Delta!
08-23-2007, 05:34 AM
#51
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2006
Position: The Right One
Posts: 588
[QUOTE= Originally Posted by Radial Song: I think that you're misinterpreting and taking this too far. The poster did not compare a civilian flying career to changing channels. He only made an analogy to the transition between military and civilian flying. He was just saying switching between military and civilian flying is not rocket science as is switching or the transition between ESPN and Fox. I don't even think that he implied that civilian training was simple. I"m sure that he would agree that a civilian pilot transitioning to military is just as simple. He was talking about the simplicity of the transition, that's all. My .02[/QUOTE]
BTW; I have a civilian flying background.
Nope, the road to military wings is littered with guys and gals with civillian ratings, and I dare say that the road from military to civillian flying is far cleaner, IMHO. The attrition rate in military training is actually higher for folks with civillian ratings
, based on my experience as a military instructor for 10+ years. I'm not saying that one is better than the other (not going there), but I will say that military training is much more standardized, and the end product is far more predictable than any cross section of civillian schools that produce pilots in the same #s.
I do believe it's good that companies hire a cross section of civillian and military pilots, that sort of diversity is very healthy in a large pilot organization. Pilot groups need to be diverse, we are all better off for it, no matter what our individual background is.
And before anybody asks, I was a civillian rated pilot then went to military (Navy) training, and now I fly for a 121 carrier.
BTW; I have a civilian flying background.
Nope, the road to military wings is littered with guys and gals with civillian ratings, and I dare say that the road from military to civillian flying is far cleaner, IMHO. The attrition rate in military training is actually higher for folks with civillian ratings
, based on my experience as a military instructor for 10+ years. I'm not saying that one is better than the other (not going there), but I will say that military training is much more standardized, and the end product is far more predictable than any cross section of civillian schools that produce pilots in the same #s. I do believe it's good that companies hire a cross section of civillian and military pilots, that sort of diversity is very healthy in a large pilot organization. Pilot groups need to be diverse, we are all better off for it, no matter what our individual background is.
And before anybody asks, I was a civillian rated pilot then went to military (Navy) training, and now I fly for a 121 carrier.
08-23-2007, 06:01 AM
#52
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2007
Position: 73N CA
Posts: 474
To which I will add that the enlisted guy in the trench at 19 who was shot at also deserves a bit of a plus on his resume. Service to country should count for something, that's for sure.
Some guys just didn't have the money to go straight to college and get that ROTC commission. The best of the best got the Academy route, and my hat's off to those guys!
Many roads lead to Rome!
Some guys just didn't have the money to go straight to college and get that ROTC commission. The best of the best got the Academy route, and my hat's off to those guys!
Many roads lead to Rome!
08-23-2007, 03:22 PM
#53
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2006
Position: I was acquired, Not Hired
Posts: 1,784
I have never been shot at in the scenario you mention, Gladio. But yes, I've had an AK47 pointed in my face in Beirut, non specific threats made to my flights out of Saudia and Egypt and heavens knows it would not take a genuis to put an exposive aboard a widebody jet and not know it until it is too late-ala Lockerbie. You may argue with me, but to terrorist, I think a commercial airliner is just as attractive a target as a military aircraft.
To make this as clear as possible, the hazards that face those in the military and the bravery they show in facing it far outweigh beyond words the hazards that I have encountered, period. Without a doubt.
In many many many of my postings, I have sung praise and shown respect to those in uniform. If you want to only read what you want to read and IGNORE (ant) the rest, than that's a personal problem that has nothing to do with piloting whatsoever, just a character problem.
In addition, in a previous posting (same thread #30), I clearly acknowledged that landing an aircraft aboard a boat is probably the most difficult landing to make...if you only want to have selective hearing, so be it. It again, is a character issue, not a piloting skill at question here.
Clearly I have shown you and Rhino respect in your arena-traps on a carrier. If your ego will allow it, show some respect to the airline arena-landing an aircraft that weights 30 times heavier on runways 6000-8000' feet without a tail hook and without a thrust-to-weight ratio near 1.
I've never landed on a carrier and clearly acknowledge it's high degree of difficulty. I presume you've never landed a widebody jet, but are very sure you know it's ease.
I'm sure you would do just fine in your training at Delta or wherever. But for your chrissakes, spare us the ego.
-------------------------
Sabredriver, thanks for taking time out to give us your opinion. I appreciate it.
Maybe we can get back to the thread's theme-hiring at Delta ???
FF
Last edited by FliFast; 08-23-2007 at 03:46 PM.
08-23-2007, 06:06 PM
#55
On Reserve
Joined APC: Jun 2006
Position: DAL FO
Posts: 20
Along those lines....
Having also recently underwent the interview/hiring/new-hire process at Delta figured I'd throw my two cents in the pot for what it is worth.
I know of numerous military candidates (who on the outside appeared to have competetive credentials) that did not pass the interview process. So it is by no means a gimme.
I do feel (IMHO) that a military background perhaps does help one make it into the interview pile with two "advantages" over civilian-only candidates: Lower times overall and fewer (or no) internal recs.
The lower times aspect is not surprising and seems to be common across most carriers due not to the "quality" of the time, but the fact that military pilots just don't accumulate the time as rapidly as someone from a 135 or 121 background. A 12+ year stint in the Navy only netted me a little shy of 3500 hours TT since actually flying was only a small part of the job description.
As for internal recs, of the four military-only pilots on my interview date and several others in my new hire class, only one of us had any internal recs on file in airlineapps when we initially received the interview invitation. The civilian only interviewees, as well as many of of my civilian new hire classmates tended to have one or more internals. I do have the feeling (again IMHO) that Delta does consider a successful 10-20 career in the military a "recommendation".
Once you actually get yourself all prettied up and are sitting at the interview table, however, I'm not convinced that a military guy/gal has any advantages over a civilian guy at that point. I would think (and would hope) that everyone in that lobby walks in on equal footing, and that has been my experience, allbeit an experience limited to the past 3-4 months around the Delta campus.
As for the demographics of my new hire class, we were 20% military-only with a couple additional of ex-military folks who had come from other carriers. Seems to be in line with what others in this thread have been posting.
Will that change? Don't know, but the fact remains that the significant majority of guys/gals sitting in Delta new hire classes at this point and time are from a civilian background. So if you want to be at Delta...get that app in no matter what side of the fence you came from.
As for the military/civilian transition sidetrack that was batted about above...I think again that the real difference lies in the attitude of the individual, same as it does at the interview table. If you're a stubborn a$$hat who can't take direction or is unwilling to "unlearn" some of what you think you know...then you'll have problems going in either direction. I certainly saw it from the military flight training side of the fence, but have no doubt that it hapens on the civilian/airline side too.
From personal experience, is coming from a pure military background to the civilian side particularly difficult...not really...so far at least. But again, if you're the type of person who realizes you've got a transition to make and is willing to shut up, listen, learn then you will probably stand a good chance of doing just fine going in either direction. If you walk into either environment thinking you're God's gift to aviation because you <insert great feat of civilian/military aviation here> then you will either have issues, or at a minimum, provide fodder for those folks sitting around the crew room (or ready room) complaining about how military (civilian) pilots can't adapt.
I'll admit right up front that I'm darn glad that my sim partner came from a regional/civilian background. I've learned alot so far just from talking with him, not only in the training environment, but over dinner and a few beers back at the hotel as well.
Sorry for rambling on, I'll relinquish the soapbox now
Having also recently underwent the interview/hiring/new-hire process at Delta figured I'd throw my two cents in the pot for what it is worth.
I know of numerous military candidates (who on the outside appeared to have competetive credentials) that did not pass the interview process. So it is by no means a gimme.
I do feel (IMHO) that a military background perhaps does help one make it into the interview pile with two "advantages" over civilian-only candidates: Lower times overall and fewer (or no) internal recs.
The lower times aspect is not surprising and seems to be common across most carriers due not to the "quality" of the time, but the fact that military pilots just don't accumulate the time as rapidly as someone from a 135 or 121 background. A 12+ year stint in the Navy only netted me a little shy of 3500 hours TT since actually flying was only a small part of the job description.
As for internal recs, of the four military-only pilots on my interview date and several others in my new hire class, only one of us had any internal recs on file in airlineapps when we initially received the interview invitation. The civilian only interviewees, as well as many of of my civilian new hire classmates tended to have one or more internals. I do have the feeling (again IMHO) that Delta does consider a successful 10-20 career in the military a "recommendation".
Once you actually get yourself all prettied up and are sitting at the interview table, however, I'm not convinced that a military guy/gal has any advantages over a civilian guy at that point. I would think (and would hope) that everyone in that lobby walks in on equal footing, and that has been my experience, allbeit an experience limited to the past 3-4 months around the Delta campus.
As for the demographics of my new hire class, we were 20% military-only with a couple additional of ex-military folks who had come from other carriers. Seems to be in line with what others in this thread have been posting.
Will that change? Don't know, but the fact remains that the significant majority of guys/gals sitting in Delta new hire classes at this point and time are from a civilian background. So if you want to be at Delta...get that app in no matter what side of the fence you came from.
As for the military/civilian transition sidetrack that was batted about above...I think again that the real difference lies in the attitude of the individual, same as it does at the interview table. If you're a stubborn a$$hat who can't take direction or is unwilling to "unlearn" some of what you think you know...then you'll have problems going in either direction. I certainly saw it from the military flight training side of the fence, but have no doubt that it hapens on the civilian/airline side too.
From personal experience, is coming from a pure military background to the civilian side particularly difficult...not really...so far at least. But again, if you're the type of person who realizes you've got a transition to make and is willing to shut up, listen, learn then you will probably stand a good chance of doing just fine going in either direction. If you walk into either environment thinking you're God's gift to aviation because you <insert great feat of civilian/military aviation here> then you will either have issues, or at a minimum, provide fodder for those folks sitting around the crew room (or ready room) complaining about how military (civilian) pilots can't adapt.
I'll admit right up front that I'm darn glad that my sim partner came from a regional/civilian background. I've learned alot so far just from talking with him, not only in the training environment, but over dinner and a few beers back at the hotel as well.
Sorry for rambling on, I'll relinquish the soapbox now
08-23-2007, 07:33 PM
#58
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2006
Position: The Right One
Posts: 588
No worries, you're welcome, next time we are in ANC at the same time, cold drinks are on me.
As for DAL, several folks have left my company for DAL. Some had civillian and others military backgrounds, DAL has seemed to be happy with them either way and I really think it was for the reasons Albie stated above. I too believe it comes down to solid prior performance (no matter where that is), proper preperation, and an honest desire to be at DAL.
Fly safe
08-25-2007, 07:50 AM
#59
Pog Ma Hoin
Joined APC: Aug 2007
Position: 7ER B
Posts: 208
He won't, he'll be standing on the jetway with his nav kit in one hand and raincoat in the other hand watching his replacement take his flight.
I have never been shot at in the scenario you mention, Gladio. But yes, I've had an AK47 pointed in my face in Beirut, non specific threats made to my flights out of Saudia and Egypt and heavens knows it would not take a genuis to put an exposive aboard a widebody jet and not know it until it is too late-ala Lockerbie. You may argue with me, but to terrorist, I think a commercial airliner is just as attractive a target as a military aircraft.
To make this as clear as possible, the hazards that face those in the military and the bravery they show in facing it far outweigh beyond words the hazards that I have encountered, period. Without a doubt.
In many many many of my postings, I have sung praise and shown respect to those in uniform. If you want to only read what you want to read and IGNORE (ant) the rest, than that's a personal problem that has nothing to do with piloting whatsoever, just a character problem.
In addition, in a previous posting (same thread #30), I clearly acknowledged that landing an aircraft aboard a boat is probably the most difficult landing to make...if you only want to have selective hearing, so be it. It again, is a character issue, not a piloting skill at question here.
Clearly I have shown you and Rhino respect in your arena-traps on a carrier. If your ego will allow it, show some respect to the airline arena-landing an aircraft that weights 30 times heavier on runways 6000-8000' feet without a tail hook and without a thrust-to-weight ratio near 1.
I've never landed on a carrier and clearly acknowledge it's high degree of difficulty. I presume you've never landed a widebody jet, but are very sure you know it's ease.
I'm sure you would do just fine in your training at Delta or wherever. But for your chrissakes, spare us the ego.
-------------------------
Sabredriver, thanks for taking time out to give us your opinion. I appreciate it.
Maybe we can get back to the thread's theme-hiring at Delta ???
FF
I have never been shot at in the scenario you mention, Gladio. But yes, I've had an AK47 pointed in my face in Beirut, non specific threats made to my flights out of Saudia and Egypt and heavens knows it would not take a genuis to put an exposive aboard a widebody jet and not know it until it is too late-ala Lockerbie. You may argue with me, but to terrorist, I think a commercial airliner is just as attractive a target as a military aircraft.
To make this as clear as possible, the hazards that face those in the military and the bravery they show in facing it far outweigh beyond words the hazards that I have encountered, period. Without a doubt.
In many many many of my postings, I have sung praise and shown respect to those in uniform. If you want to only read what you want to read and IGNORE (ant) the rest, than that's a personal problem that has nothing to do with piloting whatsoever, just a character problem.
In addition, in a previous posting (same thread #30), I clearly acknowledged that landing an aircraft aboard a boat is probably the most difficult landing to make...if you only want to have selective hearing, so be it. It again, is a character issue, not a piloting skill at question here.
Clearly I have shown you and Rhino respect in your arena-traps on a carrier. If your ego will allow it, show some respect to the airline arena-landing an aircraft that weights 30 times heavier on runways 6000-8000' feet without a tail hook and without a thrust-to-weight ratio near 1.
I've never landed on a carrier and clearly acknowledge it's high degree of difficulty. I presume you've never landed a widebody jet, but are very sure you know it's ease.
I'm sure you would do just fine in your training at Delta or wherever. But for your chrissakes, spare us the ego.
-------------------------
Sabredriver, thanks for taking time out to give us your opinion. I appreciate it.
Maybe we can get back to the thread's theme-hiring at Delta ???
FF
Funny, I know both of those dudes and neither are egocentric or cocky.
They are proud of their aviation heritage as they should be. Honestly as a civi I think the hardest I have had to concentrate in my career was for the cog test. LOL
08-25-2007, 02:50 PM
#60
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2007
Posts: 248
I guess it all depends on what kind of gouge you are used to. I've read over and over again that the WFFF gouge is great/spot on/laser guided, and I put a lot of faith in those comments while doing my prep. I thought it was good on the interview question front, but it's NOT perfect on the technical/job knowledge test portion and I walked out of the test a little less than confident (I knew the gouge cold plus did extra studying from AIM/internet/ATP written stuff, etc). If you're used to gouge that is essentially a master question file of the entire test bank with the answers circled (like I am and many fighter dudes are), then you will be sorely disappointed. If you are used to gouge that has some of the questions, merely points you in the general direction on others, and makes absolutely no mention of many, than you will probably find the gouge on the street great because it does at least get you some of the way home. So take that all for what it's worth if you're doing your prep...dbtownley and I were there on the same day and obviously had a different perspective on the same test/gouge. But we both got the job, so I suppose it worked.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
