Originally Posted by cheevere
for all the bull going on this site, here's a survey that outlines what the airlines really require for FOs. age, knowledge etc are discussed. This will aid anyone seeking training as it seems more about the right type of person than ur type of training that you did. have a look anyways and let me know what u think.
wasteful feedback need not apply
http://www.gapan.org/career/survey.htm
All the 'bull' on this site? Tell me, what qualifications have you to decide what is good information and what isn't? And can you ditch the text-speak? We don't limit you to 160 characters on this board, unlike your mobile phone.
What is 'wasteful' feedback, pray?
GAPAN is a highly-respected organisation, but a survey of seven airlines taken some time ago is hardly representative of the industry. It would appear to me that this document is claiming greater authority than it deserves. There are around 50 airlines in UK alone, and their recruiting policies differ widely. There are many who are quite happy to accept low-houred pilots well over 30 (occasionally into the 40s), and the majority will currently take graduates of modular training. Academic requirements also vary widely.
There may be some useful stuff in the rest of the report, however. That said, I have some reservations about the motivations behind the report. EPST is a commercial organisation, closely associated with OAT, and GAPAN itself offers a number of different sponsorships. Their own preferences may well have influenced the conclusion the report came to. I have been involved in interviewing GAPAN aptitude testees as a guest interviewer, and I was struck by some of the outdated and conservative attitudes and opinions of some of the GAPAN interviewers; much of the advice they gave seemed to be based on BA recruiting of the 1980s - or earlier! I found myself occasionally profoundly disagreeing with the entrenched viewpoints of one or two of their people, and I therefore wonder if their report may be influenced by similarly outdated opinions.
So, the report is from too small a sample. It has commercial backing, which undermines its objectivity. It comes from an organisation which may be a little out of touch with the modern market. I would therefore take its findings as no more than a useful addition to the information that can be found here.
Scroggs