C150J
Well-Known Member
The guy with 4,000 hours who failed a few checkrides, and has average performance at work, or the guy with 1500 hours who has never failed an FAA ride and shows above average performance.
For a non entry-level position, I'd have to throw the 1,500 hour guy's application into the waste basket. I'd want someone who has been through at least 2-3 icing and thunderstorm seasons before considering them for a seat in a professional 121/135 cockpit. In this case, I would investigate why the 4,000 hour guy failed, but I most likely wouldn't hold it against him. Now, two likable 4,000 hour guys with similar recs and similar credentials? I'd have to make a decision somehow, and would possibly use the fails as a filter.
In addition, people are failing to acknowledge that someone's current performance can possibly mitigate past failures. Check airman letters, additional duties, and the like can all tilt the scales in favor of making a hiring decision. There are a good number of police officers with DUIs, bad credit, or other skeletons in their closets - does that make them all terrible cops? Not really. What matters is what they did after the fact. Sure, a pattern warrants investigation, but I don't think it should automatically disqualify.