Job applicants, age, experience.

[helimutt]

I wonder how many of you have different views on this.

There are some jobs advertised like this hypothetical one i've made up below whch i'm sure we've all seen and wondered about :-

Helicopter Captains required.
Min CPL(H) with IR
Min 3000hrs TT
Min 1500 P1
Min 500hrs Multi P1
AS355, EC135 or S76 type rating and advantage
Excellent pay and conditions for the right candidate.

So, along comes a guy with 3000hrs TT, 2800 P1, 50 multi and a fresh IR ticket having worked at only one place.
another applicant has 10000hrsTT, ATPL(H), 8000multi, has worked all over the world, many different types, and for many different companies.

How do these two guys compare?

It's a no-brainer for the employer. or is it?

Ok, guy no2 has been fired from his last 4 companies for one thing or another, unreliable over the last few years etc,

Guy no1 has worked his nuts off instructing, also doing small commercial jobs, paid for his IR etc.
Does guy no1 not deserve a bit of a chance?

Where do the employers get these hourly requirements from for these jobs? Is it proven that someone with 3000hrs is better than someone with 2000hrs?

And why advertise like this when we know they might end up taking on someone with less experience than thier advert states ?

[AllyPally]

Quite often the hours requirement is set out by the insurers and/or the customer when quoting the N Sea.

AP

[check]

Think insurance requirements, think client requirements, think company philosophy, think!!

[Flingingwings]

HM,

Reckon the advert you describe is for the Utopian candidate :cool:

IMHO. End role will be a factor. Candidate No 2 could be sent out without too many worries almost immediately. And if they've that many hours and a poor reputation then all the experience in the world aint going to be much help :{

Candidate No1, I agree, has all the right qualifiactions and committment, but no practical proven history in the 'new' role and that will make both employer and customer anxious. So you ideally need a role where candidate No 1 can be properly supervised and progressed in a logical, sensible and responsible manner. Problem is not many companies have that role flexibility.

Two years ago I may have thought differently, but having been candidate No1 I'm very aware of what I was shown and the guidance I recieved :ok: I've learnt loads but still have far more to learn, and with hindsight two years ago in a 109 I'd have been a nightmare waiting to happen :eek:

I agree it's not all about hours (and that No1 deserves a chance). Hours are just one part of the equation that leads to finding the right employee.

It's just so bloody frustrating when you see the adverts (chicken and egg etc etc). :ugh::ugh::ugh:

FW

[FFF]

Flingwings has hit the nail on the head there.

I agree that No 1 should be given a chance, but the company may not be the one that wants to give him a chance (let someone else take that risk).

The ad would of course be better if it stipulated some of the other requirements that they are looking for - and described the role somewhat - which might explain some of other reasons for final applicant acceptance.

Insurers do sometime insist on hours, even though we all know that hours are a very limited guide on actual experience.

Part of the reason for the "utopian" advert is to try and lessen the number of replies - a sort of filter if you like. It never ceases to amaze me how people with totally inappropriate experience apply for jobs. However, I was once told that if you met 60% or more of the requirements, then try applying - as helimutt says it is often someone with less experience that gets the job.

[helimutt]

During an OPC check once, I asked a well known examiner about this subject and he reckons using the insurance excuse isnt always the truth but a way of saying no to an applicant easily.
He reckoned that if he thought someone was suitable, having given them the chance to prove themselves, he'd employ someone without 1000's of hours.

Yes we all learn from experience, and you wouldn't send someone off with minimum hours and a careless attitude, but I just wondered why ads always seemed to ask for the same hours. 3000TT is common. 500multi P1 is common. They ask for ATPL(H) yet nearly only offshore bods (and yes, some onshore guys too;) can get and maintain the ATPL requirements.
(ie Hours multi pilot, IFR, night, etc etc)

Is it true that those who held an ATPL pre JAR now only hold a CPL if they have only flown single pilot, non IR since gaining the ATPL under the old system or is there grandfather rights on this?

[bogey@6]

Is it proven that someone with 3000hrs is better than someone with 2000hrs?

____________________________________________________________ _

i'd go with the guy with 3000hrs.. he's definitely got more nightlife experience! lol

[Swamp76]

I hear lots of claims about "insurance" and "customer req'r" being just excuses.

Sometimes they may be, but I've been in the position where we have had to lie to customers about how many hours a guy had to get him on the job, because we thought he was good enough, and I've spent days in a conference room justifiying our minimums to suits representing Marsh.

I've also chosen to hire a 500 hour guy over a 10,000 hour guy.

That said, if both guys are competent and have the right attitude, then of course the guy with 3000 gets the job over 2000, as he has seen that little bit more (and likely has that many more seasons under his belt). It is a big leap of faith to choose the guy with 1 season under his belt over the guy with 25!

Again: Your "job ad" is for a captain on a twin (so probably a 2 pilot crew) and you are asking why the guy with only 50 hours in an aircraft that (likely) has a crew of 2 isn't considered? A bit of a chance is one thing, but shooting craps with a multi-million euro helicopter and several lives is something else.

Your description of No 2 is just an average 10,000 helicopter pilot outside of the N.Sea.

Does it bite? Yep. But every business, every trade, every profession is the same: experience is valuable.

This isn't just a rain on your parade post, but I'm seeing too many guys these days looking 2 steps beyond where they are instead of keeping their eyes on the job at hand. Your No 1 should be looking for the copilot job, and proving that he is ready before he hits the full requirements listed in the ad for captains.

[krobar]

Who'd you rather fly with, a guy with a ton of experience, or a guy that still has some luck left?

[Troglodita]

So, along comes a guy with 3000hrs TT, 2800 P1, 50 multi and a fresh IR ticket having worked at only one place.
another applicant has 10000hrsTT, ATPL(H), 8000multi, has worked all over the world, many different types, and for many different companies.

How do these two guys compare?



Answer - with just this amount of information, you cannot make an accurate comparison which is why you interview and make the initial hiring decision based on many other factors. After hiring you need to keep a very close eye on your choice to make certain your decision was the right one.
Just a few of the obvious things that you look at are: -


Where was the person trained? Managing to drag yourself through a CPL by your bootstraps is admirable but is no substitute for good quality coherent basic training.
Does the CV make sense? - I have seen dozens of CV's claiming incredible academic feats coupled with astounding numbers of flight hours and a whole range of non flying career and character building employment - basic math normally indicates that unless this person gained their ATP at kindergarten it is probably BS.
Who do you know that knows them? This is an incredibly small industry and very few people survive without genuine personal recommendation.
To contradict the above, take personal recommendations with a pinch of salt until the candidate lives up to their press. We have many misguided people in our industry who are prepared to recommend "nice people" even when they have a dubious flying history. Nobody wants the Epitaph "I was killed by a really nice Chap" - I unfortunately know of several of these.
Beware of high timers with a whole raft of previous employers - a number 1 Candidate can often be a much better bet than a number 2 who has never managed to hold any one job for more than a few months before moving on (Or being moved on!) Many small employers just "let people go" who are unsuitable and just ignore reference requests rather than replying with the truth.
Risk a few dollars and fly the candidate with an experienced pilot to check that their performance meets their claimed ability - this really does not take long - I was asked to check out an Airforce Chap with a claimed 3000 plus hours - one circuit was enough to ensure he never saw our doorstep again!
If the job involves IFR flying - once again do a practical assessment - ignore this to your peril - there are unfortunately hordes of IR holders out in the bad world who really don't have a clue about real procedural IFR - how the :mad: can you do a meaningful instrument rating on a Robbie? By all means do initial training on one but come on Aviation Authorities, let's have a sensible assessment before issuing the rating.
Finally trust your instincts!That's enough pontificating for now - I'll go and make a cuppa and wait to be shot down :oh:

[spinwing]

Mmmmmm ....

"Ok, guy no2 has been fired from his last 4 companies for one thing or another, unreliable over the last few years etc"


Perhaps you added this little sentence to try to justify your frustrations (and your arguement).


What if you said ......

"Ok Guy No2 had been fired from his last company because he objected to doing a job his experience told him was tasked unsafely ...."

Guy No1 ...not experienced enough to realise where the traps are ????

What then!

:E


AND .... I also agree with Troggy ...... again! :p