Deep Thoughts: Pre-employment simulator checks

[🦈💜]

I remember during my Delta interview, I was taking one of the shrink tests. One the questions asked, "when a man see a women he is thinking about sex." Of course I'm thinking, well duhhhh.

I would love to know how that question is not discriminatory. If you're gay and you read that question, how are you going to frame your answer? What if you're closeted gay? What if you're a woman? Are you supposed to answer for "the majority," or your own opinion? A "general" man or a "specific" man? Maybe the question is for calibration ('honesty' checking), to see how you'll answer relative to the rest of your questions, similar to how in police polygraph interviews, I'm told the candidate is asked if they've ever smoked pot. They are expected to say "no," but that's expected to be a lie.

I think the whole concept is archaic, paternalistic, and a byproduct of 1950s thinking.

 

[Hiboglossi]

Well arguably this is part of the reason why there are 80k accidental medical deaths a year whereas basically zero major airline catastrophes.

Possibly, but a bigger reason is probably just that human bodies are more complex than aviation appliances and have more things that can go wrong; and that people don't usually go to the hospital unless something is already seriously wrong.

 

[ppragman]

do you want a candidate who REALLY WANTS TO WORK FOR <insert company name here>, or do you want a candidate who is a real professional with the experience and knowledge to back it up?

Ideally I want both. I want to work with people who want to be there, not bitter and cynically motivated people. I reckon if someone had to take the time to prepare and they actually, you know, do that - I reckon they want to be there. But we don’t know we’re all just pissing in the wind here until we have some data.

Rote is relatively meaningless—almost anyone can display rote memorization and replay.

This is why knowledge banking is a terrible way to run an education system, and also bad.

I am not so sure. 10 years ago I would have agreed with you but people failing to take even the minor task of learning limitations and EPs in aviation has lead me to believe that this is actually an underrated skill to possess. I would like more data here, but I’ve been consistently dissatisfied with the pilots I flew with who complained about memorizing anything.

I recognize that my experiences may not generalize so I’d really like more data, but I don’t think that this is something “anyone can do” and I suspect that being familiar with certain facts may actually be a force multiplier.

 

[ppragman]

Worth mentioning that I did fly with a guy who complained about memorizing anything, but simultaneously knew basically everything about the airplane, so I’m not sure he counts in that metric. He was a freaking amazing pilot… and part of that I think came from the fact that I’m pretty sure he frequently hit the books to refresh himself.

 

[ZapBrannigan]

Remember when you had to draw the electrical system schematic from memory? Or when during the oral the examiner would say, "you're a molecule of fuel. Take me from the main tank to exhaust"?

We knew the airplane pretty darned well. Understood the systems. And it separated those with the drive to achieve from those who were just looking to take the easy way out.

I don't know guys. I'm not a boomer (gen X) but maybe I'm just not seeing things the way younger folks do anymore. I enjoyed learning new airplanes, it was fun bouncing oral questions off one another over cold pizza and cheap beer. We were going to be paid $13,000 a year to fly a 19 seat turboprop with no autopilot and we wanted it more than anything. That common goal bonded us in such a way that many of us still stay in touch 30 years later and reminisce about the old days. I have trouble understanding why people would complain about the bare minimum requirement to memorize a few dozen limitations and memory items.

 

[///AMG]

I don't know guys. I'm not a boomer (gen X) but maybe I'm just not seeing things the way younger folks do anymore. I enjoyed learning new airplanes, it was fun bouncing oral questions off one another over cold pizza and cheap beer. We were going to be paid $13,000 a year to fly a 19 seat turboprop with no autopilot and we wanted it more than anything. That common goal bonded us in such a way that many of us still stay in touch 30 years later and reminisce about the old days. I have trouble understanding why people would complain about the bare minimum requirement to memorize a few dozen limitations and memory items.

Not as old as you old guys, but I did find it somewhat amusing in training when I rattled off the entirety of the runaway stabilizer memory items cold from memory and verbatim. Everyone looked very shocked. I was like "oh do we not do this here?" So many years of being expected to perfectly and rapidly regurgitate very long out-of-control flight boldface/memory items in briefings rubbed off I guess.....

 

[ppragman]

Remember when you had to draw the electrical system schematic from memory? Or when during the oral the examiner would say, "you're a molecule of fuel. Take me from the main tank to exhaust"?

We knew the airplane pretty darned well. Understood the systems. And it separated those with the drive to achieve from those who were just looking to take the easy way out.

I don't know guys. I'm not a boomer (gen X) but maybe I'm just not seeing things the way younger folks do anymore. I enjoyed learning new airplanes, it was fun bouncing oral questions off one another over cold pizza and cheap beer. We were going to be paid $13,000 a year to fly a 19 seat turboprop with no autopilot and we wanted it more than anything. That common goal bonded us in such a way that many of us still stay in touch 30 years later and reminisce about the old days. I have trouble understanding why people would complain about the bare minimum requirement to memorize a few dozen limitations and memory items.

Exactly.

I think this “knowledge” is important and it helps me at least reinforce concepts between systems and airplanes even. Do I need to know that the battery is 24V but the electrical system is 28V (plus or minus 0.5VDC)? Not probably not, but that bit of trivia leads to other questions “oh why is it plus or minus at all? Oh the GCU can’t parallel to anything more precise? Interesting! Why is that….” Before you know it you’re are knowledgeable about the emergent behavior of the sum of the parts.

When you throw a switch, you should be thinking about what that’s doing - not just because it’s on the checklist.

Before you know it, the rote memorization has made the EP that you’re running make sense, and low and behold it’s probably easier to remember it in the heat of the moment when you need it.

Giving someone something to learn before hand I feel like is a pretty good indicator of whether they want to be there. Granted I could be wrong, we should collect data to find out.

 

[ppragman]

Hell, you could even make it related to ground school. “Ok your interview is on Friday, learn these EPs cold before you show up” might be an even better gauge of how badly someone wanted to learn something, just saying lol

 

[podrick]

The hogan…is a joke. MMPI…a joke.

I agree about the hogan being a joke, but reallly disagree about the MMPI.. If you’re enough of an outlier to fail the MMPI, not getting the job is probably the least of your worries. Unless they just really botched their answers by overthinking it. A lot of that test is pretty straightforward stuff like agree/disagree “I see things that aren’t real” or “I want bad things to happen to others”.

 

[roundout]

When you throw a switch, you should be thinking about what that’s doing - not just because it’s on the checklist.

 

[roundout]

Remember when you had to draw the electrical system schematic from memory? Or when during the oral the examiner would say, "you're a molecule of fuel. Take me from the main tank to exhaust"?

We knew the airplane pretty darned well. Understood the systems. And it separated those with the drive to achieve from those who were just looking to take the easy way out.

I don't know guys. I'm not a boomer (gen X) but maybe I'm just not seeing things the way younger folks do anymore. I enjoyed learning new airplanes, it was fun bouncing oral questions off one another over cold pizza and cheap beer. We were going to be paid $13,000 a year to fly a 19 seat turboprop with no autopilot and we wanted it more than anything. That common goal bonded us in such a way that many of us still stay in touch 30 years later and reminisce about the old days. I have trouble understanding why people would complain about the bare minimum requirement to memorize a few dozen limitations and memory items.

https://jetcareers.com/forums/threads/gen-x-rejoice.325628/

 

[🦈💜]

Worth mentioning that I did fly with a guy who complained about memorizing anything, but simultaneously knew basically everything about the airplane, so I’m not sure he counts in that metric. He was a freaking amazing pilot… and part of that I think came from the fact that I’m pretty sure he frequently hit the books to refresh himself.

Hint: Once you understand something, you can synthesize many of the answers.

I think this “knowledge” is important and it helps me at least reinforce concepts between systems and airplanes even. Do I need to know that the battery is 24V but the electrical system is 28V (plus or minus 0.5VDC)? Not probably not, but that bit of trivia leads to other questions “oh why is it plus or minus at all? Oh the GCU can’t parallel to anything more precise? Interesting! Why is that….” Before you know it you’re are knowledgeable about the emergent behavior of the sum of the parts.

When you throw a switch, you should be thinking about what that’s doing - not just because it’s on the checklist.

I agree completely, but none of what you're describing here is based on rote. Rote memorization alone by definition does not give you the ability to answer any of these questions. And if asked "why is this fact like this?" the answer can only be a blank stare.
EP&L isn't just rote memorization, either. You need to know whose ass it is, and why it is farting, or you're just memorizing a speech. Yes, you can get the speech part memorized before the systems knowledge, but ultimately your previous training should create a basis of systems knowledge to build upon.

Before you know it, the rote memorization has made the EP that you’re running make sense, and low and behold it’s probably easier to remember it in the heat of the moment when you need it.

In general, at my previous shop, we only had a few memory items. Most of the QRC memory items were at most three deep:
Oxygen mask: don, emer;
crew communication: establish;
cabin dump button: push in.

Most were only one, or at most two items.

Limitations were a bit more complex, of course. But still, foundational knowledge is required before you get to the "rote memorization" stage.

Giving someone something to learn before hand I feel like is a pretty good indicator of whether they want to be there. Granted I could be wrong, we should collect data to find out.

This might be hard to develop datapoints for, but I do support the notion.

 

[ppragman]

Hint: Once you understand something, you can synthesize many of the answers.


I agree completely, but none of what you're describing here is based on rote. Rote memorization alone by definition does not give you the ability to answer any of these questions. And if asked "why is this fact like this?" the answer can only be a blank stare.
EP&L isn't just rote memorization, either. You need to know whose ass it is, and why it is farting, or you're just memorizing a speech. Yes, you can get the speech part memorized before the systems knowledge, but ultimately your previous training should create a basis of systems knowledge to build upon.



In general, at my previous shop, we only had a few memory items. Most of the QRC memory items were at most three deep:
Oxygen mask: don, emer;
crew communication: establish;
cabin dump button: push in.

Most were only one, or at most two items.

Limitations were a bit more complex, of course. But still, foundational knowledge is required before you get to the "rote memorization" stage.



This might be hard to develop datapoints for, but I do support the notion.

but see; what comes first? I’d say that on the path to understanding (and indeed correlation) rote memorization is a critical component. Testing the ability of an applicant to rapidly learn something new is relevant I suspect.

But again, if we really want to know if simulators are helpful we need to build a function to quantify this sort of thing (could be as simple as washout rate versus simulator performance) and then measure it for a while.

Of course nearly every pilot is going to be against a simulator evaluation during hiring. It’s annoying to learn a profile and annoying to have to perform under pressure. Though we are subject matter experts to varying degrees, we are probably not reliable and impartial people to ask.

I definitely preferred when I didn’t have to do a sim ride prior to getting hired, and much preferred to take the actual airplane around the patch. I recognize that that is impractical for an airline.

I don’t know, trying to be objective about this in the rear view mirror is hard but I really truly think the only way to tackle this problem is with data.

 

[TUCKnTRUCK]

Some airlines have pre-employment sim rides, some do not.

I'm torn. Part of me says 'Well, what a great way to see if someone can actually fly"

but on the other hand "Well, what a great way to see if someone can actually fly… A FRASCA and we don't fly Frascas so what's the point?"

Thoughts?

We used to, did a few back when.

I mean looking to see if somebody could adapt to flying a 1900 (back when) but more looking to see if they had the flexibility to step out of their comfort zone and try/perform. Also, looking to see how they interacted together with the other pilot.

No surprise the crews that worked well together in the sim also often got offered jobs. I think it was more putting somebody into a stressful situation and seeing what type of person they really were - and if that’s what you wanted next to you when packing on ice up the cost of Maine.

As far as a CPT trainer? Meh. Maybe when candidates don’t have any actual or training history.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Chief Captain]

Again, unless he’s Colgan 3407 training record bad, we should all be able to operate the jet at this point.

This guy was just that bad. No sim eval before being hired though, so by the time they found out it was too late.

 

[🦈💜]

but see; what comes first? I’d say that on the path to understanding (and indeed correlation) rote memorization is a critical component. Testing the ability of an applicant to rapidly learn something new is relevant I suspect.

I don't actually agree with that. I think rote memorization needs to be supplemented with knowledge, because that's how human cognition works. Modern education pedagogy relies on making people memorize a bunch of terms, concepts, dates and definitions, and then often doesn't meaningfully build on them, so they're forgotten not long after. It's a great way to pass standardized tests, but an awful way to actually deal with imparting knowledge. Worse, it teaches the brain to memorize large chunks of info that don't apply to anything, teach the test, and dump it.

But again, if we really want to know if simulators are helpful we need to build a function to quantify this sort of thing (could be as simple as washout rate versus simulator performance) and then measure it for a while.

I don't think washout rate, by itself, is a good predictor, given the existence of gouge. I did a quick search and I'm looking here at a document sent to me, two pages long, with condensed versions of all of the limitations and systems knowledge checked for during training, along with a bunch of mnemonics for memorizing the things on a flow.
I have, at multiple times through different training events, been offered photos (or screenshots) of the instructor's iPad. (wink wink, nudge nudge) (I refused)

Literally straight up cheating.

That defeats the purpose of assessments, and skews data gathering. What if the people who are most likely to cheat are the ones most likely to succeed? Is that who you want to optimize for?

IMO, training needs some love. (I loved my previous airline's training department, to be clear, but I've seen worse in other places and heard lots of stories from people I trust at other shops.)

But also, it's really not training's job to wash people out. Eh, anyway...

Of course nearly every pilot is going to be against a simulator evaluation during hiring. It’s annoying to learn a profile and annoying to have to perform under pressure. Though we are subject matter experts to varying degrees, we are probably not reliable and impartial people to ask.

I don't think profile is useful. I don't think the "Fly an ILS and a hold" is particularly useful. I'm suggesting using the simulator as a platform for evaluating CRM, evaluating the risk management mindset of the candidate, determining judgment, and looking for response under pressure.

I definitely preferred when I didn’t have to do a sim ride prior to getting hired, and much preferred to take the actual airplane around the patch. I recognize that that is impractical for an airline.

Ehe, I'd prefer that, but yeah.

I don’t know, trying to be objective about this in the rear view mirror is hard but I really truly think the only way to tackle this problem is with data.

That is because that's your bias and your focus at the present time. Data is only as reliable as its inputs and controls. Even careful analysis to determine the validity of data can be misleading if the data itself is flawed.

 

[🦈💜]

(Post hoc ergo propter hoc)

 

[ppragman]

(Post hoc ergo propter hoc)

I'm not sure if suggesting we need more data is "post hoc ergo propter hoc" - my guess is that we're not objective in our assessment, and we need data to make truly "good" statements about what is "best" to do - otherwise, we're just guessing.

 

[Cherokee_Cruiser]

I religiously read ASAP reports as they’re put out. It’s a hobby of self preservation to learn from other people’s Eff ups.

I gotta be completely honest and say, “chit’s gettin kinda scary.”

ASAP reports of 2015-2019 are nothing like 2021-present. There’s a difference. Screwups used to be minor oppsies. Now, it’s downright scary.

At a virtual airline, the following is made up, but imagine real life….


737 FO pushes TOGA nothing happens.

Translation: y’all haven’t done the Before Takeoff Flow, nor the checklist.

What to do:
Pull of runway, re-accomplish flow and checklist, make sure you didn’t miss anything else.



What not to do:
Without telling CA, FO reaches up and puts AT armed, pushes TOGA and still gon’ send it! Takes off. Later discovered wrong flaps set.


Other things at a non-real airline, low speed events. That is hair raising level of oopsie.




Just y’all wait. Now we got 24-26 yr old major CAs that are sub 4000 hrs total flying left seat of 757/767/737/320.

I remember at a regional the ADM issues of younger lower time crews. I get it, I was a low time hire. But now you’re seeing major airlines reach that level of oppsies!



I got complete crapped on for suggesting the 777 outta OGG was green on green. Even if only one was green, it was a bad screwup. Pulling over 2.5Gs to avoid the ocean is not good.

 

[Chief Captain]

I don't think profile is useful. I don't think the "Fly an ILS and a hold" is particularly useful. I'm suggesting using the simulator as a platform for evaluating CRM, evaluating the risk management mindset of the candidate, determining judgment, and looking for response under pressure.

That's how they do it in Europe- at least some companies do.