roundout
VNAV monitor
I don't recall, it was almost 15 years ago.Does this Frasca sim sit in front of a large two-way mirror by chance?
Deep Thoughts: Pre-employment simulator checks
- Thread starter derg
- Start date
Flyinthrew
Well-Known Member
Regarding the original question, I don't see how the pre-hire sim test helps. They will have plenty of post-hire sim testing where the new hire can be evaluated more comprehensively and sacked as required. The argument can be made that a much greater expenditure of resources is made in that model, but I find it hard to believe that Pilot Selection would be able to divine anything useful from some sort of stick and rudder evaluation in the 777 sim sitting in the corner. There may be room for what FedEx did/does where you get tossed into a flight deck as the captain and get told to solve a problem and you have limited time to assess, decide, communicate, do and then debrief it. That doesn't assess stick and rudder, but it does give some depth to the applicant's assertions that they know what they're doing.
We had a scenario in 350 school where we depart out of Shanghai, have a massive out of control cargo fire and need to get the jet on the ground. Some people get wrapped up on the brief, building an approach, briefing the approach, trying to call the company, blah blah blah.
I declared an emergency, told the FO to tell tower we were going to land the wrong direction, flight directors off, FPV on, get it on profile, load an ILS, FD's on, autoland, set the autobrakes "tell the FA's this is a 'red' emergency', dropped the gear, configured on schedule and landed. 6 minutes from fire to touchdown, which is sometimes a 15-20 minute exercise for some.
EIR
It's 5 o'clock somewhere
I do think it would have flagged him, maybe not solved it.
ppragman
FLIPY FLAPS!
Part of the job still requires you be able to fly and make good decisions under pressure. Not often, but you do have to have some stick and rudder skills and quick thinking.
Do you optimize for that skill? I don’t know probably not, but it’s a non linear function with stick and rudder skill on the x-axis and overall job performance on the y-axis. Job performance probably goes up with stick and rudder performance to a point, then goes down after a point because you’re neglecting some other thing.
More than anything else, be data driven. Start by seeing what you want to measure with a sim evaluation. See if you can reduce that to a half dozen variables, then collect data from the training department.
Another thing you could do is “measure flying ability somehoow” with the sim, then see if that has some sort of relationship with whether you like the candidate.
If there are 4 people on a hiring panel, have each of the panelists score the applicant subjectively but convert it to a number out of 10, add them all up and score the candidate out of 40.
You can see if sim performance correlated with overall candidate like-ability with regression. I’d bet it’s loosely correlated.
ppragman
FLIPY FLAPS!
Realistically if I was going to do it, I’d start with it the other way around. Find the datapoints from the work - to find out who sucks and who you want to work with, go to HR and the chief pilot - get as much data as you can about pilots.
Run an unsupervised learning algorithm like “k-means” clustering or something to see if there are any features that define certain groups of pilots.
If you find that guys who end up in trouble or guys who end up retraining group together nicely evaluate the features that they have in common. Optimize away from that.
If stick and rudder is a problem, maybe select more dudes that have a background in it? If guys with poor CRM is a problem, see if they all come from the same segment of the industry and optimize against that background. Still, use data to make these sorts of decisions.
My gut instinct is that stick and rudder is always good - but that’s a relic of where I come from and may not represent reality. I can say “optimize for good pilots” all day and all night, but that doesn’t mean it’s actually a good idea. That said, we have the technology and the capability to take some (but not all) of the subjectivity out of the problem. Regardless, I recommend being inductive rather than deductive with this problem. Let the data speak for itself first.
Run an unsupervised learning algorithm like “k-means” clustering or something to see if there are any features that define certain groups of pilots.
If you find that guys who end up in trouble or guys who end up retraining group together nicely evaluate the features that they have in common. Optimize away from that.
If stick and rudder is a problem, maybe select more dudes that have a background in it? If guys with poor CRM is a problem, see if they all come from the same segment of the industry and optimize against that background. Still, use data to make these sorts of decisions.
My gut instinct is that stick and rudder is always good - but that’s a relic of where I come from and may not represent reality. I can say “optimize for good pilots” all day and all night, but that doesn’t mean it’s actually a good idea. That said, we have the technology and the capability to take some (but not all) of the subjectivity out of the problem. Regardless, I recommend being inductive rather than deductive with this problem. Let the data speak for itself first.
Last edited:
roundout
VNAV monitor
Pfff, that’s been on our type and upgrade rides for years. I didn’t time myself but it’s fast. I had to laugh though because they said since it’s a type ride you still have to meet the stabilized approach criteria or else go around. Like dude, if I’m on fire but coming in a little hot at 500 feet you can expect me to continue on for landing.
BobDDuck
Island Bus Driver
I helped run interview sim evals for a legacy once upon a time. It was a DC9 desktop sim with a yoke a thrust levers. For the most part we weren't evaluating a guys flying skills. The first thing I'd be looking for were did they actually have the ability to fly IFR (the procedures, not being able to center up the needles). You'd be surprised at the number of pilots who, despite having a really specific briefing, would still turn the wrong way in the hold, would screw up very simple clearances to join the loc and then get cleared for an ILS. Beyond that I'd be looking to see how well they utilized the interviewer that we sitting in the "other" seat and acting as their FO as well as to see how well they handled stress when they made mistakes or fought a sim control system they weren't familiar with.
I can only think of 2 times where we downed somebody because of their "flying" skills. Almost all of the negative recommends were people that either had no idea about basic instrument procedures or who fell apart CRM wise.
I can only think of 2 times where we downed somebody because of their "flying" skills. Almost all of the negative recommends were people that either had no idea about basic instrument procedures or who fell apart CRM wise.
roundout
VNAV monitor
What if everyone who got “the call” from an airline they’d applied to simply had a CASS approved pilot go and follow them around for a leg or two to see how they handle business. No joke, I saw a guy go down in flames for a special assignment job he wanted at Eagle when a standards pilot came and jumpseated with us on a turn. I kind of had a feeling he wasn’t the right person for the job, and while being observed, he proved that to be true beyond a shadow of a doubt.
The way I roll at work of late, if someone from from an Air Line came and rode with me for a potential hire they’d say “this guy is like the character in Peanuts with the black cloud following him around. I don’t want to hire him because we don’t need whatever curse he has on our Air Line, but damned if he doesn’t handle it all fairly reasonably. HIRED.”
The way I roll at work of late, if someone from from an Air Line came and rode with me for a potential hire they’d say “this guy is like the character in Peanuts with the black cloud following him around. I don’t want to hire him because we don’t need whatever curse he has on our Air Line, but damned if he doesn’t handle it all fairly reasonably. HIRED.”
BEEF SUPREME
Well-Known Member
I'm thinking personality is a much bigger deal for me. The candidate will either wash out from training or not. That being said, it puts a lot of the onus on the training department to wash the bad apples out.
I guess the crux is do you waste money on someone who potentially will wash out of training? Or does it cost more to preform the sim ride?
I guess the crux is do you waste money on someone who potentially will wash out of training? Or does it cost more to preform the sim ride?
roundout
VNAV monitor
The place I work does this, or at least used to. Last time I had a crashpad, there was a former military guy there. He'd had interviews and offers from several legacies, both Big Freight places and my place. He said our interview was by far the most difficult of the gaggle he'd been to. When I did it, I was surprised they hired me, though I debriefed myself pretty harshly. We found out that there's nothing you can do to make the outcome positive. If you do well, they just pile on more and more. One guy ended up "crashing" after "flying" in to a thunderstorm and still got hired. But the exercise gives the evaluators A LOT of stuff to evaluate, all in 7 minutes or thereabouts.
ASpilot2be
Qbicle seat warmer
The guy I went through that scenario with didn't get hired. He said we did pretty good. I have lots of critiques and got hired.
poser765
Well-Known Member
As a former CP guy I’m trying really hard to decide if I know this person.
This is the way. Applying for any of the big 4 probably not needed. When I applied at my current place I had 10+ years of 121 initials, upgrades, and recurrents that I feel would be a far better metric to judge whether or not I could fly and airplane or complete training successfully.
Apply to like gojet? Yeah there CAN be a bit more doubt about an individual’s abilities.
roundout
VNAV monitor
Well there’s his problem. You can’t work at [redacted] without a certain amount of self-loathing.
If the goal is to try and determine aptitude, a sim does a much better job and is more fair IMO than a Cut-E or Compass test. At least the operating environment is familiar to the applicant, even though the specific sim or aircraft it depicts may not be. I believe any pilot worth their title should be able to fly some basic maneuvers and an ILS to some sort of standard in anything. Maybe not immediately to the point of passing a type ride, but not all over the sky either. Even more so with someone next to your and behind you that can tell you how to get it started and with profiles usually given in advance. Think of all the "Sim 1" events you've been through in all your various types. It's the first time you actually get in the thing and hand fly it, and I bet most of you will be pretty close to ATP standards on the first try. Even then that shouldn't be the point of the sim evaluation. It's looking at decision making, CRM, how the candidate utilizes all resources available in the exercises, how well they respond to some basic coaching on some of the airplane or carrier specific things the interviewer might bring up to level it up a notch. We can extrapolate those things out of a few computer games, or see them in action in an environment much closer to what is actually going to be happening.
Perfect example is my good friend who went through the sim eval at Emirates on the 777. Ended up getting sloppy on the approach for all the factors already mentioned (stress, never flew a 777, etc.) and went around. Interviewer stopped the sim and asked him why he did that. He answered that he became unstable and his company's stabilized approach criteria mandated a go around. He got the job.
Another good friend and former coworker of mine called me after his NetJets sim evaluation. Said the other candidate they paired him with felt off. Just couldn't find a good pace, got flustered, and even though he tried to help the guy never got out of his own head, instead of using him as a resource when the tunnel vision started to come in. He was able to keep it under control when roles were reversed and that guy was right seating for him. Needless to say he got the job and the other guy didn't.
You can prep for HR questions, practice online assessments until you're better than a teenage gamer, and even get the scenarios leaked for Situation Based Interviews. Plus some people are better at imagining things and getting in character while sitting in front of a while board than others. But when you're sitting in that seat and it looks like an airplane, your true nature seems to always come through
Perfect example is my good friend who went through the sim eval at Emirates on the 777. Ended up getting sloppy on the approach for all the factors already mentioned (stress, never flew a 777, etc.) and went around. Interviewer stopped the sim and asked him why he did that. He answered that he became unstable and his company's stabilized approach criteria mandated a go around. He got the job.
Another good friend and former coworker of mine called me after his NetJets sim evaluation. Said the other candidate they paired him with felt off. Just couldn't find a good pace, got flustered, and even though he tried to help the guy never got out of his own head, instead of using him as a resource when the tunnel vision started to come in. He was able to keep it under control when roles were reversed and that guy was right seating for him. Needless to say he got the job and the other guy didn't.
You can prep for HR questions, practice online assessments until you're better than a teenage gamer, and even get the scenarios leaked for Situation Based Interviews. Plus some people are better at imagining things and getting in character while sitting in front of a while board than others. But when you're sitting in that seat and it looks like an airplane, your true nature seems to always come through
Last edited:
The two times I interviewed at MQ, i did a sim ride both interviews
The first time it was in the Saab 340 sim, and the second time a year later, it was in a Fokker 100 sim.
The profile was the same both times - takeoff out of LAX 25R . Level off at 3000, turn left 160, climb to 5000, turn left to 070 and descend to 3000, turn left to 340, turn left to 280 intercept the LAX 25L localizer, hand fly the ILS 25L and land.
Same evaluator both times, he was a retired Eagle check airman doing interview sim rides.
It was a time when regional airlines could choose to be picky - they;’d send people home for not having their paperwork perfect when they came in.…. I dont think they’d do that today. Though i dont know if they’re just hiring anyone.
You do want someone who knows what they’re doing, but i think youre also looking for people who can pass your airline training program.
But i think you want to see how a pilot operates in a crew environment - the sim evaluator made a point that i just had to call for whatever i wanted done - since I wasn’t familiar with either aircraft - power settings - gear - setting courses, etc. i just had to verbalize what i wanted and he’d set whatever i wanted. All i had to do was fly the plane.
The first time it was in the Saab 340 sim, and the second time a year later, it was in a Fokker 100 sim.
The profile was the same both times - takeoff out of LAX 25R . Level off at 3000, turn left 160, climb to 5000, turn left to 070 and descend to 3000, turn left to 340, turn left to 280 intercept the LAX 25L localizer, hand fly the ILS 25L and land.
Same evaluator both times, he was a retired Eagle check airman doing interview sim rides.
It was a time when regional airlines could choose to be picky - they;’d send people home for not having their paperwork perfect when they came in.…. I dont think they’d do that today. Though i dont know if they’re just hiring anyone.
You do want someone who knows what they’re doing, but i think youre also looking for people who can pass your airline training program.
But i think you want to see how a pilot operates in a crew environment - the sim evaluator made a point that i just had to call for whatever i wanted done - since I wasn’t familiar with either aircraft - power settings - gear - setting courses, etc. i just had to verbalize what i wanted and he’d set whatever i wanted. All i had to do was fly the plane.
JDean3204
Well-Known Member
We were thrown in a DC-8 sim and put on the runway. A take off, vectors for an ILS to a missed raw data hand flying. It was pretty cool to get to fly that old sim, but the eval guy was mostly looking for CRM as we did it with two candidates in each role of PF/PM. My shop doesn’t do that anymore, they don’t even interview anymore actually. You have a pulse and 1500?? Cmon over
Horizons desktop sim was a PCATD and I flew the piss out of PCATD’s through college. Very unrealistic and overly sensitive but showed the interviewers how the candidate handled frustration I guess. They stopped the FRASCA prior to my interview time frame.
I think a sim ride should be included. But with the numbers needed to hire, availability of sims and pretty much everything stated above by others, it just isn’t logistically possible in the current environment. Once this massive recession hits and people start slowly hiring in 2030, it will probably be the old school sim check with an NDB approach during a left engine failure and right engine fire. You heard it here first.
Horizons desktop sim was a PCATD and I flew the piss out of PCATD’s through college. Very unrealistic and overly sensitive but showed the interviewers how the candidate handled frustration I guess. They stopped the FRASCA prior to my interview time frame.
I think a sim ride should be included. But with the numbers needed to hire, availability of sims and pretty much everything stated above by others, it just isn’t logistically possible in the current environment. Once this massive recession hits and people start slowly hiring in 2030, it will probably be the old school sim check with an NDB approach during a left engine failure and right engine fire. You heard it here first.
Last edited:
SurferLucas
Southern Gentleman
CH were the intials
phill1174
Well-Known Member
6 mins is amazing.
15-20 mins you’re pretty much burnt toast. After discussing cargo fires here as much as we do it definitely keeps me on my toes more. I think some people get so wrapped up in doing things the way they usually do them and forget to just use common sense and be a pilot in certain situations.
