Interview stuff
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Egcc
Posts: 1,695
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lot's of good advice mixed in amongst the replies. What I would add is that the interview (and indeed all the selection tests) are about control. Your control of your performance. There are elements that you can't control(like what question is asked), but there are many elements that you can control(like your answers!) and it is vitally important that you do control all the elements that it is within your power to control. That is what facilitates a good performance and it comes from preparation. The more well prepared you are the better your performance will be, and it is a performance. Just be yourself is good advice, but you have to realize that perhaps you need to change your colours a bit. I am not saying lie, that is a huge no-no, but if you are not the natural 'salesman' (and most of us as pilots aren't) then you will have to bite the bullet and project yourself a little more than perhaps comes naturally. So you see my point about perhaps not being 'totally yourself'? Again, it's a bit hard to put into a few sentences and I am not saying that all candidates should be as forward as a vacuum cleaner salesman carrying a bag of filth in one hand and a super-dooper 'Henry' in the other!! But you do have to do a sales job on them, you are selling a product and doing the advertising and everything else that goes with it in the finite timescale that is the interview.
The control element extends through the other tests as well. You may not have seen the maths questions before, but if you have spent a day doing practise papers beforehand you will be better prepared and your performance will be improved. It is amazing the number of candidates who fail this type of test by one point or so, (it's just like the ATPLs and getting 74%!, or the number of CFIT accidents where the vast majority have hit the very top of the high ground, not the bottom of the mountain!) One more point would have been enough to get you through to the next stage. Tough on the ATPLs but you get another crack at them, not much good on the airline selection though as you will (normally) only get one go, pass or fail.
You've done the easy bit which is getting the licence issued (I know it doesn't feel like it at the time!) with all the expense and heartache and years of your life that have passed by. You owe it to yourself not to fail at the ultimate hurdle which is securing employment with your shiny Blue Book. As one famous chap said to a bunch of school boys many years ago on Brownsea Island "Be prepared!"
PP
The control element extends through the other tests as well. You may not have seen the maths questions before, but if you have spent a day doing practise papers beforehand you will be better prepared and your performance will be improved. It is amazing the number of candidates who fail this type of test by one point or so, (it's just like the ATPLs and getting 74%!, or the number of CFIT accidents where the vast majority have hit the very top of the high ground, not the bottom of the mountain!) One more point would have been enough to get you through to the next stage. Tough on the ATPLs but you get another crack at them, not much good on the airline selection though as you will (normally) only get one go, pass or fail.
You've done the easy bit which is getting the licence issued (I know it doesn't feel like it at the time!) with all the expense and heartache and years of your life that have passed by. You owe it to yourself not to fail at the ultimate hurdle which is securing employment with your shiny Blue Book. As one famous chap said to a bunch of school boys many years ago on Brownsea Island "Be prepared!"
PP
Last edited by Pilot Pete; 30th Apr 2004 at 11:43.
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: London
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pete,
I absolutely agree with you, piss poor preparation equals piss poor performance, so candidates should definitely do every thing possible to maximise their chance of success.
The problem though is that most candidates will have done exactly that.
They will all know what fleet is operated by the company and what routes are flown; they will have researched a pilots daily routine, and will have considered the answers to some of the more predictable questions.
The point I make is given that this will be the case for almost all candidates at this level (because you will all have been talking to each other on here) the interviewer will be looking for something more.
They will be looking to make a connection with the candidate, to feel that they know something of them, and to feel that they have seen behind the polished answers which they will have heard a hundred times before.
Pete is right, you should do everything you can to raise your game, and certainly it is possible to do so with some preparation. Just don't forget that what people are really looking for is to understand you. If you're pretending to be someone that you're not it will stand out a mile.
Knowing the answers to the questions and having a licence won't be enough. It's about more than that; it's about who you are.
Damo
I absolutely agree with you, piss poor preparation equals piss poor performance, so candidates should definitely do every thing possible to maximise their chance of success.
The problem though is that most candidates will have done exactly that.
They will all know what fleet is operated by the company and what routes are flown; they will have researched a pilots daily routine, and will have considered the answers to some of the more predictable questions.
The point I make is given that this will be the case for almost all candidates at this level (because you will all have been talking to each other on here) the interviewer will be looking for something more.
They will be looking to make a connection with the candidate, to feel that they know something of them, and to feel that they have seen behind the polished answers which they will have heard a hundred times before.
Pete is right, you should do everything you can to raise your game, and certainly it is possible to do so with some preparation. Just don't forget that what people are really looking for is to understand you. If you're pretending to be someone that you're not it will stand out a mile.
Knowing the answers to the questions and having a licence won't be enough. It's about more than that; it's about who you are.
Damo
Last edited by Damo29; 30th Apr 2004 at 18:45.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Egcc
Posts: 1,695
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Damo
I think we are singing from the same song sheet. I did say the principle is hard to put into a few sentences in a post. Yes they are trying to get to the 'real' you, they want to know what makes you tick, how do you react under certain circumstances and what would you be like if they were to put you in that seat.
Be yourself is good advice, but I like your 'raise your game' comment, that sort of sums up nicely what I was trying to get across, especially for the more 'conservative' characters out there. It's all a fine balance and you rightly say that they will spot a well prepared candidate who is not convincing and who appears to have just learnt answers to questions.
Trust me though that there are an awful lot of ill prepared Wannabes out there who are getting the opportunity and squandering it due to lack of preparation, or unfocussed preparation, perhaps lack of understanding of the process and many other reasons beside. I hear it again and again how guys have failed a selection for whatever reason and the one common theme from my point of view has been lack of suitable preparation which has usually stemmed from a lack of understanding of exactly what they were going to be up against. I think it is more than unfortunate that these individuals have learnt (hopefully!) the hard way as in a difficult market like the current one for new guys to break into, one simply must do everything to ensure best performance. the next opportunity for a low houred pilot may be months and months away.
You would be surprised how few candidates for entry level jobs really have researched potential employers fully. Knowing the fleet type and route structure really should go without saying, but companies need to see a lot more than that if you are going to sound convincing about wanting to work for them. This kind of indepth knowledge is where potential pilots have a gap.
Knowing that a certain airline (the one you were being interviewed by) had an 'on time performance' campaign with a certain (corny) but catchy name last summer that had been successful in moving them up the 'league' table and it had been reinstated again this year is the sort of info that makes one sound convincing. Knowing the company model, other parts of a group, parent companies, where the airline makes it's revenue from (might not be directly from bums on seats) all adds credibility and little snippets like this added in at an appropriate place during an interview can really make you stand head and shoulders above the rest. But when it comes to the crunch it's all about the individual and their character and how it will (or maybe won't) fit into the employer.
Like I said, slightly more tricky than 'here's the correct way to answer a difficult interview question'. What I try to teach is drawing from your experiences to give examples of how you dealt with situations rather than just make up answers of what you perceive to be 'right'.
So I still think we agree on just about all points.
Don't try and be something you're not, but make sure you make the most of what you actually are........
PP
I think we are singing from the same song sheet. I did say the principle is hard to put into a few sentences in a post. Yes they are trying to get to the 'real' you, they want to know what makes you tick, how do you react under certain circumstances and what would you be like if they were to put you in that seat.
Be yourself is good advice, but I like your 'raise your game' comment, that sort of sums up nicely what I was trying to get across, especially for the more 'conservative' characters out there. It's all a fine balance and you rightly say that they will spot a well prepared candidate who is not convincing and who appears to have just learnt answers to questions.
Trust me though that there are an awful lot of ill prepared Wannabes out there who are getting the opportunity and squandering it due to lack of preparation, or unfocussed preparation, perhaps lack of understanding of the process and many other reasons beside. I hear it again and again how guys have failed a selection for whatever reason and the one common theme from my point of view has been lack of suitable preparation which has usually stemmed from a lack of understanding of exactly what they were going to be up against. I think it is more than unfortunate that these individuals have learnt (hopefully!) the hard way as in a difficult market like the current one for new guys to break into, one simply must do everything to ensure best performance. the next opportunity for a low houred pilot may be months and months away.
You would be surprised how few candidates for entry level jobs really have researched potential employers fully. Knowing the fleet type and route structure really should go without saying, but companies need to see a lot more than that if you are going to sound convincing about wanting to work for them. This kind of indepth knowledge is where potential pilots have a gap.
Knowing that a certain airline (the one you were being interviewed by) had an 'on time performance' campaign with a certain (corny) but catchy name last summer that had been successful in moving them up the 'league' table and it had been reinstated again this year is the sort of info that makes one sound convincing. Knowing the company model, other parts of a group, parent companies, where the airline makes it's revenue from (might not be directly from bums on seats) all adds credibility and little snippets like this added in at an appropriate place during an interview can really make you stand head and shoulders above the rest. But when it comes to the crunch it's all about the individual and their character and how it will (or maybe won't) fit into the employer.
Like I said, slightly more tricky than 'here's the correct way to answer a difficult interview question'. What I try to teach is drawing from your experiences to give examples of how you dealt with situations rather than just make up answers of what you perceive to be 'right'.
So I still think we agree on just about all points.
Don't try and be something you're not, but make sure you make the most of what you actually are........
PP
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: London
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pete,
Really interesting to hear things from your perspective. I should reiterate that I have no experience within the airline industry so all I can really do is offer generic advice.
Kind regards
Damo
Really interesting to hear things from your perspective. I should reiterate that I have no experience within the airline industry so all I can really do is offer generic advice.
Kind regards
Damo
Guest
Posts: n/a
Another non-aviation perspective:
In the course of my IT career I have had to recruit members to my teams on many occassions. Although not in the organised and massed way of Damo's experience. However, I would get a tonne of CVs from the agent(s) and then I would forumlate quick way of reducing the burden of having to read them all. The first thing I would do, would be to look at the layout. I developed this theory that the layout of the CV would tell me instantly how that person perceived the industry and how they thought. The CVs that told me what I wanted to know at the top of the page and that did not any laborious prose to read through were always kept and read further. Sure I missed out on a few good candidates with this rather course culling technique, but I virtually always interviewed real potential with minimum effort.
As for the interview, the moment the candidate walked through the door he/she was in one of two situations:
1) They had to do something convince they were worth employing despite my intial impression
2) They had to do/say something to convince me the favourable initial impression was false.
Obviously candidates in the 1st category had a hill to climb.
No I never asked anybody where they saw themselves in five years, or what they were worst at simply because I generally employed seasoned professionals and not graduates where this line of questioning is probably more relevant with little concrete experiance to work with.
In the course of my IT career I have had to recruit members to my teams on many occassions. Although not in the organised and massed way of Damo's experience. However, I would get a tonne of CVs from the agent(s) and then I would forumlate quick way of reducing the burden of having to read them all. The first thing I would do, would be to look at the layout. I developed this theory that the layout of the CV would tell me instantly how that person perceived the industry and how they thought. The CVs that told me what I wanted to know at the top of the page and that did not any laborious prose to read through were always kept and read further. Sure I missed out on a few good candidates with this rather course culling technique, but I virtually always interviewed real potential with minimum effort.
As for the interview, the moment the candidate walked through the door he/she was in one of two situations:
1) They had to do something convince they were worth employing despite my intial impression
2) They had to do/say something to convince me the favourable initial impression was false.
Obviously candidates in the 1st category had a hill to climb.
No I never asked anybody where they saw themselves in five years, or what they were worst at simply because I generally employed seasoned professionals and not graduates where this line of questioning is probably more relevant with little concrete experiance to work with.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Egcc
Posts: 1,695
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
what have you got that is better than the other candidates being interviewed.
To stay with that quote though, I feel this is an area where individuals can make life easier for themseleves when it comes to interviews by having lots of material to draw from. That's easier for the career changing Wannabe who has a track record in employment in usually another field and has gained and enhanced their skillset with many transferable skills. For the younger Wannabe it is vitally important that you plan ahead and get something behind you, even if you have been at uni for the last three years and have never had a full time job.
The candidates who impress most (IMHO) are those who have got off their butts and gone and done something in their spare time and gained from it. For instance, if you are going for sponsorship and they ask you on the application why do you want to fly, well you need to tell them about your passion for this career, but you need to back it up with some kind of evidence. Saying you want to do it 'a lot' does not sound as convincing as the chap who says he wants to do it, who spent 4 years in the Air Cadets, achieved the Duke of Edinburghs Gold Award, has 50hrs gliding experience and who has worked part time at his local flying club washing planes and helping run the desk in return for half of his PPL.
Consider things like the Cadets (of any form), perhaps as an adult instructor, Reserve Forces (where you actually get paid and will have a bloody good time to boot), voluntary work, youth work, community projects, Scouting (again, offer your time as an adult leader and they will probably jump to get you signed up!), University Air Squadron, any work around aeroplanes, especially in a club environment where you will get plenty of exposure to good contacts as well.
If you do this you are building transferable skills, like leadership, teamwork, communications, instructing and many, many more beside. Much easier to answer those 'difficult' questions when you have some experience to recount................
PP
Last edited by Pilot Pete; 3rd May 2004 at 06:40.
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Oz now!
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When going for an interview with Cathay Pacific in London some years ago. (I was flying for Virgin at the time, whose then chief pilot was ex-Cathay). I was asked by the interviewing pilot;
"Tonight I'm having dinner with your chief pilot, what reasons do you think he'll give me for wanting to keep you in your current position"
Interview over I think!
"Tonight I'm having dinner with your chief pilot, what reasons do you think he'll give me for wanting to keep you in your current position"
Interview over I think!
Join Date: Oct 1998
Location: West Wales
Posts: 187
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is a fascinating thread for someone like me in the final decade of a flying career. The overall impression is of the HR tail wagging the company dog. The things the airline want to know from a newly qualified pilot are:
1. Can he/she do the job?
2. Will he/she fit into the team?
Neither of these questions is likely to be answered by the posing of abstract questions as discussed above. A skilled interview panel would be able to make a better assessment through the form of a relaxed chat where the candidate is more likely to be himself, rather than a mentally coiled spring, waiting for the next trap.
The most searching interview I ever undertook was for RAF selection, the best part of forty years ago. It was extremely cordial with no traps and the two senior officers concerned ensured that the conversation flowed easily. It was only when reflecting with a coffee later on that I realised how much they had discovered about me. But then, they were just military officers, not "HR professionals".
One thing never changes. You must dress smartly, even if the appointment suggests smart casual. Jacket and tie for chaps, equivalent for ladies. No one ever got rejected for being too smart and if the field is large, you're one step ahead of the guy in the leather blouson and chinos.
confundemus
1. Can he/she do the job?
2. Will he/she fit into the team?
Neither of these questions is likely to be answered by the posing of abstract questions as discussed above. A skilled interview panel would be able to make a better assessment through the form of a relaxed chat where the candidate is more likely to be himself, rather than a mentally coiled spring, waiting for the next trap.
The most searching interview I ever undertook was for RAF selection, the best part of forty years ago. It was extremely cordial with no traps and the two senior officers concerned ensured that the conversation flowed easily. It was only when reflecting with a coffee later on that I realised how much they had discovered about me. But then, they were just military officers, not "HR professionals".
One thing never changes. You must dress smartly, even if the appointment suggests smart casual. Jacket and tie for chaps, equivalent for ladies. No one ever got rejected for being too smart and if the field is large, you're one step ahead of the guy in the leather blouson and chinos.
confundemus
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Home
Posts: 210
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
any work around aeroplanes, especially in a club environment where you will get plenty of exposure to good contacts as well
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Egcc
Posts: 1,695
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
True Rowley. I know of several dispatchers who have licences and who are trying to get a flying job. The one downside is that it is not getting you any more hours and you must keep clocking them up as well IMHO.
PP
PP
Join Date: May 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interjected into interview immediately following long 'talky' answer:
What is 50 divided by 0.7?
-------
Asked to see how you tackle it (give up/guess/follow logical steps to work it out). I guessed and said 71 straight off the cuff. I've no idea where I got that answer from and they seemed just as surprised! I think the best thing to do is talk through working it out logically.
What is 50 divided by 0.7?
-------
Asked to see how you tackle it (give up/guess/follow logical steps to work it out). I guessed and said 71 straight off the cuff. I've no idea where I got that answer from and they seemed just as surprised! I think the best thing to do is talk through working it out logically.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: London
Posts: 444
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One of the best tips I've heard to keep you relaxed (and echoing Pirates post) is they want to see if you are the type of person they can sit next to for 8 hours on a flight. Need to be friendly, easy going and not too "brash". Obviously you'll need to know the technical stuff, but this seems to help from a "people" perspective.
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Earth
Posts: 37
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Would anybody please recommend a pilot/general interview book which you might have found useful? I took note of the book mentioned earlier in the thread 'Great answers to hard interview questions'.
I haven't done an interview in ages!!!
I haven't done an interview in ages!!!
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: UK
Age: 41
Posts: 59
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
update...
for all of you that I haven't been in touch with, I got through the interview and am about to be offered a place (on the CTC scheme). I would like to thank everyone that helped, and wish everyone else out there, the same sort of luck that I had.
Cheers
,
James
Cheers
,James
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: The Netherlands
Posts: 246
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
- "How did you prepare for this interview?"
"I didn't."
- "Excuse me?"
"I don't like to prepare for personal question. If I think about them now will make them more genuine."
- "So you haven't researched this company? Why do you want to fly for this particular company then?"
"I am a man of honesty. So my only answer can be: I want to fly, and you are the first company who offered my an interview. I take everything on my route. I am not in the position to choose."
-"So why do want you for the job?"
"Tell me please, it makes me happy to know that you want me for this job!"
Makes them laugh!
The first part I used when applying for the military. They liked it.
If it will work for the airliners we'll see when I finish my ATPL's!
"I didn't."
- "Excuse me?"
"I don't like to prepare for personal question. If I think about them now will make them more genuine."
- "So you haven't researched this company? Why do you want to fly for this particular company then?"
"I am a man of honesty. So my only answer can be: I want to fly, and you are the first company who offered my an interview. I take everything on my route. I am not in the position to choose."
-"So why do want you for the job?"
"Tell me please, it makes me happy to know that you want me for this job!"
Makes them laugh!
The first part I used when applying for the military. They liked it.
If it will work for the airliners we'll see when I finish my ATPL's!
PPRuNe Handmaiden
I can see where you are coming from with that approach but unless you have a couple of thousand hours I wouldn't try it in the civvy world.
Humour is fine in an interview, being a smart alec isn't.
Good luck with the exams.
Humour is fine in an interview, being a smart alec isn't.
Good luck with the exams.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: The Netherlands
Posts: 246
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
O, I was 18 when I tried it in the military, got through the interview to be turned down on other reasons.
One point which is important is to not te be too alec (I'm not native english, I assume it means smart ass or something). I really meant this, and you have to state it a little more subtle than written down here.
I am a little alec, they may know that, it's one of my weaknesses. But sincerity is the thing for me. I think I would still do it like this in real life.
Tnx.
One point which is important is to not te be too alec (I'm not native english, I assume it means smart ass or something). I really meant this, and you have to state it a little more subtle than written down here.
I am a little alec, they may know that, it's one of my weaknesses. But sincerity is the thing for me. I think I would still do it like this in real life.
Tnx.
PPRuNe Handmaiden
Sorry mate, you're right, alec = arse/ass in this case. I was trying to be polite. 
(smart alec = smart arse/ass)
Yep, humour is subtle thing, if you get it wrong, you've blown the interview, get it right, and you are in (assuming the simulator check goes well)
(smart alec = smart arse/ass)Yep, humour is subtle thing, if you get it wrong, you've blown the interview, get it right, and you are in (assuming the simulator check goes well)