Uhm, most Chief Pilots / Flight Ops Directors (Nb. the post holders to these positions have to be CAA approved, i.e. they must have a proven track record in the aviation business) are not so daft or inexperienced as to take a single piece of information as the final arbiter in the decision to appoint somebody, or not.
Whilst the normal course of events is for an application, followed by an interview, followed by a simulator assessment, surely it ultimately shows 'due diligence' for any potential employer to delve further (if they are able to do so) into somebody's background in order to ascertain whether or not the person they are about to charge with the priceless lives of the travelling public (to say nothing of the +£35M cost of, say, a B737, and its operational efficiency) is indeed of the very highest calibre and good standing ?!
Nb. There have been numerous times where this hasn't happened, but where this only came to light at the post-accident board of enquiry. E.g. (and I'm not sure if this has indeed come to light yet, but) after the recent Gulf Air accident I've spoken to pilots who actually knew, and had flown with, the Airbus commander who crashed (they'd done so when he was a flight engineer) and their unanimous opinion was one of "how on earth did he ever get a command ?!", aka. in their very experienced opinion 'he was an accident just waiting to happen !'. Hearsay, maybe ? but the fact is that they seem to have been proved right ! QED ?!
Of course, and in the perfect world, airline (or legal) selection criteria and subsequent advancement through the ranks would be a fait accompli - but real life, old son, just isn't like that !
So, and in an endeavour to place the onus on you to prove otherwise, (and as you seem to be a bit of a fan of both legalese & legalism) let's imagine that you're the head honcho in charge of a legal firm whose business is very much biased toward defending high profile cases, e.g. the noose, or knot (ok, I'll admit that's a terrible pun
).
Let's also assume that somebody applies to your firm and basically states, in their CV, that they're the best lawyer / brief / barrister / etc since sliced bread was invented, plus their employment history does indeed look to be impressive. So would you take them at (CV) face value or would you 'delve further' (assuming you had the ability to do so) prior to taking them on ?!
Let's further assume that at a dinner party the name of your applicant comes to the fore (from somebody both well known and most credible to you) and it seems to transpire that your potential employee is actually something of a liability, e.g. perhaps not a complete tosser, but certainly somebody with a serious lack of interpersonal skills !
So what's to do, i.e. at what point would
you say "No !" ?
E.g. If you failed delve into their background (or you did so, but chose to ignore the information), and they then stuff-up a major case (e.g. maybe because they were unable to adequately communicate and / or had a poor rapport with their supporting council / solicitor with regard to the facts, the law, or mitigating circumstances, etc) and the defendant then got hanged - how then stands your firm and yourself ? I.e. don't you have a duty of care to the defendant to provide the very best defence available, or not ?
Ultimately, I'm afraid to say that whilst there's such a thing as 'civil liberty' there is also (or at least there should be) the 'being bloody stupid' act !
Ps. On the subject of Tort - the word comes from the Latin
tortum (meaning 'wrong' ) neutered from the past part of the Latin
torquēre tort (meaning 'twist' ) - but in it's modern legal sense pertains to 'a breach of duty'. So reading all that, perhaps it's a case of damned if you do, and damned if you don't fully check somebody out ?!
........ also, I've only ever had one interview, and that was for my very first job, all the rest have been as a result of a 'Highly recommended', i.e. it cuts both ways !
Holt CJ, I should perhaps also add (
hence the edit ) that my wife is (according to your criteria, as mentioned above)
i). Appropriately qualified (she's passed her driving test), and licensed by the regulatory authority (she does indeed have a points-free valid UK driving license - and Christ only knows how).
ii) Medically fit and holding the relevant certificate (Believe me, she's very 'fit' and is in no need of a certificate to prove it ! )
iii) Suitably experienced (see answer above )
..... but that said, i.e. her being suitably licensed, etc,.... how come she still can't reverse her car in to a parking space ?
Incoming !!!
[ 26 August 2001: Message edited by: Devils Advocate ]