Atlasvet

Your assumption is correct, the candidate has a Technical Interview in which his aviation experience and understanding is evaluated. But as Elevation states, there is much more to it. A candidate may come well prepared and nail the Tech Interview (the gouge is out there), but this is only one aspect of the candidates suitability. While a couple of our prime objectives are to try to determine if we think the pilot will be able to pass our training program and to ultimately be a safe and proficient flight officer, we are looking for more then that.

Sometimes the well prepared, highly motivated 1500 hour banner pilot does outshine the jaded, multiple airframe, burnt out 121 pilot. It isn't just about hours. Pilots and thier careers can be as varied and complex as you can only imagine. In both the HR and the Tech panel the individual is judged for suitability, I.e. do we believe they have a chance of being a good employee. Naturally, almost every candidate comes to the interview stating that Atlas is thier dream job and that they only ever wanted to fly night cargo in the 747 and that 19 lines are his goal.
The understanding of our lifestyle should be a critical component in deciding to work here. Believe it or not, another one of our goals is to find pilots that we think have a chance to actually be well suited for our workforce. You would find that the most content pilots here have learned to "embrace the suck" and find this place kind of cool. The more pilots involved in the hiring process, the better the understanding.

Even with all this we often do miss the mark. The process isn't perfect, but it has evolved and is under constant scrutiny.

Sliceback

What's not counted in the 'success in training statisitics is the people not hired who failied the sim ride. The DPE said it was the worst checkride he'd ever seen AND the FO thought he was doing fine. If his poor skills had been seen in a pre-employment sim evaluation, and resulted in him not getting hired, would the accident have occurred???

Sliceback

Late 1990's. AA hiring. Two pilots do the interviews. Random pairing. 727 FE telling me he's paired with a female DFW FO. Her background was night cargo in a light twin, 727 FE, reserve S80 FO. His background was UASF C-141, AA, furloughed, flew for commuters during furlough, then recalled. "I looked down my nose at commuter guys. Flying there in my furlough made me realize how good they were. I'd seen the light so I thought I'd volunteer for the pilot interview job. I forget the details but I think the interviewers did 3 interviewers per day? Two hr blocks, 30 minute break, rinse and repeat?

He said he chats with his interview partner for a couple of minutes. They then review the candidate. Stunning resume. USNA top grad, post graduate degree, top grades in flying, selected fighters, astronaut applicant. He's thinking "what am I doing interviewing this guy?!?!" Candidate comes in. He and she introduce themselves, quick review of their backgrounds, explain the process. Candidate "when do I get the interview with the Captains?" "No Captain interview." It quickly becomes apparent that he's put off that two junior people, with resumes that don't really stand out, are deciding his future. But he interviews okay...but the FE interviewer tells me he has doubts. Afterwards they write up their interview notes and recommendations. She's doing her form...he's doing his...both pausing as they think. She says "what do you think?" "IDK, what do you think?" Both mention the attitude...."so what do you think?" She - "*uck him?" Him - "Yeah. *uck him." AMF.

HR would have loved him. The two pilots interviewing him? Meh.

Cleared4appch

As much as some people rail against bringing back the sim style interviews, I think it would reveal a lot of glaring deficiencies in candidates that are hard to pinpoint in the tech/hr interviews. At my regional I recently flew with a DEC who scared the **** outta me. She lacked basic instrument knowledge. Didn’t understand that we received a lateral clearance only to join the localizer, not an approach clearance and we were not cleared to descend. She was dialing in the next altitude and was starting down and I said we can’t do that. She still thought we were cleared down and I asked ATC again and they confirmed we were cleared to join but not cleared for the approach. I thought that maybe she just thought she HEARD cleared for the approach. Then she questioned the clearance we were given and I said yea we haven’t been cleared down because we were given a clearance to join. She legit looked confused. I was baffled. It then became clear she was lacking in basic instrument knowledge. I couldn’t believe I was having that conversation with her. The last time I had that convo was with instrument STUDENTS.

That was just the tip of the iceberg with that particular captain. And it reminded me a little bit about the atlas air FO involved in that fatal accident. So many thoughts were coming through my head with this captain. “How the hell did they not see these things that I’m noticing?!” “Who was in charge of making the final decision to hire her?”

Sim interviews don’t need to evaluate a candidate to the level of an applicant that is about to take a checkride, but they can absolutely be instrumental at identifying deficiencies that could cause some serious problems down the road. I think the ATP-CTP course should be required for them to get their hands on a sim so they can get that basic experience flying a transport category jet before they interview. I honestly think over the last few years that regionals were doing things backwards by letting candidates interview, and THEN they would send them to the ATP-CTP course. The interviewers had no way of knowing how they handled a transport category jet, or if they had some huge problems. I think the ‘curriculum’ for the CTP needs to be revamped completely as well. It needs to be better designed to prepare an applicant for 121 training. It’s just a box-checking exercise for both the company and the instructors tasked to conduct the course. Teach them more in depth the basics of landings, in addition to stalls and upset recovery. I felt like my instructors in that course were all just checking boxes and kept telling us to ‘have fun with this, you will pass anyway.’ That seems pretty backwards. Make the CTP course a pass/fail event, and not a formality to check a box. Give them a couple of profiles with callouts to study. A 2 engine ILS with autopilot, and a hand flown visual is all we need here, nothing more, nothing difficult. We don’t need to see them do a single engine hand flown localizer just yet with a 15 knot crosswind, that’s after they get offered the job.

They would be required to complete this before their actual interview in the sim. I think it would better reveal any problems. CRM, radio comms, instrument knowledge, instrument scan, how they handle task saturation, task overload, how they handle things with the other crew member. Do they communicate well and work as a team, or do they get flustered? Defensive? Do they go-around, or do they try to continue to salvage a bad approach? How are their hand flying skills? Are they absolutely atrocious and they need the autopilot like their life absolutely depends on it? It doesn’t need to be difficult for the applicant. This would force applicants to take this job more seriously, and spend more time polishing up on skills that the job demands. And less time on Instagram trying to ‘look cool.’ Just my 2 cents.

lgaflyer

if like you said every pilot would just "play the game" and say the things you wanna hear, then how does getting the union involved in the hiring process going to weed them out? Unless the candidate has done ACMI before and understand the "lifestyle" and now want more of it. How would a CFI wanting his first 121 gig convince you that he can pass the training and be a "good employee"? What does that even mean? "A good employee"?

lgaflyer

HR would have not have loved him because his attitude would show as well. Once upon a time at an interview, HR asked the candidate "so which air frame would you want? We are hiring onto the 737 or the Saab" The candidate said "I would want the 737". HR asked "What if we put u into the Saab, would you accept the offer?" Candidate said "o... i am so done with turboprops..."

Do u think he got the offer??

Atlasvet

I have explained how our system works. I gave my opinion as to why more Pilot eyes are a good idea and why folks with recent experience in our ever changing system are even a better idea. You may not like my answers, but that's all I got and am moving on.

Elevation

I can answer this. A good employee means someone of good character. They bring these good character traits to work.

Character is integral to a person's value on the flight deck. Nothing we do is done in a vaccuum. So a lot of who you are does in fact make it into the flight and onto the flight deck. This isn't just true for some grandiose idea of flying heavy jets to bizarre locations around the world; it applies when I'm flying aerobatics all alone in a Cub. It applies to a CFI in Cessna somewhere. This is why the FAA specifically mentions character traits and judgement in requirements to be a certified pilot. There's no defined point where your performance as a human being ends and your performance as a pilot begins.

We can train people to fly and get comfortable in a plane. We can only screen for character. Show me a "lowly" CFI, banner pilot, or whatnot who can think through a challenge without burning down the people counting on him/her. I'll show you somebody I can train to fly anything I can fly or the company can train to fly some jet somewhere. It just takes the right course material. On the other hand, take a guy who's self-serving with lots of 747 time. They can and have created some big problems because they want to make political statements. So how do you see through the camofluage of somebody that knows what to say and how to act through an interview? You look at them a lot and with a lot of different eyes.

I suspect you already know and understand this. I suspect you just don't like the answers you're getting. Sometimes the world sucks. Make peace with the realities you have to deal with so you can find away to deal with them.

Elevation

I can answer this. Character is integral to a person's value on the flight deck. Nothing we do is done in a vaccuum. So a lot of who you are does in fact make it into the flight and onto the flight deck. This isn't just true for some grandiose idea of flying heavy jets to bizarre locations around the world; it applies when I'm flying aerobatics all alone in a Cub. It applies to a CFI in Cessna somewhere. This is why the FAA specifically mentions character traits and judgement in requirements to be a certified pilot. There's no defined point where your performance as a human being ends and your performance as a pilot begins.

We can train people to fly and get comfortable in a plane. We can only screen for character. Show me a "lowly" CFI, banner pilot, or whatnot who can think through a challenge without burning down the people counting on him/her. I'll show you somebody I can train to fly anything I can fly or the company can train to fly some jet somewhere. It just takes the right course material. On the other hand, take a guy who's self-serving with lots of 747 time. They can and have created some big problems because they want to make political statements. So how do you see through the camofluage of somebody that knows what to say and how to act through an interview? You look at them a lot and with a lot of different eyes.

I suspect you already know and understand this. I suspect you just don't like the answers you're getting. Sometimes the world sucks. Make peace with the realities you have to deal with so you can find away to deal with them.

Atlasvet

Well stated, I was running out of patience, a character flaw of mine.