UK Chief Pilots and the 'Old Boy' network . . .

[Mr moto]

The company I work for hangs a list of interviewees on the board so comment can be made to the relevant CP/TM or whoever.

People get asked about subjects which otherwize wouldn't be brought up and given the chance to explain themselves fully.
"Do you still owe such and such for your bond?"
"Was it you who did something or other?"

My former employer knew about my success with my current employer within 4 days; before I did in fact.

I think its a great way to vett applicants.

[Holt CJ]

To Darth Vaders Love-child I must say that I find your post above quite astonishing. Although not a flier myself (except as a ‘frequent flyer&#8217 , I am driven by my inquisitive mind to ask a few questions in response.

I presume from your first sentence that CP is pilot-speak for ‘Chief Pilot’? You go on to say

It is an absolute duty of any CP to find out all he can about an [sic] prospective employee. Especially where so many lives are at stake (the life of your wife, husband, son or daughter for example.)

Interestingly emotive argument, sir, utilising the safety issue to convey a false certitude with respect to the assertion you make as to what is a Chief Pilot’s ‘absolute duty’. May I ask where such duty is said to arise? Is it merely to be found in some job description? Do you believe it is founded in a specific statutory obligation? Do you say it is an ‘absolute duty’ arising from a general duty of care, that is, to not be negligent?

Surely there can be no duty, absolute or otherwise, to ‘find out all one can about a prospective employee’, especially by soliciting gossip, hearsay, or innuendo. Certainly there would be a duty to ensure that, in the recruitment of aircrew, they are, for example:
(i) appropriately qualified, and licensed by the regulatory authority;
(ii) medically fit and holding the relevant certificate; and
(iii) suitably experienced.
It is difficult to identify a duty to ‘find out all you can’ and it seems likely that to seek to do so would perhaps be invasive of the rights of the individual to such a degree that the seeker may become the ‘sought’, in the legal sense.

What truly astonishes me is the quite blatant way in which you describe your own methods of selection. You say:

Of the last 30 Pilots I have hired (except the 200hr 2nd Officers) I have been able to get a pretty good picture of 80% of them through existing line-pilots who may have worked either [presumably, ‘with’] them before or know someone who has.

Thus you pour scorn on traditional methods of pilot selection (including, it seems, the simulator) and resort to what is little more than a popularity poll. As for Mr Moto's apparent support of your position, it seems that his company too advocates the use of gossip and innuendo in the selection process. Perhaps he is one of your employees, sir? It does seem likely, given that the process smacks of discrimination, prejudice and blatant sycophancy.

You say that you are the Chief Pilot of a scheduled jet operator and that you made this post to provide us with some unspecified insight. Without in any way wishing to offer personal offence, I would be immeasurably grateful if you would go one step further in such provision by here stating the name of this operator so that I, for one, might henceforth avoid it like the plague.

[Devils Advocate]

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 ]

[Joystroker]

I am absolutely with Holt CJ here! He is clearly experienced in such legal issues.

What if the line colleagues, when asked, just simply don't happen to like the individual or are jealous of him? Where is the evidence other than a gut feeling? In aviation ideas of someones style are often generated by myth and rumour. Individuals can get a bad reputation simply by making a silly operational error one day when they are normally totally competent and their co-pilot just happens to be a big mouth.

Our chief pilot friend above is indicating that such a reference might prevent that person getting work with his airline. Surely that his totally illegal - and for very good reason.

[Devils Advocate]

Joystroker w.r.t.

He is clearly experienced in such legal issues

Uhm, according to Holt CJ's profile he/she states their occupation as being nothing more (or less) than a 'student of law' - but is it meant in the literal or proverbial sense ?

Imho the airline pilots job is a lot more than just about being i) appropriately qualified, and licensed by the regulatory authority; (ii) medically fit and holding the relevant certificate; and (iii) suitably experienced.

Aside - Do you know, it never fails to amaze me just how many young men and women beggar themselves at the altar of aviation in the gaining of their (F)ATPL but who fail to realise that having said qualification merely entitles them to apply for a pilots job - it does NOT guarantee them one !

Just as in many walks of life, aviation (like law) has many people lurking on the periphery who are just not suited to the job; Not by a lack of the three things mentioned above, but more so because their personality sucks !
So after numerous rejections and knock backs these folks start to believe that there's a conspiracy against them (yet more proof of their flawed personality) - a vicious circle.

As they say, 'sh!t happens' !

[beaver eager]

Joystroker,

I disagree totally that making a silly operational error on ONE day will tarnish anyone's reputation.

In my experience, if someone is unlucky enough to make a silly operational error but is usually highly competent, then if said 'big mouth' were to attempt to maliciously spread the unpleasant facts, the rest of the pilot fraternity would quickly tell 'big mouth' to wind his neck in and offer words of support for the poor unfortunate who had a bad day but is usually a good operator.

At the end of the day it's all about personalities. I've heard colleagues complaining about people who I've always got on fine with. Conversely, even when an individual under discussion is almost universally unpopular (although they may still be acknowledged as a good operator), there will always be someone who cannot understand it as they always enjoy flying with that individual.

Reputations are not often forged by single incidents but by how one operates (and behaves) over an entire career.

[Holt CJ]

First I would point to the fact that my post above was addressed to Darth Vaders Love-child and, as yet, there has been no response made to the many relevant questions I asked. I am most concerned in particular to receive a reply to my final question seeking the name of his ‘scheduled jet operator’ so that I can ensure I do not board an aircraft flown by pilots recruited through Darth’s dubious process of selection.

I am a little disturbed by the above posts by Devils Advocate ("the Devil"). I note that the Devil points to my own stated occupation, yet does not wish to reveal his/hers. What may we draw from that? The Devil speaks with some pretence of authority in matters of aviation:

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 - aka. a huge responsibility);
[T]he normal course of events is for an application, followed by an interview, followed by a simulator assessment;
[T]his 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 … ;
Imho the airline pilots job is a lot more than just about being … ; and
[A]viation (like law) has many people lurking on the periphery who are just not suited to the job … .

as well as of law:

[S]urely it ultimately shows 'due diligence' for any potential employer to delve further … ;
[A] poor rapport with their supporting council / solicitor with regard to the facts, the law, or mitigating circumstances) … ;
[T]here's such a thing as 'civil liberty' there is also (or at least there should be) the 'being bloody stupid' act … ; and
[A]viation (like law) has many people lurking on the periphery who are just not suited to the job.

Thus it seems the Devil is a pilot, or a lawyer, or perhaps both. Let me immediately say that the Devil is certainly not a lawyer, for there is no authority in anything said as to law, including the attempt to define a tort. For those interested, including my inquisitive friend, Bugg Smasher, a tort is an actionable civil wrong or injury arising from an act, or failure to act, independently of any contract. Tortious liability arises from the breach of a duty fixed by law, such breach redressable by an action for unliquidated damages. The Devil is right in that it is a ‘breach of duty’ and is of Latin derivation, but such simple definition is not found in an authoritative legal text. It is further revealing that the Devil did not use the word ‘counsel’, rather than ‘council’. I suppose it is questionable whether the Devil is even a pilot, but I give the benefit of doubt here.

Though I rarely engage in discourse with those who begin writing with the word ‘Uhm’ (is it even a word?), or those who utter phrases like ‘their personality sucks’ or ‘sh!t happens’, I will attempt to respond in kind to the Devil’s posts as follows:

There is nothing in English law that imposes a duty upon an employer (even "to show due diligence") to delve, or pry, or snoop, or solicit gossip, as to somebody’s background. In the case of aircrew selection, the duty is surely no more than to ensure that the applicant is suitably qualified, holds the requisite valid licence, and is fit (in the wider sense) to do the specified task.

My pilot friend has described the meaning of Crew Resource Management, but I see nothing in that which goes beyond a need to ensure that, in the role of captain or co-pilot, the task of flying the aircraft is executed professionally and co-operatively. There is nothing here that relies upon individuals actually liking each other. Indeed, in my military days (admittedly a very long time ago), a ‘popular’ leader was rarely a true professional and familiarity certainly did breed contempt. It is my observation that nothing has changed in the nature of humankind to render this obsolete. What useful purpose is to be achieved, then, in ‘posting a list of interviewees’ for comment from amongst their former peers or subordinates? Why seek to discharge a duty of care by listening to gossip and innuendo and then giving the applicant ‘an opportunity’ to respond to it?

No, to do these things is not to ‘show due diligence’ or to avoid ‘a breach of duty’. It is, I think, to do precisely the opposite. That is, it is to fail in one’s duty of care and to seek to somehow transfer that duty to the opinions and prejudices of others who do not in any way have such a duty. What will the airline say if there is a major accident, caused by the error of a pilot recruited in reliance upon this dubious process of ballot among peers? Will it say: “The fault lies with those who recommended this pilot to us.” Well, the airline may say it, but our courts will certainly pay no heed. The duty lies with the employer. To discharge it, the employer must show that it had in place a selection process which checked the credentials of the applicant and tested him/her to ensure that there was in this applicant the requisite level of skill and proficiency to carry out the duties of the position. Where the employer airline can show this, it matters not that there is a subsequent accident in some way caused by their appointee, for the airline was not negligent in its selection process, though it may have been elsewhere. The airline captain may be personally held liable at law if found to have breached a duty of care, though it is more likely that any tortious liability will transfer to the airline through the doctrine of vicarious liability. And it is precisely in such circumstances that the law will surely hold that listening to, or soliciting, gossip is not a proper means of discharging the duty of care in a selection process.

Another aspect of the Devil’s commentary which causes concern is in the implication that ‘pilots who actually knew, and had flown with, the Airbus commander who crashed’ unanimously believed that, in their ‘very experienced opinion’, the commander ‘was an accident waiting to happen'. The Devil rejoices in this gossip and hearsay, claiming that ‘they seem to have been proved right’. Surely there is nothing in this sad accident to support the views of the Devil. We do not know how this pilot was selected. His peers may have been consulted, or they may not. If what his peers now say is true, and it is a very large ‘if’, then there was certainly something wrong with the selection process, whatever that process might have been. But, if what his peers now say is true, then one must enquire as to their prior silence. If what they unanimously now say is true, why did not each and every one of these ‘very experienced’ pilots take their opinions to their then employers and/or the regulatory authority and thereby force a re-assessment. Such assessment might have led to more training of the individual to render him fit for the task, or it might have led to loss of that unfortunate’s licence. If what is now said is true, either would surely have been in the best interests of the individual concerned as well as in the best interests of public safety. And, either way, it may have avoided the later crash and loss of life.

Finally, the Devil claims to have ‘only ever had one interview’, and that was for the very first job, and ‘all the rest’ of the jobs (by implication then, many jobs) have been as a result of a "Highly recommended" (note the use by the Devil of a capital letter). The Devil, then, is either a most fortunate, outstanding, and very well connected pilot, or is none of these things and has merely worked for those who utilise this very strange selection process, those who deliberately substitute it for proper procedure even at the interview stage. If the latter, I do most sincerely hope that the Devil never errs disastrously, else the employer, or the Devil, will then have need of the likes of me.

[ 26 August 2001: Message edited by: Holt CJ ]

[Joystroker]

I truly believe that an individual can get an unpopular rating by his colleagues very easily if he simply does not fit into their little world of right and wrong.

Every one goes through difficult times in their lives - during these times ones behaviour might be seen as controversial.

A system of unofficial references must never be used (and for very good reason is illegal) as pilots are so quick to act as judge, jury and prison warder when someone has not acted the way that they would like. And the mud often sticks many years down the line when that person may have worked very hard to get the himself back on top and is now totally competent. This site is proof of those facts.

If there are flaws in the training and selection processes within our industry then these must be addressed. Only when an official system proves an individual unable to carry out their duties safely can action be taken.

I suggest chief pilots spend their time addressing these points rather than digging into personal closets.

I think this is the point being made by Holtcj.

[Devils Advocate]

Firstly Holt CJ - I am indeed an airline pilot (on B737's) , and I'm not (and nor would I ever wish to be) any sort of legal chap (reads into that what you will).

Here we go then…….

Just what is it with you legal types, when you write 'I am a little disturbed by the above posts by Devils Advocate' .... Dear oh dear, why don't you just say what you mean ? as in I've 'got under your skin and you're going to try and shoot my argument down' - just like I'm doing to you - so please do try to stop dressing it up in caged concern.

Actually - my 'attempt' to define tort was taken chapter and verse from 'The Concise Oxford Dictionary - New Edition - 1991' - who've obviously got it wrong - either that or the 'true legal' definition has been much dressed-up - by lawyers (I use the term loosely) as part of their normal attempt to make the law as difficult to fathom and as distant (read, expensive) to obtain as possible.

And oh how so magnanimous of you to stoop so low as to indulge in discourse with some poor prole who starts a sentence with 'Uhm', and whom also injects a few common usage phrases, by way of spicing ones posting; I'm humbled !

So, uhm, can I / we take it that in spite of you stating that an employer of aircrew has to fulfil three requirements for their employment, that your use of 'in the wider sense' does indeed reflect the fact that you're having to do some back-peddling w.r.t that initial declaration ?!

Nb. I also don’t recall anybody purporting that we all need to be 'friends' in order to run a safe ship - you've introduced that theme - which suggests, nay proves, that your not familiar with airline operations. I think your getting confused, you see I can go to work with a lot of guys - some of whom I really look forward to working with, and some less so, but in any event we always try to run a safe show and make the best of the day - i.e. it's not mutually exclusive.

I too note sir (well, you seem to like using the 'sir' word, so I thought I'd give it a go too - uhm, it's nicely condescending isn't it ?! ) that you then try to muddy the waters by mentioning some previous military service background. One might say that you wrote that in the hope (or belief) that it will 'influence' the rest of us that you are therefore some sort of font of wisdom when it comes to all things relating to man management. You're not ex-of-Sandhurst by any chance, are you ?

You also made a comment that a ‘popular’ leader was rarely a true professional and familiarity certainly did breed contempt'. Well I'm sorry, sir, but I refute your argument (and for those who prefer that in plain English, not legalese, what he's said is crap) !
E.g. what about Stormin' Norman - both popular and brilliant - indeed I could rattle off loads of examples to disprove your theory.

The point I was making about the Gulf Air tragedy - and for the record, I was most certainly NOT rejoicing about something which resulted in the deaths of innocent men, women, and children ( and how dare you suggest that I was ! ) - is that it was indeed just such a failure, to fully and properly canvas information w.r.t the complete person (or that it was done, but ignored) , which allowed the situation to develop - but as also mentioned, this occurred in a sandy part of the world where use of the 'old-boy network' by the indigenous locals is very much to the detriment of safety (which also confirms what buggs said above).

As far as I can tell from the above, nobody has meant that they only use the comments of line-pilots as the primary tool in the recruitment armoury - it is you who has suggested / assumed that.
Indeed I think you'll find that it's laid down in some CAA approved tome just what processes (application / interview / sim) within an airline need to be realised in the recruitment of a pilot - the fact that a Chief Pilot may also choose to supplement the 'basic' requirements with some 'extra' background is imho praiseworthy indeed - with a view to the fact that a happy ship is a productive ship - which is how most chief pilots want it - and why not.

With regards to incidents and accidents, and who carries the can for it - have a look in the front of an Airline company Operations Manual / Part A - General / Section 1, where you will find exactly who is tasked by the CAA for what roles and responsibilities - aka. the 'accountable managers'. It is not possible to abrogate that responsibility which makes it all the more vital that a Chief Pilot ensures that an employee (and themselves) are above reproach.

Finally of course and w.r.t me being 'either a most fortunate, outstanding, and very well connected pilot'. Yep, I'm afraid it's all true ! ..... and humility never was one of my strong points.

Ps. I am a little disturbed that you haven't actually answered my hypothetical questions, posed previously, about what you'd do if told that a future employee was 'a bit suspect'.

[Holt CJ]

A truly revealing response, Devils Advocate, … uhm … sir. Thank you for that. It matters little whether you would wish to be ‘any sort of legal chap’ for you have here demonstrated your complete lack of any of the requisite ability (and read into that what you will). When ‘legal types’ state they are ‘a little disturbed’, they generally mean precisely that, for it is vital in the practice of law to articulate one's meaning precisely. And ‘a little disturbed’ does not mean that one is outraged, and foaming at the mouth, as it appears are you.

I make no claim as to any detailed knowledge in the sphere of aviation, thus I would not seek to define a technical aeronautical term by reference to ‘The Concise Oxford Dictionary’, whatever edition. Hopefully, I would have the good sense to refer to a relevant authoritative text before prematurely launching into print and thereby publicly displaying my gross ineptitude. Or I might, perhaps, defer to those who have some professional expertise.

I am truly sorry you are ‘a little disturbed’ that I ignore your supposedly hypothetical, though largely inane, questions. I choose to answer only your last, as follows: it would of course depend upon the circumstances, but it is not my wont to take heed of gossipmongers. I feel I would instead be rather disapproving of the ‘advisor’ as well as suspicious as to his/her true character and the underlying motive in proffering the opinion. If I myself were the subject of an allegation that, in a professional sense, I was ‘a bit suspect’, I would seek redress in the tort of defamation. To put it in language of your choice, I would sue the defamer’s arse (perhaps you would prefer it stronger, but that is as far as I will go). If this was said about me in the non-professional sense, I might be quite amused, even delighted, for it would surely be quite harmless, and that, I think, is the point.

As to the remainder of your post above, it is clear, as you say, that ‘humility’ is not ‘one of [your] strong points’, and, whether employing ‘plain English’ or ‘legalese’, you do not in any way disprove an argument merely by refuting it. Do please try just a little harder next time.

[ 26 August 2001: Message edited by: Holt CJ ]

[Norman Stanley Fletcher]

Holt CJ, may I respectively point out that this is a forum for aviation professionals who are here to air their views and opinions (however distasteful they may be to you). You taking up vast amounts of space with legal blah simply turns off the readership. I am sure there is an excellent lawyer's forum which can lead to endless hours of entertainment trapping people in their words and making them appear to say what they never intended to say etc, etc. Your talents might be better placecd there.

Darth Vader's Lovechild made some excellent comments that we as professional pilots would do well to listen to. Guys like him call the shots, and I am delighted to see that he checks out those whom he might employ. There are a few bad apples out there and no employer wants to touch them. Were we all to listen to the politically correct lawyer-speak out there we would find ourselves having to take on virtually anyone who shows the vaguest interest in flying whether they have a licence or not. The way recruitment is going in this country, a potential employer is less and less able to discover anything meaningful about the background and capabliities of his potential employees. We end up with teachers who cannot teach, nurses who cannot make beds, engineers who are not numerate and pilots who cannot fly planes. All this talk of just recruitment is in fact the ultimate injustice. The most undeserving and least able end up getting the best jobs at the direct expense of those who would make great employees.

[tilii]

Norman Stanley Fletcher

As a professional pilot myself, I have been enjoying Holt CJ’s input here. What is more, there is no apparent objection to such input by the creators of this site, as the home page clearly states. As a new chum, it might be prudent to wind your neck in and refrain from commenting on what you think “turns off the readership”.

If you intend to make a contribution, why not do it without airing your apparent hatred of the legal professional? From the posts on this thread, it seems Holt CJ represents a professional pilot against an employer. Thus, his considerable contribution here is welcome indeed to those of us with an interest in the law as it relates to our profession, even in the area of pilot selection. There might come a day when any one of us may need this kind of advice.

IMHO, Darth Vader’s Lovechild must be the CP of some hick little outfit that has one or two small jets. I am certain he does not work for any of the big leaguers out there because none of those I know would talk such drivel. In fact, none that I know would ever post on this site, simply because of the mindless and infantile rubbish that is spouted forth by your ilk.

BTW, you might add two more categories to that list of those who “cannot” or “are not”; pilots who cannot write English and pilots who cannot see good sense when it is staring them in the face.

Keep up the good work, Holt CJ. There are many who find your posts of considerable interest.

[bugg smasher]

Heavens, it certainly is getting warm in here, don't you think...

I suppose, Devil, that where legal matters are concerned, you are quite joyfully out of your depth. I do, however, salute your bravery. In my country, such as it is, given the choice between tickling a Grizzly Bear's behind and winding up a very sharp lawyer, pass the feather please.

As is evident, cronyism is not only alive and well, but firmly entrenched within the very highest levels of the industry. I, for one, do not see these practices as detrimental to the flying public, indeed the UK airlines continue to maintain a remarkably high level of safety, thanks in part to the efforts of the gentlemen that are currently posting on this thread. It goes without saying, of course, that the Chief Pilot must not only be above reproach, but brutally honest with himself and his reasons for rejecting or terminating a pilot under his supervision. What is becoming increasingly clear, thanks to HoltCJ's learned treatise, is how at odds these practices are with the laws of the land, and that alone should provide urgent impetus to a thorough reassessment of current selection methods.

We know that the Old Boy's Network exists, and that it operates in a clandestine manner. We also know, however, that when properly and diligently exercised, it contributes to the overall safety of the airline industry. It follows then, that the key lies in establishing a codifed system of guidelines that truly serve the flying passenger, while providing redress for the unfortunate few who have fallen victim to an Old Boy with issues.

HoltCJ, your comments are informative and illuminating, and most certainly a needed addition to this forum. Kindly excuse the fraternity of wind-up artists that frequent these pages. Piloting large airliners is a game of self-confidence, (dead-sticking several hundred tons of titanium to a successful landing requiring very large balls, for example), and as such, humility a rare and questionable commodity.

[Devils Advocate]

Holt CJ - w.r.t. It matters little whether you would wish to be ‘any sort of legal chap’ for you have here demonstrated your complete lack of any of the requisite ability. Have I really, oh dear, what a pity, never mind.

W.r.t. When ‘legal types’ state they are ‘a little disturbed’, they generally mean precisely that, for it is vital in the practice of law to articulate one's meaning precisely. And ‘a little disturbed’ does not mean that one is outraged, and foaming at the mouth. Which surely therefore means that, until you explained it, you hadn't made clear what is was that you meant, and so perhaps a fine example of legalese ?!

Well you actually won't find many technical aeronautical terms in the OED, but funny enough, and regardless of whether or not you agree with the interpretation of it, a definition for 'tort' is in there - perhaps, and for the benefit of us all, you should contact the OED and point out their inaccuracies.

All jesting (or should the be jousting) aside, and with w.r.t. what you'd do if tipped the wink that a potential hire was perhaps 'not a good choice', you've said 'it would of course depend upon the circumstances'.
So given that there are circumstances when such information would influence your decision making, it must surely then be reasonable - with the proviso on 'the circumstances' - for a Chief Pilot to do the same ?

Tilii - I actually think NSF is right, so how about you wind yours in - a 'new chum' indeed, and which is especially rich when you later on launch in to one about DVL - and actually tilii there are several MAJOR airline FDO's and CP's that read and post on this site - just don't ask me how I know, but rest assured that I do

Buggs - I'm so far out of my depth it sometimes feels like the bottom of the Mariana's Trench, but I'm loving it; as did I the analogy of the bear and the lawyer - brilliant !

[lostinBRU]

Holt CJ.. Who said this is a fair world? Would you like to give us a dissertation on the selection methods used in your profession? (Whatever that is, and only if you can keep the word count down ).

Having many friends working in the "professions" outside of aviation, I can tell you that in terms of fairness, the methods DVLC advocates are positively saint like.

I don't know who DVLC is or which airline he works for, but the methods he talks about have one outstanding attribute.... THEY WORK!!
I think it may have been Churchill that described our Parliamentary system as "the pits" (paraphrase) but until somebody invents a better system, he'd stick with it. The parallel is obvious.

Like every industry, the odd bad egg gets to work from a position of power. But, the majority of people, the majority of the time, are right minded fair individuals.

The licence is nothing more than the ABSOLUTE MINIMUM required to apply for the job. The ability to fly is taken as given. It says NOTHING about the individual’s ability to mix in the Airline environment. Yours and a few other replies demonstrate that you know nothing about the business or the attributes required to prosper within it.

Even though I have been on the receiving end of a "bad mouth" for my current job, I'm here because, in the end, the individual doing the bad mouthing was discredited. I would still wholeheartedly endorse the method of seeking word of mouth recommendations where available.

If you don't want to fly with a Company that uses these methods as a selection tool, then stay out of the UK. Somehow I don't think we'll miss you.

[Holt CJ]

LostinBRU et all, if this were a fair world then there would be no need for lawyers. I apologise to all on this site if I am perceived to have proffered opinion where it was not wanted. I unreservedly accept that this is a site for pilots. Since I am not one, I will happily withdraw from any further comment beyond these last:

The pilot I represent, a true professional by the way, warned me that I might be surprised when accessing this site. I am more than surprised. I am dumbfounded, for I laboured under a misapprehension that pilots were all professionals, possessing all the requisite characteristics inherent in being so described. There are, I concede, a handful of contributors to this site who display those qualities, but the vast majority are clearly a squabbling, puerile, rabble with a very poor grasp of language and an even poorer grasp of what constitutes professional conduct, even good manners. Hopefully, the majority of the truly professional among you avoid contribution to PPRuNe, as I will now do.

To lostinBRU and my other antagonists I say that you have collectively managed to shatter my confidence in flying. I will now always wonder whether I am in the hands of the truly competent professional pilot or the complete imbecile. I do not thank you for that, but bid you a very good day.

[ 27 August 2001: Message edited by: Holt CJ ]

[ducksoup]

Phew, that`s a relief.

[The Guvnor]

Once again I must draw certain people's attention to the information on the home page, viz:

Air Traffic Controllers, Engineers, Cabin Crew, Operations, Crewing and Rostering staff are also welcome as well as anybody else with a connection or interest in professional aviation.

CJ Holt's interesting, informative and above all erudite posts on this thread were considerably more interesting than the misspelt drivel spouted by some.

I must concurr with him in that it appears to me that the quality of postings has diminished considerably and has become much more vicious - with attacks being made against individuals rather against the issues raised.

This has, to the best of my knowledge, resulted in at least two people saying that they no longer wish to participate in these forums within the past 24 hours.

I suggest that we look at his comments on conduct here: "I laboured under a misapprehension pilots were all professionals, possessing all the requisite characteristics inherent in being so described. There are, I concede, a handful of contributors to this site who display those qualities, but the vast majority are clearly a squabbling, puerile, rabble with a very poor grasp of language and an even poorer grasp of what constitutes professional conduct, even good manners."

Bad show, people.

[Ivan Ivanovich]

Holt CJ never professed to harbour a great understanding of aviation. His involvement here was to gain sufficient insight to represent an associate - who is or, it seems, was a professional pilot.

He has just summarised his new understanding and it ought to make disturbing reading to any professional pilots out there (whether accurate or not, it's still an outsider's view from participating in a pro pilots discussion forum).

We must agree surely that aviation as an industry operates somewhat differently to others. This is particulalry true with respect to pilot selection. Some airlines require candidates to endure nothing short of a minor pantomine when undergoing assessment. Others are able to rely quite successfully on the standard application form, skilled interviewer and aptitude assessment in the sim.

Why do some airlines find it essential to subject candidates to group excercises and discussions followed by sychometric testing, essay writing and maths exams.

It is perhaps just an example of airline selection personnel operating in a different World to the rest.

Many CPs and other senior personnel have often experienced nothing else but aviation. Many pilots believe inwardly (and some more overtly) that they are a cut above normal society. Holt CJ has experienced that here on this thread.

His postings have been fascinating as he attempted to understand how this industry works and how its various players think.

I hope he isn't discouraged from posting again.

Though I do agree; try and keep the word count down!

[tilii]

The Guvnor

Goodness me, Guv, I find myself in whole-hearted agreement with you! It has been a long time since I felt this way. It feels good.

On Holt CJ's words above, I must say I am very sorry to read what he says there but I too concur. In fact, I do feel that I have myself been guilty of being one of the "squabbling, puerile rabble". And that does not feel good.

What a shame to see such an interesting contributor withdraw. But who can blame him. Some of the attacks on this thread have been nothing short of downright malicious. Some lawyers may well deserve it, but there is no doubt that the majority do not. Much the same may be said of us pro pilots. Some are as Holt describes, some not. It does seem that there are too many of the former among PPRuNers.

I have learned a great deal from this thread, and not simply about the law.

Come back, Holt CJ, we need more of you on this website. But do try to keep the posts a little shorter, if only because some of us have a very brief attention span.