500h Time on Type HR Rule goes a step further!
 

So, imagine you are an unemployed Test Pilot or ex Space Shuttle driver and you can't get a job with an airline because now the only way in is the MPL. So if you can't beat em, join em as an FI:

But if you want to be an instructor for an airline cadet scheme you need 500h on type used by the school such as C172 ! If you have 2000h on a C150/PA38/Tucano/T38/Hawk/Yak 52..... forget it !

"experienced JAA FAA ICAO licensed Flight Instructors in Turkish Airlines Positions will be available for an immediate start, subject to the clients assessment. These are permanent positions for an expanding Flight School that offer Flight Instructors the potential within their career to move into an Airline First Officer position (subject to criteria & First Officer selection). An excellent package is on offer in a desirable location. Interested candidates MUST meet the following minimum criteria in order to be eligible: - JAA ICAO FAA Flight Instructor License - Medical - Minimum of 500 Instructor hours on types below - experienced on aircraft types: C172 & DA-42, C510 - 1500 hours total flight time - 4 Year Bachelor Degree from University For further details please submit your resume, selections will be ongoing and suitably qualified candidates will be contacted with further details."

I fail to see the problem. They're looking for instructors who have taught in C172's. That doesn't seem like a particularly tough requirement to meet. It's an extremely popular trainer.

The problem, angel, is that you seem to think the job market should conform to some level of fairness- that the fact that you don't meet a particular requirement through no fault of your own should be taken into account.

It doesn't work that way. Employers can set any criteria they want, and if sufficient qualified staff are available, have neither the motivation nor moral imperative to do otherwise.

Sometimes advertisements are deliberately written to allow foreigners to be employed in preference to less well-qualified locals. Maybe for an injection of a better safety 'culture;' to keep a lid on wages, or whatever.
If they can't attract applicants with the exact criteria they seek, and depending on their desperation level, employers have been known to change the rules to suit.
If they can get applicants with the criteria they seek, then for those that don't have it, tough titties.
It is always the employer's train set.

Come on.
 

I must say I think the whole thing looked pretty normal apart from the requirement to have a 4 year degree.

Really, you need a four year degree to instruct on a 172? I know you don't need one but I think this is a requirement that's a little too over the top.

WizofOz
 

"It doesn't work that way. Employers can set any criteria they want"

Errr, no they can't actually. Certainly not in the EU anyhow.

It is totally illegal to mention age or sex, sexual orientation, ethnicity, religion or disability in any job advert.

That isn't to say that discrimination can take place during the subsequent stages of a process due to any number of factors which may be difficult to prove.

Positive discrimination CAN be used when selecting someone for a role, such as this: You have an office role which is suited to people of any age. However, you have a majority of young staff in place. Therefore, a 66 year female may well be an equally good candidate compared to a 23 year old graduate. As an employer you CAN offer the job with a reasoning such as "she will give us a slightly different demographic fit".

But, that is of course different to advertising for positions which require certain skill sets - such as 500 hours on type. This IS legal and as you say can and is used.

I can assure you there is no shortage of FIs that meet the requirements, there are over 200 active applications in the system, all meet the 500 hr on the types specified. The argument that mixed types or other types should be considered does not hold water I'm sorry to say. For the younger lucky ones this could be a good break with potential for mainstream employment at the end.. but please don't think this way if you are a 45 year old FI you will not get a chance to go on the Jet fleets due to the recruitment criteria.

Movement up the Chain
 

I can't speak for the rest of the world but in Australia Cathay Pacific, Singapore Flying College and China Southern Flying College just to name a few have all at different times advertised for instructors with the mention of "possible movement to airline" as a carrot.

As of today I only know of CX actually taking some of its instructors as cadets. The funny thing is by the time they had an interview they would have been able to apply anyway with the lifting of the HK residents only criteria.

Kirks, you know instructors who posses a 4 year Bachelor Degree? Last time I checked 4 year degrees were usually for Engineering, Law and Medicine. Why would you be instructing if you had one of these qualifications? Unless of course it was weekends only because flying was your hobby and not your main source of income. USA excluded of course where a 4 year degree is required for just about anything aviation.

It also states that the instructors can have a JAA, FAA or ICAO licence but to move up you have to fit the airline criteria. That would be JAA ticket and EU citizenship. So they will accept instructors from anywhere but how many are eligable to upgrade?

How else can one give a lesson about the "Angle of the Dangle, Heat of the Meat, and the Mass of the A$$" without a four year degree?:}

Narrow Runway,

-Turkey is not in the EU

-" Positive Discrimination" is an oxymoron. To "Discriminate" means to "Choose between", you can't do it positively or negatively. If you mean "Fairly" as opposed to "Unfairly", the point must be made that any discrimination means choosing one candidate over the other, which would have to be a "Negative" to the one that misses out.

WizofOz
 

Thanks for the lesson in EU membership states.

I think I did state that "certainly not in the EU anyhow". Perhaps I wasn't clear enough for you, in that this statement made the implied attempt to point out that Turkey is indeed not in the EU. Perhaps next time I will try even harder.

Indeed you are correct about positive discrimination adversely affecting the loser.

However, did I suggest anything differently? I think I just said that positive discrimination is a legal basis on which to make a choice. Oxymoron or not!!

As we were discussing an employment opportunity in a non EU state, what was the relevance of your post at all?

You gave a long winded diatribe about a particular set of rules in a particular jurisdiction, as if it invalidated my post, when what we were discussing had nothing to do with the EU.

You have also missed the point that the term "Positive Discrimination" is meaningless. Even using your flawed definition of the word "Discrimination", if one is advantaged while another is disadvantaged, where does it become "Positive"?

I guarantee you will not find the term "positive discrimination" used in any legal sense in the EU or anywhere else.

WizofOz
 

I gave a 6 paragraph reply of less than 200 words, of which 1 paragraph and 12 words were a repeat of yours.

Firstly, the definition of a diatribe is: "A bitter, abusive denunciation".

Was my initial response fitting with this definition?

Secondly, your useless guarantee of finding no reference to positive discrimination was used only a few days ago by none other than the London Metropolitan Police, here:

Met police in talks over law change to allow positive discrimination | UK news | The Guardian

Or, if you prefer, this guy seems to know a thing or two about the matter:

HR ?should not be afraid to use positive discrimination? - People Management Magazine Online

You may also find many other legal references to positive discrimination on a reputable search engine.

Finally, when I have to bend over and accept your permission to post on a subject - rightly or wrongly - will be the day the democracy dies, EU or non EU.

Now be fair: You don't own this forum and you certainly don't own my right to reply.

Mind you, in the Middle East you're not allowed to think out loud are you?

From what the OP wrote, neither he nor the advert mentioned any of those things; only a requirement for relevant flying qualifications / experience.

Shy torque
 

Exactly. Positive discrimination in action perhaps? Or not, as the case may be.

Oh no. so upsetting.

N-R

Headlines are not legal documents- you have still not produced a legal use of the term "Positive discrimination".

No, I can't stop you posting, nor do I seek to.

I can point out when you posts are completely irrelevant to the topic at hand, which they were- and can do so without the type of childish dig you included at the end of your last post.

Another debate dissolves into semantics.

I think most people with common sense understand the concept of positive discrimination in this age of HR lead recruitment. However, whether it is of any relevance here is very questionable!

the madness continues!
 

Shame about the thread creep here.

Back to Angel's thread starter:

1. Perhaps Angel was being extreme to provoke a response but there is truth in the ludicrous requirement when seen from an non US perspective. What if the instructor had 1000 h on an PA34 Seneca and 1000h on a PA28 Archer but only 50h on a C172 duirng Private licence flying or 12h DA42 on a MEP renewal?

2. Thankfully more enlightened schools recruit ex shuttle pilots:

https://aps.infusionsoft.com/app/lin...35d90044ac0a5e

This is the school KLM chose for Upset training.

3. Kirks Gusset states "The argument that mixed types or other types should be considered does not hold water I'm sorry to say."

Since when has flying or teaching ability been dependent on simple aircraft platform - see point 1 above? Absolute nonsense olde chap!

The fact is the 500h (possibly burning holes in the sky) on specific SEP and MEP aircraft of such simple configuration is pointless from a quality of instructor selection perspective. The only purpose is to assist HR departments to prevent/sift out those who don't have that specific time. A simple filter technique not aimed at getting the best staff.

Had the ad read 500h of Commercial or Military Flight Instruction with relevant licences then not only would more experienced and possibly more suitable candidates be included but the airline would likely get better training by focusing not on the platform but on the product of the training - the output standard (handling, CRM and airmanship) of the cadet/student pilot.

Sadly the commercial world is guilty of undervaluing the instructor role until a pilot gains TRE status. If the airline put it's best teachers (from engineers to Captains) through such a flight school on proper pay then the students would reap relevant experience, the schools would gain useful oversight and the airline would see a better product more suited to its operations.

Most military's value instructors far more highly - yes some pilots are "creamed off" at an early stage (instruct straight after wings) but the majority do front line tours on relevant types before returning for instructional tours.

Overall I think Angel's points are similar to a commentator about Asia/China pilot shortages and CTC on Bloomberg:

"For the experienced aviator applying for jobs HR departments now demand "time on type" - imagine you were going for an HGV job and you had 1,000000 miles on a Volvo truck/rig but the HR dept says sorry you need at 1000 miles on a Ford truck for this job - absolute madness - a real pilot can fly any aircraft safety and with maximum efficiency - and when things go wrong (and they do!) they do not panic but use their experience and airmanship (like Sullenberger in the A320 Hudson River ditching http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U... ) to sort things out. "