Pilots hire pilots so chances are, even if the security and medical qualification hurdles were cleared, well, there you have it.
Can I still get hired?
- Thread starter sweber1987
- Start date
Pilots hire pilots so chances are, even if the security and medical qualification hurdles were cleared, well, there you have it.
Its my job as an interviewer to judge that person on whether that person is a good pilot. Thats it. If I were to determine that pilot to be the best applicant, then I'll hire him. Its really that simple. As an interviewer, your job is not to come up with reasons to disqualify an applicant. You let the applicant disqualify himself.
If I were interviewing an applicant who had shot up his school when he was a teenager, I'd definitely interview him differently than any other applicant. I'd ask him a lot of questions about conflict resolution, and not just yes or no questions either. I'd ask him many open ended questions to see if he is a mature person ans that he has a through understanding of what entails being a good aviator. In other words, I'd give him an interview exactly the same as everyone else. All though I would maybe "push his buttons" a little bit more than usual to see if he has control of him emotions.
This is, of course assuming the pilot's criminal record and medical status isn't going to create a paperwork problem, because theres pretty much nothing you can do about that stuff.
Stomp16
You mean Shennanigans?!?!
Actually, in a way I do. My father is in charge of the safety department of a large trucking company and is in charge of hiring and retention among other things. (I know, trucks and airplanes, two different things.) I am told what goes on in his interviews and if anything like this school shooting threat came up, it would be "sorry, good luck in your future" and out the door you would go. This is in way more of a laid back hiring environment than aviation.
To take it one step further, my wife is the operations manager at the local Staples. Her job consists of the same hiring and retention as the above stated. Same thing with a $7.50 an hour job. If this example would come up, she would tell them thanks but not thanks and out the door they would go.
In this sue happy world we live in, it comes down to how much of a liability the possible candidate would be for the company. In the two less stringent fields of trucking and office supplies, he chances of being hired BASED ON MY EXPERIENCE would be almost nil. I wouldn't expect them to be any better in the aviation industry.
Stomp16
You mean Shennanigans?!?!
Butt, I am not trying to pick an argument with you or anything like that. I just appreciate a good, educated discussion.
On the above mentioned point, if that little box is checked and you find out that the applicant had prior convictions, wouldn't he have more than likely already disqualified himself by comparison to the other applicants with no convictions? Despite how good of a guy he might be?
I just don't see how I can justify disqualifying an applicant for something that happened in his past, which has no effect on your future. If there were orders from higher-ups that I am to disqualify any pilot with a dirty past, then, well, theres nothing I can do about that.
When I was a teenager, I did dumb crap, just like everyone else. Thankfully nothing that has ever "stuck". But I truly believe that I've matured since those days, and I truly feel that it's very possible for someone to "recover" so to speak from a period in their life of instability.
It may be difficult for me to make that determination, but I feel as a professional, I at least owe it to every applicant to at least give them a fair shot to prove themselves to me that they have matured.
If we're talking a non-aviation job, sure.
But we live in the world of FAA, TSA, DHLS, SIDA, AME and a flying public that demands that we get paid like Subway sandwich artists but live and have led lives as if we're Jesus Christ.
Hey man, I can walk outside, have some plain-clothed cop demand a breathalyzer test, refuse because I'm not driving and on private property and I will lose my medical pending investigation. Is it right? Nope. But that's the world we live in.
But we live in the world of FAA, TSA, DHLS, SIDA, AME and a flying public that demands that we get paid like Subway sandwich artists but live and have led lives as if we're Jesus Christ.
Hey man, I can walk outside, have some plain-clothed cop demand a breathalyzer test, refuse because I'm not driving and on private property and I will lose my medical pending investigation. Is it right? Nope. But that's the world we live in.
Stomp16
You mean Shennanigans?!?!
Ok, fair enough. Everybody deserves a chance. I guess maybe I am a bit biased. The Columbine shootings happened when I was senior and only 3 hours from my home town. There was a lot of local media coverage due to the proximity and therefore everyones pain and suffering was on the TV for the world to see. I guess it just struck me badly to see kids my age shot up and parents hopes, dreams and lives shattered. Because of that, I would have a hard time hiring somebody who made a threat such as mentioned even if made in jest.
Are you arguing that any pilot with a dirty past is automatically a bad pilot and therefore not deserving of a job? Or are you arguing that pilots with dirty pasts can sometimes be recovered, but it's moot because higherups have decided to take a hard line stance against anyone with a record?
If it's the latter, then heres my take: You may be right, but as a pilot interviewer, my job is to worry about whether this person is a good pilot or not. If the bosses don't want people who are dirty, then thats their problem. I feel as a professional interviewer, it's my duty to speak for those who deserve to be spoken for, and who (unfortunately) I know no one else will speak for.
You're putting personal opinion into your decision to hire or not. I remember about a decade or so ago, my father was interviewing for a secretary job at his office. One day he came home and bragged about how he had two applicants that day, but he sent them both home. The first because the guy seemed effeminate, and the second because it was a black female. My had is very racist and a hardcore conservative.
Does he have the power to disqualify any applicant for any reason he sees fit? Absolutely. Does disqualifying people based on completely unrelated attributes right? No. Is it professional? No.
Part of being professional is to abandon your "hangups" and do what it takes to get the job done. You may have a personal thing against blacks, but your job is to hire the best candidate. For instance, I hate jews. When I'm interviewing, I'm here to find the best candidate, not satisfy my own personal desire to screw over jews.
Well, no one "deserves" a job. If you qualify for the job and you meet what the company is looking for in terms of proven reliability and a low probability of making the news, you're going to get hired. If a highly qualified applicant has something on their record which would potentially embarrass the company for having hired you, no matter if you're the best pilot on Earth, you're not getting interviewed to even attempt to plead your case. Peeeeeeeeriod. I've seen that first hand.
You cannot prove if a person is a good pilot or not during an interview. As a pilot in the selection process, you're there to ascertain that he hasn't piqued your spidey-sense about the experience the applicant has, seems to be a person you'd want to spend a four-day trip with sitting in a dark closet with windows, and displays judgment and ability to handles stressful situations well.
If the person has stuff on them that could possibly embarrass the company, then as a pilot interviewer, thats not any of my concern. Many job interviews are two part. The first being a pilot interview where a senior pilot asks pilotty questions aimed at determining how good that pilot would be. Then a second HR interview where an HR expert asks HR questions aimed at determining how well the applicant will be from the standpoint of HR.
90% of people reading these forums, if they were ever to become an interviewer, they would be a pilot interviewer, judging applicants based on their piloting abilities. If theres any issues with an applicant's background that may possibly make the company look bad, it's none of the concern of the pilot interviewer. Let HR handle that stuff. The idea is that as a pilot, you know a lot about piloting, so you are qualified to determine whether someone else is a good pilot or not. Unless you have training in HR, you can't really make any sound decisions regarding HR stuff, hence the need for two seperate interviewers often.
A good interviewer can definitely tell the difference between a good pilot and a bad pilot. I've only been flying for a few years, but I already have a pretty good idea of what makes a good pilot, based on my experiences flying with both good pilots and bad pilots. Obviously no one can prove whether someone is a good person to fly with, but one sure can at least somewhat accurately test for some of the tell-tale signs.
Tristan
Well-Known Member
:yeahthat::yeahthat::yeahthat::yeahthat:
And there in lies the rub.....You've only been flying a few years, yet you are arguing with airline pilots who have a vast amount of experience about what will keep someone out of a cockpit. Don't you find that a bit odd? I don't know what your background is (HR it seems....) judging by your posts, but they have seen what works and what doesn't.
An HR person is just that, and HR person. That is the reason there are always pilots in the interview process. HR will know about the 'company' stuff and little in regards to flying. An HR person may say o.k. not a bad candidate but the 'pilot' interviewer may say no thanks. Guess what, that person won't be hired.
Tristan
Well-Known Member
I'm surprised to find people on hear say he can't be a pilot because he suffers from depression. Obviously he should attempt to obtain a class 1 medical and leave it up to the medical examiners to decide. But just because someone suffers from a treatable disorder doesn't mean they can't function in the professional world including pilots. I think this thread has revealed there is still a lot of ignorance and prejudice in modern society.
What? Did you even read my posts? I'm saying that as a pilot, I know what makes a good pilot and what makes a bad pilot. Having good communication skills, being able to read and brief an approach chart, being confident and calm during an abnormal procedure, being able to own up to your shortcomings, etc. Those are the things that make a good pilot. Having a black mark on your record in and of itself does not make you a bad pilot. It may make you a bad candidate from an HR perspective, but thats for HR people to decide, not pilot people. I'm arguing against pilots who make judgments on other pilots based on HR issues.
DPApilot
GUYSH! GUYSH! GUYSH!
Apples to oranges!
the difference here is, this kid has a mental illness and has threatened to kill mass people. you cant deny the fact that he's ill considering the fact he found humor in such an act.
on the other hand, your father denied them purely on ignorance. what did the black woman and gay do? did they make ominous threats or were they mentally unstable? if they were, then your father had reasoning. if not, then thats just wrong
Yes, I read your posts.
Suppose your candidate, with a so-called 'HR' issue, passes the HR sniff test. That person could then be hired, but that 'issue' could now be in the cockpit thereby making it a 'pilot' issue.
The thing is your 'HR' issues will or could become 'pilot' issues. Therefore the pilots should and do make judgments on those things.
If you get granted an interview, the job is yours to lose. If an interview candidate does not get the job, more than likely it will be because of the 'pilot' aspects.
'Pilot' issue or 'HR' issue call it what you want, in the end the person is interviewing for a position in the cockpit. Any issue the candidate brings becomes a 'pilot' issue because that is where they will end up.
Regardless of the reason, would you want a pilot selecting candidates for HR, IT, Finance, Accounting, etc.....? I guess not. So why should it be any different?
OldTownPilot
Well-Known Member
Butt, Its less about the interview and more about the Medical and getting TSA clearance for a foreign national to train. Those are the first steps, and I think the biggest hurdle to overcome.
Honestly, I'd give you slim chances on passing both. The TSA check is IN DEPTH, they will find ANYTHING. One of our students is a Canadian citizen that had been living the the US longer than you have been alive, and his clearance took over a year to complete.
IF you managed to somehow pass both, there is a good chance that you could find a flying job. It might not be a premier job, like a part 121 airline, but maybe hauling freight, instruction, or in the bush.
One question, Did this whole deal go down as a felony on your record? If yes, there is almost zero chance of getting your license, nevermind a job.
Honestly, I'd give you slim chances on passing both. The TSA check is IN DEPTH, they will find ANYTHING. One of our students is a Canadian citizen that had been living the the US longer than you have been alive, and his clearance took over a year to complete.
IF you managed to somehow pass both, there is a good chance that you could find a flying job. It might not be a premier job, like a part 121 airline, but maybe hauling freight, instruction, or in the bush.
One question, Did this whole deal go down as a felony on your record? If yes, there is almost zero chance of getting your license, nevermind a job.
You may have read my posts, but you sure didn't understand my point. My post was in response to the people whose opinion is basically "It doesn't matter how much you've matured or how much you've learned from your mistakes. If you have done stupid stuff in your teenage years, you can't possibly be a good pilot worthy of sharing a cockpit with me."
If a pilot interviewer wants to reject an applicant because he appears to be immature. then thats fine. If that immature applicant happens to be an ex-convict, then thats just as fine. Whats wrong is rejecting an applicant SOLELY on the basis of a past conviction. If HR wants to apply a blanket ban on anyone who has a sordid past, then thats their prerogative. If a pilot recruiter wants to apply a blanket ban on people with past convictions, it's unprofessional. If a pilot recruiter wants to place a blanket ban on people who are disrespectful or immature, or even have bad hygiene, then thats fine as well. My point is that in and of itself, doing dumb stuff in your past does not in any way effect your performance on the job.
I'm rather suprised to read the idea that an interviewer's goal is to find the best pilot for the job by looking at pilot skills and attributes only. Baloney. The goal is to find the best PERSON to fill the pilot slot. Only part of the puzzle is if that PERSON has the attributes to fly a plane well.
One of the hundreds of questions that is going through an interviewer's mind when analyzing candidates is "What will an investigator say if I hire this PERSON and they have an accident? Is it worth defending my decision to hire someone with a history of XXX when I have ten other qualified candidates that don't carry the same baggage?"
I'm not going to make a statement on whether or not I think that the OP has a chance of being a pilot. If I were to sit on a hiring board with this person in front of me I'd want more information than what has been given here before making that particular decision. My point with making this post is to try to dispel the misconception that interviewers can't or shouldn't look at the person as a whole.
One of the hundreds of questions that is going through an interviewer's mind when analyzing candidates is "What will an investigator say if I hire this PERSON and they have an accident? Is it worth defending my decision to hire someone with a history of XXX when I have ten other qualified candidates that don't carry the same baggage?"
I'm not going to make a statement on whether or not I think that the OP has a chance of being a pilot. If I were to sit on a hiring board with this person in front of me I'd want more information than what has been given here before making that particular decision. My point with making this post is to try to dispel the misconception that interviewers can't or shouldn't look at the person as a whole.
