the landing went...well let's just say we all died when we land..'er crashed, with the red-screen-of-death. So that wasn't my finest hour in a sim, to say the least.

But, I got the job. I've never failed a check ride this eval not withstanding. So, sim evals aren't about perfect performance, it's about learning and adapting to adversity.
 
Last edited:
Cruise said:
My first 121 interview had a sim eval in a BE-1900. I had never flown anything like it before, nothing remotely close to it. Nothing went well. Apparently my seat wasn't positioned properly so, when I advanced the power levers on the takeoff, my seat slid back and I couldn't reach the rudder pedals very well any longer. So right from the word GO, I was already scrambling to keep it together. Once in the air, I got caught up and did a decent job and the air work was alright. Then, came the ILS to a full stop. ILS went fine, the landing went...well let's just say we all died when we land..'er crashed, with the red-screen-of-death. So that wasn't my finest hour in a sim, to say the least.

But, I got the job. I had never failed a check ride prior to that event and I've never failed one since. So, sim evals aren't about perfect performance, it's about learning and adapting to adversity.
Click to expand...

I remember this interview scenario- It also was my first time in a 1900. I think before the ride they gave you some basic power settings, and that was about it. Fly the LGA-X departure, holding, an ILS. With good old Mitch (RIP, miss him).

I didn't fly beautifully, but to be successful, put the big boy pants on and meet the standards.

My advice: don't be a "millennial" about your interview. Learn, build/rebuild, try again.
 
Cruise said:
My first 121 interview had a sim eval in a BE-1900. I had never flown anything like it before, nothing remotely close to it. Nothing went well. Apparently my seat wasn't positioned properly so, when I advanced the power levers on the takeoff, my seat slid back and I couldn't reach the rudder pedals very well any longer. So right from the word GO, I was already scrambling to keep it together. Once in the air, I got caught up and did a decent job and the air work was alright. Then, came the ILS to a full stop. ILS went fine, the landing went...well let's just say we all died when we land..'er crashed, with the red-screen-of-death. So that wasn't my finest hour in a sim, to say the least.

But, I got the job. I had never failed a check ride prior to that event and I've never failed one since. So, sim evals aren't about perfect performance, it's about learning and adapting to adversity.
Click to expand...
I was surprised at the number of people who tanked the sim portions at my interviews at ENY and XJT.

SKW didn't ask me for one at the time because I was current 121, and it was assumed I could fly.
 
Autothrust Blue said:
I was surprised at the number of people who tanked the sim portions at my interviews at ENY and XJT.

SKW didn't ask me for one at the time because I was current 121, and it was assumed I could fly.
Click to expand...

I was prepared for the sim ride but didn't have to do it since I was instrument current and had flown approaches and logged actual IFR within the last couple months, and I felt I had done very well on the rest of the interview.

Hiring is a total package prospect, even at Aperture we sometimes hired people who we could tell were conscientious individuals but maybe didn't do so well flying the deadbird.

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top