Hi all.
I would like to hear what you all have to say about how to select new employees to an airline. What to look for, how to look for it and so on.
What are your thoughts? The outfit is a smallish TP regional company.
Currently, we don't have a recruitment process at all. Which is bad for obvious reasons.

If you were to build a basic recruitment process, what would you like to put emphasis on, without it becoming a rocket science programme with highly specialized psychometric tests and multi day group excercises?

Brainstorm!
/LnS

Which ever way you go, you will probably have line pilots in it somewhere. Value their contribution. A small Australasian airline did not, and the well-thought out, fairly successful recruiting programme, suffered accordingly when the line pilot contingent walked.

I guess it also comes down to what type of person you want in the company.
I'll have to give it a ponder...

/LnS

I would agree with recruiting strategies that "recruit for the attitude, train for the aptitude"
Good luck with it.

The more I come to think of it, I understand that the recruitment process, training department and flight department all have to be in line (which they aren't unfortunately). To recruit for the attitude seems to me to be the best way. This is where you set the foundation for a safe company culture. Unfortunately, todays market seems to be more that if you're available and have the proper type rating, you're welcome aboard. Ie. we're currently recruiting for the aptitude. I guess getting management to understand that this is not the way to do things, is something of a company CRM thing. But how to make them realise?

/LnS

What ever you do keep HR (human remains) out of it:ugh:

No problem, we don't have such a department... :D

Hire the most competent pilots you can with real IFR experience, and don't listen to these guys when it comes to 'hire attitude, train for aptitude'' no one wants to a tranee learning to fly with a 100 people in back.

If you pay, then the right people will show up, if you dont then this conversation is moot, you will get the people that just want to fly and tell you want you want to hear to get the job.

Personaly, I would start with guys with PIC IFR experience, college degrees, and turbine/jet time. The more heavy nasty weather time the better.

I can't say I agree with you there SSG.
We've hired pilots with very diverse backgrounds and this has made it clear that experience is very much specific to the type of operation. Hiring someone with little or no experience in the type of operation intended, will require that person to have a good attitude towards learning. In some cases the lessons are just small contrasts, but nevertheless they are lessons and these will need to be taken in to enable the new employee to become part of the group. If there is an attitude problem, this process will become difficult and this is when the pilot is perceived as a john wayne type of pilot (which in our company isn't what were looking for).

/LnS

Low - Now in English, why don't you try to explain to us exactly what you just said....that attitude is more important then experience? That hiring guys with experience might result in guys not willing to learn?

Please do tell.

You know I see a ton of pilots getting jobs out there, because they are liked, it's a social thing, and they are willing to tell those in charge exactly what they want to hear. Call me old school, but the pilot is supposed to be in charge, have some individualism, be able to make decisions, not always go to SOPS manual for every problem.

Trying to find guys that fit into a mold then expect them to operate outside of the mold when something extra ordinary happens has and will always be a problem in an orginization.

A willingness to learn is something that old timers and newbies should have, and I will be the first to admit there are the argumentative type that will always resist change, so some just find guys that know nothing to counteract that...then another plane goes in because a weak FO literaly doesn't know the capt is going to crash the plane, or won't speak up.

The problem seems to be that when people purport to 'hire experienced pilots' then try to train out all the wisdom learned, it's a sham. If the pilot is asked to fly on fumes, always go at V1, fly with maint issues, and he resists, he's a trouble maker.

The problem is that money talks... as long as there are people knocking at the door with their shiny new type ratings the company will continue to see them as an easy alternative to developing a structured recruitment process and paying for type training.

As we have seen, passing a type course does not mean much when it comes to attitude nor even aptitude in the real world where conditions vary so much and SOP's, check-lists and procedures do not cover everything. That's where a bit of experience goes a long way.

Of course, in a perfect world you'd be able to recruit pilots who are both experienced on type and have the right personality/ attitude. As this is unlikely to happen, your recruitment process will have to be a compromise. Maybe offering non-type rated guys (& girls) with the right attitide and experience a provisional job offer based on them obtaining the type rating or, even better, a bond, would be the way to go. Should keep costs in line with your current system but weed out the type rated people who don't have the attitude nor aptitude.

SSG - What I was trying to say is that the type of experience is very important.
Say I have 1500 hours on the piper cub. Those 1500 hours will have given me so and so much experience of a certain type. I might know where I can expect to find turbulence at my home field with different winds, I might be very proficient with stick and rudder and I'll certainly know that it's important to fly the plane until it has come to a full stop. In short, I might be very proficient in that type of operation and certainly, I'll have a few pieces of experience to take with me on to bigger types, general airmanship being one of them.

For me to continue learning in a new type of operation, I might have cabin crew to consider, a gate agent, a copilot, a fueling guy and so on, I'll need to have a good attitude towards learning. If this is the case, I'll be able to take in tips and hints and make something of them.

In short, If you don't have experience, you need the proper attitude. Being experienced though, does not mean that you don't have the proper attitude.
With proper attitude I mean a willingness to learn.

Arctic Circle - The "buy your job" thing that's going on is definately a big issue in this aswell. Unfortunately I don't think this outfit will ever pay for the typerating and so the problems will invariably continue...

/LnS

This industry needs to get around the concept that you need 'time in type'

Time in type is about the lowest form of experience a person can have. I just love it when I get calls from 'Lear Pilots' because only a 'Lear Pilot' can fly a Lear...and boss believes it too..

When was the last time someone crashed a plane because they forgot how to fly that make and model? After getting a type?

It's a joke...asking for time in type is simply for the employer hoping to get around training costs....

There are so many planes out there, and you just can't wrack up a 1000 hours PIC in all of them in a lifetime...

Sorry for the cynicism...but if you really want good pilots to work for you...up the pay, treat them well, and pick from the top of the resume pile

SSG - Your not reading what I'm writing. Ok, I might have said specific type in one post, but I'm more focused on type of operation as opposed to aircraft type. For example, operating a big jet on a schedueld service will require different skills than being a pilot in say a photoflight operation. Do you now see what I mean?

/LnS

Would your company agree to selecting suitable pilots and making them provisional job offers based on them obtaining the type rating? Not perfect but if they are not going to sponsor anyone it would give you a far wider choice of potential employees. You wouldn't be stuck with those who have already bought the type rating but who haven't found a job.

As for experience, as you said, it all counts, but some more. I'd far sooner have an experienced FI or twin piston taxi pilot next to me when, for example, flying a non-precision approach on a stormy winters night, than a 250hr co-pilot straight out of school. Situational awareness, knowledge of procedures, stick & rudder skills etc should all be more developed.

Low Stated: "In short, If you don't have experience, you need the proper attitude. Being experienced though, does not mean that you don't have the proper attitude. With proper attitude I mean a willingness to learn."


Low recruits for attitude...who goes along, gets along...and worries about whether they can fly a plane later...as long as they are nice people..

Nothing like a nice well adjusted crew in the cockpit flying right off the end of the runway into the water...

But hey, they were great guys!