Who's more tangible? The Flight Instructor or the GA pilot?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Wheelwell
Posts: 71
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Who's more tangible? The Flight Instructor or the GA pilot?
Just out of curiosity and banter---
An airline decides to select a candidate for FO position:-
Who would they hire?
A 800hr (total) Flight instructor, instructing on C172 ?
or
A 800hr (total) GA pilot on the Caravan C208 (for example.)
Both candidates have ATPLs and multi-engine IR(30hrs), and completed flight training at 200hrs.
What kind of experience and skills are relevant when it comes to actual commercial operations required from the airline? (Type conversion would be provided by the airline.)
Would the FI's in depth knowledge of flight instruction (500hrs worth) and basic aircraft systems be enough to woo over the interviewer?
Or would the GA pilot operating a Caravan (single turbo-prop) and having 500hrs worth of charter operations/flying be sufficient to sign on the dotted line?
Frankly i'm not dissing anyone in the industry, for everyone has taken their own individual paths in aviation based on personal needs and/or demands.
Has anyone been in this position before? Or caught in a hiring situation similar to this?
I am seeking honest opinion. Everyone has got one.
Let's share view points.
Anyone?
An airline decides to select a candidate for FO position:-
Who would they hire?
A 800hr (total) Flight instructor, instructing on C172 ?
or
A 800hr (total) GA pilot on the Caravan C208 (for example.)
Both candidates have ATPLs and multi-engine IR(30hrs), and completed flight training at 200hrs.
What kind of experience and skills are relevant when it comes to actual commercial operations required from the airline? (Type conversion would be provided by the airline.)
Would the FI's in depth knowledge of flight instruction (500hrs worth) and basic aircraft systems be enough to woo over the interviewer?
Or would the GA pilot operating a Caravan (single turbo-prop) and having 500hrs worth of charter operations/flying be sufficient to sign on the dotted line?
Frankly i'm not dissing anyone in the industry, for everyone has taken their own individual paths in aviation based on personal needs and/or demands.
Has anyone been in this position before? Or caught in a hiring situation similar to this?
I am seeking honest opinion. Everyone has got one.
Let's share view points.
Anyone?
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: United States of Europe
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'd say the interview will have a tough time. It probably will depend a lot of the culture of the company the candidates are applying to.
It also could depend how the time was used. If it was a charter pilot doing A-B, B-A, repeat, then it's probably not that useful. If the instructor only taught straight and level (for whatever reason...), again, not that useful.
Lots of variables, I'd say company culture and personality would be the deciding factor.
It also could depend how the time was used. If it was a charter pilot doing A-B, B-A, repeat, then it's probably not that useful. If the instructor only taught straight and level (for whatever reason...), again, not that useful.
Lots of variables, I'd say company culture and personality would be the deciding factor.
Join Date: Nov 1999
Posts: 2,312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am not sure what you mean by "tangible"? However your premise is ludicrous, flawed and one dimensional.
Neither can hold ATPL's as they don't posess enough hours.
The flying instructor is a "G.A" pilot.
Airlines don't generally consider a few hundred hours of flying experience as sufficiently qualifying. At this level they are looking at "cadet entry" pilots and usually source from recognised training programmes at affiliated training schools.
Labouring your hypothesis, you need to add in the ex-military pilots, the company change existing airline pilots, the unemployed but experienced airline pilots, G.A pilots with significant levels of experience, etc. All of these groups exist in abundance, and are part of the big stack of applicant CV's that every major company whittles their way through when deciding on a shortlist for those candidates they want to interview for the next stage.
The experience levels you suggest, are simply "basic" at best and very unlikely to excite interest at the level you suggest. Even if that were not the case, any assesment would be based on the personality and realistic short term potential of the individual, coupled with their demonstrated performance by way of a simulator test or additional factors.
The reality is that at this level, those airlines recruiting are looking for cadets that have been trained full time in an "airline orientated environment" and have demonstrated a high degree of ability and aptitude. They need to, as it is a very steep learning curve to then integrate into commercial airline operations with only this level of experience.
This is why you see almost all of these companies recruiting "low experienced" pilots from this source. These cadets have verifyable training records that are presented in a format the airline recognises and normally uses themselves. The cadets can be monitored during their training. The cadets transition to the airline partner on terms that are cost effective and flexible for the airline. Over the last 15 years it has proven to be a source of good quality, low risk co-pilots. In turn the success of these pilots in their own career progression (promotions and appointments) has also reflected the quality of the product.
The idea that airlines concern themselves whether one pilot has a few hundred hours instructing in a C172, or has been ploughing up and down the Florida coastline to achieve the same few hours, is amusing but not relevant I am afraid.
It is a common mistake, but airlines are not looking for candidates with a CPL/IR and a few hundred hours flogging around the skies in something or other. They either source low houred pilots into their own cadet programmes in the manner I have already outlined, or they look for relevant experience that is not usually found until the applicant has a couple of thousand hours doing something that shows a meaningful and progressive career climb. In the case of the latter it probably matters little, how the first 800 hours fitted into that ladder in the circumstances you describe.
An airline interview is an elsusive and difficult beast to snare. The process is very three dimensional. Your CV needs to be at a level that the contents excite the interest of the initial screener. If succesful the interviewing person or panel will want to see a depth of character that they feel satisfies not only the basic requirements, but also the broader operating culture of that company.
To arrive at the few who are offered interview, there are many hundreds if not thousands of applications on file. They are not in the least bit concerned with 2 low houred applicants "squabbling in the bucket" over ones few hours being better than anothers, if they only select big fish from this pond in any event.
Neither can hold ATPL's as they don't posess enough hours.
The flying instructor is a "G.A" pilot.
Airlines don't generally consider a few hundred hours of flying experience as sufficiently qualifying. At this level they are looking at "cadet entry" pilots and usually source from recognised training programmes at affiliated training schools.
Labouring your hypothesis, you need to add in the ex-military pilots, the company change existing airline pilots, the unemployed but experienced airline pilots, G.A pilots with significant levels of experience, etc. All of these groups exist in abundance, and are part of the big stack of applicant CV's that every major company whittles their way through when deciding on a shortlist for those candidates they want to interview for the next stage.
The experience levels you suggest, are simply "basic" at best and very unlikely to excite interest at the level you suggest. Even if that were not the case, any assesment would be based on the personality and realistic short term potential of the individual, coupled with their demonstrated performance by way of a simulator test or additional factors.
The reality is that at this level, those airlines recruiting are looking for cadets that have been trained full time in an "airline orientated environment" and have demonstrated a high degree of ability and aptitude. They need to, as it is a very steep learning curve to then integrate into commercial airline operations with only this level of experience.
This is why you see almost all of these companies recruiting "low experienced" pilots from this source. These cadets have verifyable training records that are presented in a format the airline recognises and normally uses themselves. The cadets can be monitored during their training. The cadets transition to the airline partner on terms that are cost effective and flexible for the airline. Over the last 15 years it has proven to be a source of good quality, low risk co-pilots. In turn the success of these pilots in their own career progression (promotions and appointments) has also reflected the quality of the product.
The idea that airlines concern themselves whether one pilot has a few hundred hours instructing in a C172, or has been ploughing up and down the Florida coastline to achieve the same few hours, is amusing but not relevant I am afraid.
It is a common mistake, but airlines are not looking for candidates with a CPL/IR and a few hundred hours flogging around the skies in something or other. They either source low houred pilots into their own cadet programmes in the manner I have already outlined, or they look for relevant experience that is not usually found until the applicant has a couple of thousand hours doing something that shows a meaningful and progressive career climb. In the case of the latter it probably matters little, how the first 800 hours fitted into that ladder in the circumstances you describe.
An airline interview is an elsusive and difficult beast to snare. The process is very three dimensional. Your CV needs to be at a level that the contents excite the interest of the initial screener. If succesful the interviewing person or panel will want to see a depth of character that they feel satisfies not only the basic requirements, but also the broader operating culture of that company.
To arrive at the few who are offered interview, there are many hundreds if not thousands of applications on file. They are not in the least bit concerned with 2 low houred applicants "squabbling in the bucket" over ones few hours being better than anothers, if they only select big fish from this pond in any event.
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Domaine de la Romanee-Conti
Posts: 1,691
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
1 Post
Rotatejunkie I presume you're from Oz or SA or somewhere other than Europe (because in Europe the answer would be "neither of them have a snowball's chance in hell of getting an interview let alone a job"). You're likely to get some strange answers to this question in this forum because it's 99% pitched towards the UK and European wannabe.
But if you're an Aussie then the answer is clearly, the GA guy. ATO's in a caravan are much much better quality than circuit bashing in a C172.
But if you're an Aussie then the answer is clearly, the GA guy. ATO's in a caravan are much much better quality than circuit bashing in a C172.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: England
Posts: 1,904
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Luke is spot on. In Europe, neither would be taken seriously, especially not if said airline was also interviewing a 175 hour integrated student with a TR and 300 on type (P2F hours) 
Interestingly, drove down to the local airfield yesterday where I did all of my commercial training. The same instructors (who had been desperately seeking a way out of Flight Instruction in March 2008) were all still there, some of these guys would be hitting 2,000 instructional hours. Warped world and it's about to get worse thanks to the MPL.
Interestingly, drove down to the local airfield yesterday where I did all of my commercial training. The same instructors (who had been desperately seeking a way out of Flight Instruction in March 2008) were all still there, some of these guys would be hitting 2,000 instructional hours. Warped world and it's about to get worse thanks to the MPL.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Wheelwell
Posts: 71
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Perhaps i should have used 'favourable' rather than 'tangible'.
Thanx Bealzebub, its an informative piece uve got.
And apologies, they both have ATPL theorys.
I trained in Oz, and im South-east Asian.
As a matter of fact, 2 mates of mine recently got hired, 1 into an Asian regional A320 outfit, and the other into an Asian legacy carrier on A320.
The former was flying the Van, and the latter a FI.
Cheers
Thanx Bealzebub, its an informative piece uve got.
And apologies, they both have ATPL theorys.
I trained in Oz, and im South-east Asian.
As a matter of fact, 2 mates of mine recently got hired, 1 into an Asian regional A320 outfit, and the other into an Asian legacy carrier on A320.
The former was flying the Van, and the latter a FI.
Cheers
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Domaine de la Romanee-Conti
Posts: 1,691
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
1 Post
Superpilot - I clocked just over 2,000 instruction hours - and about 5 years instructing - before I got my first break (on a poxy 19 seat turboprop) and that was in the mid '90s. That's always been about the ballpark figure for instructors to get into the bigger leagues, so I'm actually pleasantly surprised to read that things haven't changed for the worse for your FI friends ...
They'll get their golden phone call if they hang in there.
They'll get their golden phone call if they hang in there.
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Motel 6, or the Super 8
Posts: 45
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I share flying duties with a guy in a 182. He is quite a pilot.
The guy has 200 missions in Vietnam and 25,000 of airline hours flying under his belt and is still a flying freak. He still flys C-150s in fire patrol season. What the heck? BTW - never, and I mean never, say - OOPS - while you are in the plane with him.
On a recent flight of six hours I asked him some questions about this very topic. It really does not matter where you got your hours. He saw better flying skills from instructors. He saw better real world commerical flying decsions from pilots with commercial flight time. Can you control the airplane and stay ahead? Since he did not see many pilots with less than 1,000 hours, he believed that to be sort of a magic number. He had more issues from Air Force transport pilots that were used to having everybody else do the work while said transport pilot read a magazine. No kidding. They had great flying skills yet crappy work ethics and "poor everything else you need to do as a pilot, skills."
The guy has 200 missions in Vietnam and 25,000 of airline hours flying under his belt and is still a flying freak. He still flys C-150s in fire patrol season. What the heck? BTW - never, and I mean never, say - OOPS - while you are in the plane with him.
On a recent flight of six hours I asked him some questions about this very topic. It really does not matter where you got your hours. He saw better flying skills from instructors. He saw better real world commerical flying decsions from pilots with commercial flight time. Can you control the airplane and stay ahead? Since he did not see many pilots with less than 1,000 hours, he believed that to be sort of a magic number. He had more issues from Air Force transport pilots that were used to having everybody else do the work while said transport pilot read a magazine. No kidding. They had great flying skills yet crappy work ethics and "poor everything else you need to do as a pilot, skills."
Last edited by scarrymike; 18th Mar 2011 at 22:08.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Worcs UK
Posts: 352
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think the interviewer will probably consider personalities as a very important aspect, as nothing destroys CRM/MCC quicker than being sat next to a complete **********!
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Wor Yerm
Age: 68
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Neither or both. Potentially, the most useful would be the C208 driver. But I'm not from Human Remains. So the answer is academic. I can still remember a distant relative who was Chief Pilot of a (now defunct) shiny corporate airline telling me that he couldn't consider me as I didn't have any "Glass time." Now having 6,000 hours glass time, I know this requirement to be complete and utter 
. If invited to his funeral, I'll pitch up with a can of petrol to make sure the was really dead.
From a pilot's perspective, I'd employ the guy I could have a beer with because almost anyone can be trained to push the buttons. But I'm not the who advertises for "people who will play a pivotal role." But at the moment, those with extensive type experience (or those with deep pockets) will get the jobs. Who said life was fair?
. If invited to his funeral, I'll pitch up with a can of petrol to make sure the was really dead.From a pilot's perspective, I'd employ the guy I could have a beer with because almost anyone can be trained to push the buttons. But I'm not the
who advertises for "people who will play a pivotal role." But at the moment, those with extensive type experience (or those with deep pockets) will get the jobs. Who said life was fair?
