Nepotism in pilot selection
Join Date: Jan 2016
Location: EU
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by BraceBrace;[url=tel:11457920
11457920[/url]]Since when is training a competition?
I have seen 250hrs pilots in training you already could tell they would be good captains and you won't hear their names in a negative way years to follow by colleagues. And I have had feelings of "defeat" when writing reports on x-thousand hrs pilots that the level spotted still didn't reach the required standards of our company simply because their mindset didn't allow for improvement which is very unfortunate for all involved.
If you think your flighthours are your safety net, think again. Your mindset is your safety standard.
I have seen 250hrs pilots in training you already could tell they would be good captains and you won't hear their names in a negative way years to follow by colleagues. And I have had feelings of "defeat" when writing reports on x-thousand hrs pilots that the level spotted still didn't reach the required standards of our company simply because their mindset didn't allow for improvement which is very unfortunate for all involved.
If you think your flighthours are your safety net, think again. Your mindset is your safety standard.
Two occasions, one with flight instructor hours and the other one with hours on a small cargo plane. I have never seen a jetliner pilot failing a TR course or stuck in LT.
HR main concern is to pick pilots that will be able to finish the training and get released in reasonable time
Join Date: Jul 2022
Location: Germany
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One way to find out.
I invite anyone who knows the details about the pilots in question to pm these details and propose a local media which will show interest in this case and make it known to the tax payers who might wonder why they have so many broken new planes cause of pilot mistakes
I have seen pilots failing the TR course.
Two occasions, one with flight instructor hours and the other one with hours on a small cargo plane. I have never seen a jetliner pilot failing a TR course or stuck in LT.
HR main concern is to pick pilots that will be able to finish the training and get released in reasonable time
Two occasions, one with flight instructor hours and the other one with hours on a small cargo plane. I have never seen a jetliner pilot failing a TR course or stuck in LT.
HR main concern is to pick pilots that will be able to finish the training and get released in reasonable time
There are plenty of examples I have seen. You can write books on the issues, but in general I think they all boil down to the same general reason: is someone able/willing to adapt to a new company/fleet. From a trainer point of view these are never fun experiences. Sometimes it's a capacity problem, but it can very well be an attitude problem.
Last edited by BraceBrace; 9th Jul 2023 at 20:36.
Join Date: Jan 2016
Location: EU
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And your experience in an airline training function is...? Because I get the impression you think training is about SOPs, and learning to takeoff and land. It's not. That's simply a very basic requirement, next to other things.
There are plenty of examples I have seen. You can write books on the issues, but in general I think they all boil down to the same general reason: is someone able/willing to adapt to a new company/fleet. From a trainer point of view these are never fun experiences. Sometimes it's a capacity problem, but it can very well be an attitude problem as well.
There are plenty of examples I have seen. You can write books on the issues, but in general I think they all boil down to the same general reason: is someone able/willing to adapt to a new company/fleet. From a trainer point of view these are never fun experiences. Sometimes it's a capacity problem, but it can very well be an attitude problem as well.
I have seen pilots who can't manage jetliners energy, struggling not to fall far behind the aircraft
None of them had experience in big planes previously
The two examples I mentioned, happens to know them in person
Both of them were fired during the TR course, by big airlines with quite detailed selection process including all kind of tests
At my point of view, airlines are looking for pilots who will complete the training quickly, with no failures. Pilots who fail a TR are a headache for the company
Have you ever seen a B737 pilot failing an A320 TR or taking for ever to be released as a FO?
Wizz excluded from DEC, the prop captains. In the beginning was open for everyone
Can you imagine why?
My experience in an airline training function is only acting as a safety pilot.
...Pilots who fail a TR are a headache for the company
Have you ever seen a B737 pilot failing an A320 TR or taking for ever to be released as a FO?
Wizz excluded from DEC, the prop captains. In the beginning was open for everyone
Can you imagine why?
...Pilots who fail a TR are a headache for the company
Have you ever seen a B737 pilot failing an A320 TR or taking for ever to be released as a FO?
Wizz excluded from DEC, the prop captains. In the beginning was open for everyone
Can you imagine why?
Pilots who fail a TR are not a headache to the company. They are a possibility that requires retraining, and it happens more frequently than you think. In a training function there is usually a confidentiality clause so we don't talk about it for the EXACT reason like these forums that contain too much rumours and hearsay. Many people have opinions, but hardly have an idea of what actually happened.
Join Date: Jan 2016
Location: EU
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Safety pilot? With all respect, safety pilots are there for safety, not for training. It is not a training function.
Pilots who fail a TR are not a headache to the company. They are a possibility that requires retraining, and it happens more frequently than you think. In a training function there is usually a confidentiality clause so we don't talk about it for the EXACT reason like these forums that contain too much rumours and hearsay. Many people have opinions, but hardly have an idea of what actually happened.
Pilots who fail a TR are not a headache to the company. They are a possibility that requires retraining, and it happens more frequently than you think. In a training function there is usually a confidentiality clause so we don't talk about it for the EXACT reason like these forums that contain too much rumours and hearsay. Many people have opinions, but hardly have an idea of what actually happened.
I don't want to name, the two occasions I mentioned were ditched from big EU airlines with good reputation
I know them in person so they told me what happened, they couldn't manage the complexity and the handling of a big airliner in time given. One explained me that he was so focused on learning the systems and didn't have the time to prepare for sim flights
Airlines are after efficiency, in pilot selection that means selecting pilots for whom they won't waste more money and time that needed for the majority of the pilots.
In that aspect, is safer to have pilots that already know how to fly big jets. 0 hours on big planes pilots might manage too but chances are worse
If an airline can afford this is fine!
I am asking you again, why do you think Wizz stopped accepting prop captains for DEC positions?
Training goals are different. A captain has to be able to "run the show" smoothly whatever happens. That means also in tricky conditions (meteo, operational problems,...). If the captain does not have commercial jet experience, you will find yourself spending way too much time learning the basic "technicals" of flying a commercial jet. And then training becomes pretty "heavy loaded".
As an F/O non type rated the training goals are fairly easy, and overall "technical" (application of SOPs, and learning to fly a heavy jet). It doesn't really matter what your background is, the training programs and time available are designed to go from "0" to qualified F/O. So if you have "in-house" F/O's with enough "technical" experience, it's a lot easier to upgrade those guys and force the turboprop captains to apply for right seat F/O position.
But on a personal note I will admit I don't like people with only turboprop experience to go straight to heavy widebodies on a long haul network (F/O seat) for the same reason.
I think this thread focuses too much on what some companies like to distinguish as "junior" F/O's and "senior" F/O's. If the goal is to hire "junior" F/O's, you can have 2000hrs commercial jet, you will follow a "junior" F/O training syllabus. And that hardly has anything to do with nepotism.
Thread Starter
I think this thread focuses too much on what some companies like to distinguish as "junior" F/O's and "senior" F/O's. If the goal is to hire "junior" F/O's, you can have 2000hrs commercial jet, you will follow a "junior" F/O training syllabus. And that hardly has anything to do with nepotism.
It would be criticized if they were hiring pilots with experience on aircrafts below 10 tones for direct entry F/O category as that would be contrary to the requirements. In this thread nobody criticized it, for hiring also cadets.
Pretty much the same for Ryanair and Wizzair
I opened this thread to spot all the cases where airlines are hiring below their published requirements, which has to do with nepotism or worse... As simple as that
Thread Starter
Not so sure if it is legal since is a state-owned enterprise, funded by tax $$$
One way to find out.
I invite anyone who knows the details about the pilots in question to pm these details and propose a local media which will show interest in this case and make it known to the tax payers who might wonder why they have so many broken new planes cause of pilot mistakes
One way to find out.
I invite anyone who knows the details about the pilots in question to pm these details and propose a local media which will show interest in this case and make it known to the tax payers who might wonder why they have so many broken new planes cause of pilot mistakes
Please share here when it goes public to the tax payers. This will clarify a lot!
Join Date: Jan 2016
Location: EU
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Everything happens to fast for them and somehow they have the idea that they can decrease speed easily while descending ending up over speed and above the path.
A direct to during the descent is a disaster
I have never flown widebody jets, that's what I see from the jump seat
Thread Starter
Originally Posted by BraceBrace;[url=tel:11464950
11464950[/url]]I do work for a nice company where the "training people" prefer to keep someone in training before "exposing" him to the world of "checks". It avoids a lot of problems in the long term. But I do would like to add, a company like Ryanair, where a lot of people like to bash the company itself, actually has a very nice training philosophy as well. It takes a lot to be kicked out of Ryanair...
Training goals are different. A captain has to be able to "run the show" smoothly whatever happens. That means also in tricky conditions (meteo, operational problems,...). If the captain does not have commercial jet experience, you will find yourself spending way too much time learning the basic "technicals" of flying a commercial jet. And then training becomes pretty "heavy loaded".
As an F/O non type rated the training goals are fairly easy, and overall "technical" (application of SOPs, and learning to fly a heavy jet). It doesn't really matter what your background is, the training programs and time available are designed to go from "0" to qualified F/O. So if you have "in-house" F/O's with enough "technical" experience, it's a lot easier to upgrade those guys and force the turboprop captains to apply for right seat F/O position.
But on a personal note I will admit I don't like people with only turboprop experience to go straight to heavy widebodies on a long haul network (F/O seat) for the same reason.
I think this thread focuses too much on what some companies like to distinguish as "junior" F/O's and "senior" F/O's. If the goal is to hire "junior" F/O's, you can have 2000hrs commercial jet, you will follow a "junior" F/O training syllabus. And that hardly has anything to do with nepotism.
Training goals are different. A captain has to be able to "run the show" smoothly whatever happens. That means also in tricky conditions (meteo, operational problems,...). If the captain does not have commercial jet experience, you will find yourself spending way too much time learning the basic "technicals" of flying a commercial jet. And then training becomes pretty "heavy loaded".
As an F/O non type rated the training goals are fairly easy, and overall "technical" (application of SOPs, and learning to fly a heavy jet). It doesn't really matter what your background is, the training programs and time available are designed to go from "0" to qualified F/O. So if you have "in-house" F/O's with enough "technical" experience, it's a lot easier to upgrade those guys and force the turboprop captains to apply for right seat F/O position.
But on a personal note I will admit I don't like people with only turboprop experience to go straight to heavy widebodies on a long haul network (F/O seat) for the same reason.
I think this thread focuses too much on what some companies like to distinguish as "junior" F/O's and "senior" F/O's. If the goal is to hire "junior" F/O's, you can have 2000hrs commercial jet, you will follow a "junior" F/O training syllabus. And that hardly has anything to do with nepotism.
Initial Type Rating on September 2020, when most of the already type rated pilots where sent home.
How do you explain that?
During the investigation the pilot training records were scrutinized to reveal potential gaps in the pilot training and checking process. The available information about the training process of the pilot involved in the serious incident reveals that the pilot had the Type Rating Training Course (Initial training) for the aircraft type BD-500 (A220) from September 1 till November 26, 2020. The course training records reveal some deficiencies of the pilot’s flight skills: incorrect manipulation with the sidestick, pumping of the rudder for the directional control, untimely and inadequate rudder pedals input to ensure directional control, unnecessary application of brakes, etc. In the first Latvian CAA Skill test and proficiency check after the Rating Training Course the pilot failed due to “Insufficient skills. Lack of time.” After the additional training the test was passed. In 2021, the pilot had further Flight Trainings. The Flight Training Records contain remarks of the flight instructors, namely, periodical uncertainty in command of the aircraft and crew and lack of exchange of flight information with the pilot-monitoring [FO] when flying manually. The investigation has analysed the all available (provided) information about the training process of the pilot involved in the serious incident and suggests that there are potential gaps in the company pilots’ selection, training and checking programs, as well as in the information exchange and analysis by the airline's training department. The investigation has no access to the information on how the operator collects and analyses the information gathered during the training process.
There is a possibility that the pilot with obvious deficiencies during the training and checking period was authorized for line operations without having additional training or another means of mitigation to minimize potential risks. A similar situation with incorrect pilot actions during the landing in crosswind and gusty conditions occurred on June 21, 2018 at the Riga International airport with the airBaltic aircraft A200-300, registration number YL-CSC [Final Report No 4-02/1-18(4-19)]. The FDR data of the involved aircraft showed the application of the right rudder pedal with a simultaneous increase of the left brake pedal application. The higher brake force application on the left-hand side main gear wheels caused the aircraft deviation to the left with a subsequent aircraft side skid. The investigation of this serious incident concluded, that the Root cause of the incident [21/06/2018] was related with uncoordinated asymmetric actions of the flight crew in controlling of the aircraft during the landing. Analysing the actions of the airline pilots in both situations, the investigators can assume that the repeated cause of the incidents was the improper handling of the aircraft by the crews to counteract crosswind conditions. It is likely possible that the airline pilot training program has not been updated considering possible deficiencies and the previous incident.
Join Date: Dec 2022
Location: EU
Posts: 40
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I will repeat. It's not because an airline puts out an add, there is a legal requirement from their part to LIMIT the selection process to those people. They are free to invite others as well. Is it so hard to accept the fact that they are not obliged to see you because they hired somebody else?
You talked about bribery. Not me. You talked about blame. Not me.
You talked about bribery. Not me. You talked about blame. Not me.
A poster who says that he is flying for airbaltic tried to defend company's policy to hire below published entry requirements, so it's not just rumors.
You might think it's legal, but only a Latvian lawyer could answer that
AirBaltic belongs to the Ministry of Transport of the Republic of Latvia
Written requirements for employees could be consider as State Official Document
Is it legal for a manager to act differently by hiring people who don't meet the requirements for a state owned enterprise?
And what could motivate them to act like this?
It is quite technical question but I would like to hear your opinion
Thread Starter
I remember another case, it wasn't nepotism but pretty much the same mentality
At the start of the COVID my company ceased operations for a period
In a desperate act, I sent my CV to an ATO that there is another topic for it, saying that I am interested to work as an FI for them
They replied that are excited and blah blah with my CV and are interested to hire me if I have the FI rating in their school
Thankfully we resumed operations and I didn't have to pay 10+k to fly piston props
Conclusion is that in some cases if you pay, you get hired.
Some do it in a legal and procedural way
Some maybe under the table
I see in other topics some people refer to nepotism and shady procedures, I encourage them to write here without spamming other threads
At the start of the COVID my company ceased operations for a period
In a desperate act, I sent my CV to an ATO that there is another topic for it, saying that I am interested to work as an FI for them
They replied that are excited and blah blah with my CV and are interested to hire me if I have the FI rating in their school
Thankfully we resumed operations and I didn't have to pay 10+k to fly piston props
Conclusion is that in some cases if you pay, you get hired.
Some do it in a legal and procedural way
Some maybe under the table
I see in other topics some people refer to nepotism and shady procedures, I encourage them to write here without spamming other threads
Join Date: Jul 2023
Location: Riga
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I remember another case, it wasn't nepotism but pretty much the same mentality
At the start of the COVID my company ceased operations for a period
In a desperate act, I sent my CV to an ATO that there is another topic for it, saying that I am interested to work as an FI for them
They replied that are excited and blah blah with my CV and are interested to hire me if I have the FI rating in their school
Thankfully we resumed operations and I didn't have to pay 10+k to fly piston props
Conclusion is that in some cases if you pay, you get hired.
Some do it in a legal and procedural way
Some maybe under the table
I see in other topics some people refer to nepotism and shady procedures, I encourage them to write here without spamming other threads
At the start of the COVID my company ceased operations for a period
In a desperate act, I sent my CV to an ATO that there is another topic for it, saying that I am interested to work as an FI for them
They replied that are excited and blah blah with my CV and are interested to hire me if I have the FI rating in their school
Thankfully we resumed operations and I didn't have to pay 10+k to fly piston props
Conclusion is that in some cases if you pay, you get hired.
Some do it in a legal and procedural way
Some maybe under the table
I see in other topics some people refer to nepotism and shady procedures, I encourage them to write here without spamming other threads
Did you have an FI rating already before applying?
Thread Starter
It was mentioned before, I will add some more details
A poster who says that he is flying for airbaltic tried to defend company's policy to hire below published entry requirements, so it's not just rumors.
You might think it's legal, but only a Latvian lawyer could answer that
AirBaltic belongs to the Ministry of Transport of the Republic of Latvia
Written requirements for employees could be consider as State Official Document
Is it legal for a manager to act differently by hiring people who don't meet the requirements for a state owned enterprise?
And what could motivate them to act like this?
It is quite technical question but I would like to hear your opinion
A poster who says that he is flying for airbaltic tried to defend company's policy to hire below published entry requirements, so it's not just rumors.
You might think it's legal, but only a Latvian lawyer could answer that
AirBaltic belongs to the Ministry of Transport of the Republic of Latvia
Written requirements for employees could be consider as State Official Document
Is it legal for a manager to act differently by hiring people who don't meet the requirements for a state owned enterprise?
And what could motivate them to act like this?
It is quite technical question but I would like to hear your opinion
Rarely theories survive contact with facts
I have seen that in any forum.
I don't write only in ppune, I have plenty of time in the desert (on tinder you can find only pros)
In every subject you can find some people talk like gurus but when you present them facts, they disappear
