galaxy flyer

Didn't Atlas already prove that some "pilots" with poor histories aren't cut out to be pilots? As a DO of mine once asked rhetorically, "what do you say to a pilot who should be selling shoes?"

Elevation

We hired hundreds of pilots from that person's carrier. When the investigators asked why we didn't flag the records we received, inexplicably we were unable to understand how to read that particular candidate's training record. Reports acknowledged that instructors were pressured to move that person through training. What we really proved was that we didn't address root causes. We wanted to shortest and least damaging resolution to the issue. This sounds damning. It is. But it's how the world works. This is why a union's role in mishap response is so important and clear, unconflicted priorities need to be held by the people leading that response.

Atlasvet

While Atlas was found deficient in this incident, the Feds were also complicit due to a inadequate reporting system.

The PRIA/PRD system was overhauled based on the findings from this incident. The candidate was able to hide some of his training deficiencies by simply not reporting his employment at the airlines he failed out of. Under the old system you had to request records to verify his failures, I.e. the candidate has to volunteer the info. Under PRD all 121 failures are reported and easily scrutinized.

Flight Ops personnel (along with Union Reps) must have the final say in hiring decisions, although HR personnel typically run the mechanics.

Candidate are screened and interviewed for a handful of hours before those successful in the process are extended job offers. Background checks, including PRIA/PRD can continue up to just prior to release for IOE. The scrutiny they receive prior to final sign off from OE should really be enough to weed out the shoe salesmen.

Crusoe

One thing that seems long forgotten in all of this...

Atlas, like many carriers, used to employ a sim eval during the interview (747-200 in our case). While not the end-all, be-all solution - it was one more gatekeeping device/plug in the proverbial Swiss cheese - that was discarded due to bosses chasing the almighty dollar. Having spoken to people who were involved in training the FP in our particular accident - a sim eval quite possibly would have caught his pretty glaring deficiencies beforehand. Additionally, albeit anecdotally, I've been in interview classes in years past where guys not only messed up but actually crashed the sim in the eval & as a result never received job offers. Without that additional info for the hiring committees they very well may have been hired with who-knows-what results to follow. Is it more expensive? Of course - but how much is a bent airplane or a hull loss & loss of life? And realistically it would be preferable, as a candidate to get a quick thumbs down during an interview (to be used as a wake up call to go sharpen your skills) as opposed to a training failure later on.

hercretired

"Sim evals" are very old school and there is no conclusive data to connect a "passed sim eval" with success in training. Would you throw an un-trained guy in a tractor trailer and see how well he does reverse backing around some orange cones, to "assess" his "probability of success" in the formal driving school?

of course not

dmspilot

You're already a pilot when you show up at an airline interview, not "an untrained guy". So of course yes you should be able to fly a sim.

hercretired

"of course"

tnkrdrvr

Not so long ago (up until Covid) sim evals were standard at my employer. I can’t cite any statistics, but anecdotal reports from folks in the training department suggest that more weak candidates slip through the cracks now that they don’t have to demonstrate the skills their resume says they have. If I were hiring guys to drive a tractor trailer who have a CDL and claim to be competent, yes…I’d absolutely make them back that truck up.

lgaflyer

So "a sim eval quite possibly would have caught his pretty glaring deficiencies", but 8 sessions of sim training, plus a checkride could not have accomplished the same?

60av8tor

I believe the point is that an eval during the vetting portion of the process would prevent a company from already being - albeit minimally - invested in an employee. Transpo, lodging, indoc, systems training etc.