Airline pilot interview. May be dumb technically but a whip on human factor answers

[Centaurus]

Interesting point below made in another Pprune forum with regards to conduct of pilot interviews. Cathay and many other major airlines grill candidates on their professional knowledge as well as the usual human factors knowledge. One Australian airline goes the other way where the interview has no technical questions or aircraft knowledge but all questions are human factors only - with accent on conflict resolution between the crew members.

One would have thought that any serious interview for an airline job would require the candidate have first class technical knowledge. Makes you wonder why an airline interview panel would attach no importance to professional aircrew knowledge but obviously make a big deal about conflict resolution skills

In some cases, I think those who interview better may be getting the jobs, as opposed to those who might have more skill but lack the bluster and BS needed to successfully complete the interview process.

(The USAF actually had guidelines for this at one time; they understood that good pilots were not necessarily good candidates based on a non-technical interview.)

[Van Gough]

didn't get the job hey?

[Jabawocky]

Not a unique problem its a plague of epidemic proportions across all industries IMHO.

[Snatch]

I think Centaurus is probably not featured in the big compactus on Level 3, but his name might be in the logbook of many of the people who have worked there over the years. :bored:

[UnderneathTheRadar]

didn't get the job hey?

Ahhh, you gotta love PPRuNe!

Van Gogh, as others have said, Centaurus is one of the most experienced, knowledgeable gentlemen around willing to spend the time and effort to help out some of the rest of us. Still if, you're not smart enough to figure out the message in what he writes then that's your loss.

UTR.

[Icarus2001]

I think the growth of HR departments is partly to blame. Did we have them 40 years ago? Have they helped?

I think HR are very big on scenario type questions; tell us about a time when... This means people who can speak off the cuff well get a leg up.

I heard a HR person on radio a couple of years ago. He thought they had got it wrong. He gave the example of interviewing a young person 18-20 for an apprentice position as a mechanic. He strongly felt that the person who interviewed the best is not necessarily the best candidate. He felt that giving the candidate a mechanical task to complete was a much better indicator of their aptitude.

I think HR people want to employ the best person who hits the HR marks but a pilot would employ someone that they think can do the job and get along with people in the cockpit.

I can certainly think of people who interview well but are not the most desireable employee.

Perhaps the focus on HF and conflict resolution is because the technical knowledge can be trained in. Personality and values cannot be trained out, well not to any great extent.

Put it this way do you want to spend a day in the cockpit with an ace pilot who knows the books like the back of his hand but who is an annoying personality type (insert favourite bugbear here) OR would you rather spend the day in the cockpit with an average, middle of the bell curve pilot who is interesting and interested in learning and has some social skills?

For me the answer is always the second one. I hear you say but what about a dark stormy night when everything is going wrong, who would you want next to you then? Well really the middle of the bell curve person can still do the job so they are still ahead in my book.

Interesting the variation in technical questions between companies, some do not even bother with sim. Cathay have their tea party which I think is a great idea.

[Erin Brockovich]

HR departments were conceived to palm off the mundane and undesirable facets of a manager’s job – dealing with people. Unfortunately the HR machine grew and morphed to sustain itself when it had no reason to exist in the first place.

Managers of a particular department like Flight Ops for example, who have progressed though the ranks can make informed experienced decisions affecting the people beneath them. Not a 20 something HR grad with starry eyes living with mum and dad.

The HR role should be restricted to department managers and their assistants.

[Mr. Hat]

Each airline chooses their own process. CX places weight on technical knowledge, QF places weight on psychometric and the personality questionnaire. The beauty of this is each employer will to a degree, attract like minded individuals.

I once worked for an outfit that liked asking intricate technical questions in interviews and I studied and got in. Later on I found the intricate questions continued with obscure jepp references and way out systems scenarios during numerous checks. I actually mastered the process by the time i left, coming up with my own obscure jepp bits and pieces. As they say if you can't beat em join em! I suppose what I'm saying is that if you find an interview process is particularly objectionable you might want to rethink even applying as you may find that you wont fit in and it'll end up being a difficult place to work. I got knocked back for a major gig once (amazing i know ;)). I concluded shortly after the knock back that their HR actually got it right and that I wasn't right for the job. I didn't reapply saving us both time and effort.

Personally, I place more importance on people skills and plain old stick and rudder than intricate jepp references and systems knowledge.

I'm not sure which airline has a process that involves no technical questions though.

[PLovett]

Icarus2001,

Well thought out reply. I especially liked the bit about choosing between an ace pilot who is a pain in the butt and the middle of the road who is an interesting companion.

It reminded me of a thread running in the Jet Blast basement about a female US Navy skipper being relieved of her command. In that thread is a reference to the B52 crash which we have all seen. There is a link to Tony Kern's analysis of that crash that makes fascinating reading. This (http://www.crm-devel.org/resources/paper/darkblue/darkblue.htm) is the link to that analysis.

I think it brings home the lesson that there is more to flying than being the best stick and rudder person (for these PC days :})

[novice110]

"I'm not sure which airline has a process that involves no technical questions though."

Tiger and Jetstar don't, I know through personal experience.
Why they don't want experienced guys like me who knows...
(I have over 1000 hrs multi, and 3000 hours total time!)

[601]

If you want to get an overall view of a candidate, ask the candidate to drive you to the local coffee shop for a cuppa.

You can get a lot of information on a persons ability and personality by sitting in the left seat of a car and observing how they drive and react to the continuously changing situations around them.

Have heard of a candidate being knocked back for a job because candidate did not "sparkle" during the interview.

I wonder if this is a requirement in case the strobes fail on a dark and stormy night.

[Worrals in the wilds]

Dunno if it's across the board, but in the companies I've worked for there has been a big devide between the operational people (be they pilots, engineers or officers) and the managerial office people, including HR. Neither group trusts or understands each other, and the relationship degenerates into a "let's :mad: 'em" attitude on both sides. I've met very few HR people that understand what skills are required for an operational job, and a heck of a lot more that look for sparkle, PC answers and someone they like, rather than a person that can do the job they're advertising.

However, as Mr Hat says, no-one wants to work with a prick, no matter how good their technical ability is. Pricks become no end of trouble to a workforce, and unless you're also the world's best nuclear physicist it's usually easier to find a less able person who doesn't piss the rest of the staff off.

I also worked in showbiz, and in that industry it's well recognized that the actor who auditions well is not always the actor that will give a good performance come opening night. Sometimes the audition is the best performance you'll ever see. This is why knowledge of previous work and reputation is considered almost as important as the audition, if not more so, as many great actors get nervous in auditions and do a substandard job. Unfortunately the whole recruitment thing has become an audition process, where a candidate has only a few minutes to impress a panel with their sparkle.

[Centaurus]

Put it this way do you want to spend a day in the cockpit with an ace pilot who knows the books like the back of his hand but who is an annoying personality type

I agree wholeheartedly. But there has to be a middle ground somewhere. Surely a judicious spread of reasonable technical questions along with "have you ever wanted to slug the captain and what stopped you from doing it?' - type questions, is the best compromise. By the time a pilot fronts for a Jetstar, Qantas, Virgin Blue etc interview he should have had a couple of thousand hours.

In that time he should have gathered a lot of aviation technical knowledge over and above that expected of a new CPL. But there are many pilots who just rest on their laurels once they have their first GA job - whether it is instructing or charter up north. High speed flight knowledge? - forget it - that's for RAAF pilots. Inter-tropic convergence zone? - forget it - that's where the borders of Queensland and NT meet.

Chances are if this candidate passes the HR type interview mentioned in the initial post, this weakness in further study of airmanship (yes -that is a technical subject), or in depth knowledge of say aviation meteorology, ATC procedures or other allied items that pilots should aspire to have, will never come to light until he starts to fly with the airline.

Not all ace pilots are pain in the neck personalities on the flight deck. Airlines are not in the business of having to train pilots that are too lazy to study. A pilot should arrive at his new airline with an already good solid technical knowledge of aviation. This is not always happening and the HR only interview is squarely at fault for this. The interviewers assume the candidates technical knowledge is a good standard simply because he has the ATPL subjects and an instrument rating. It is a flawed assumption in some cases

[Metro man]

I once flew with an "ace" , superb knowledge of the aircraft knew it inside out, excellent handling skills. He would have been near the top of the list of people I would want flying the aircraft during an emergency if I was in the cabin with my family. However his people skills were zero and F/Os hated flying with him.

Most people who get through to airline level can fly (yes there are exceptions out there) problems I've seen have been people not getting along.

Putting candidates behind the wheel of a manual transmission car in a strange city, giving them a map and watching them find their way around whilst holding a conversation would be far better than all the psych tests.