Improving the Pilot Pool

[Hotdogs]

This is the REAL underlying issue with the US Military...

 

I'm actually quite curious as to what this means.

[Fred0311]

 

 

I'm actually quite curious as to what this means.

 

I'd rather not hear about it. I'm sure it's inflammatory trolling. I already know the quality of my and my peers service, I'm more concerned about things that will help me have a successful career in aviation.

[Trans Lift]

If anything, I would say my weakness is interviewing. I have never really had a formal interview for a job in the helicopter industry and I have had 4. I always seem to get nervous at an interview or at the thought of one, even though I am quite a confident person and have never failed a checkride or exam. I don't know if it is to do with not wanting to be seen as incapable or showing weakness or some other weird subconscious thing going on in my head. Do others have this issue?

They knew me already at the flight school I went to and I got a job after my training. I guess what they knew about me was good enough. The other times it has been informal, go to the place, meet with the owner/chief pilot, chat for a while, they liked me and I got the job. I don't know if my Irish charm is amazing or if a lot of people go on what was mentioned above, 'will this guy fit in with my other staff and be easy going'.

I know of a guy that went to Heli-Expo this year, not really looking for a new job. Strolled into the job fair (not dressed to the nines but in jeans and a t-shirt) just to see what was going on. He chatted with some of the big operators there and was offered jobs and told that they would love to have him. He chatted with one of the head honchos from a very large EMS group for about an hour and got on great. I guess what I am trying to say that I think a lot of the process is attitude and willingness to be part of the team.

I am not saying that this is more important than having sufficient knowledge and skill but it plays a huge part.

I would consider myself professional and good at what I do but I still think I need to be a much better interviewee. Do those out there in the know (or who interview candidates on a regular basis) think that it is possible for someone to be poor at an interview but work out great on the job?

[Gunner]

If anything, I would say my weakness is interviewing. I have never really had a formal interview for a job in the helicopter industry and I have had 4. I always seem to get nervous at an interview or at the thought of one, even though I am quite a confident person and have never failed a checkride or exam. I don't know if it is to do with not wanting to be seen as incapable or showing weakness or some other weird subconscious thing going on in my head. Do others have this issue?

They knew me already at the flight school I went to and I got a job after my training. I guess what they knew about me was good enough. The other times it has been informal, go to the place, meet with the owner/chief pilot, chat for a while, they liked me and I got the job. I don't know if my Irish charm is amazing or if a lot of people go on what was mentioned above, 'will this guy fit in with my other staff and be easy going'.

I know of a guy that went to Heli-Expo this year, not really looking for a new job. Strolled into the job fair (not dressed to the nines but in jeans and a t-shirt) just to see what was going on. He chatted with some of the big operators there and was offered jobs and told that they would love to have him. He chatted with one of the head honchos from a very large EMS group for about an hour and got on great. I guess what I am trying to say that I think a lot of the process is attitude and willingness to be part of the team.

I am not saying that this is more important than having sufficient knowledge and skill but it plays a huge part.

I would consider myself professional and good at what I do but I still think I need to be a much better interviewee. Do those out there in the know (or who interview candidates on a regular basis) think that it is possible for someone to be poor at an interview but work out great on the job?

 

Yes... Previous to my career and sometimes during my career as a helo pilot I worked as a recruiter / headhunter in the telecom / software tech field. I'm outside of DC in what is know as Silicon Alley. I was a sales guy to the Federal govt. for years before flying full time. That transitioned in to a job as a headhunter. I've had countless fully qualified candidates that simply sucked at interviewing.... period. They were knowledgable, smart and driven people, they just crumbled under the pressure. The good hiring managers knew this and coud see beyond the interview stress. More often than not, most hiring managers were close minded and turned away a great candidate. Another thing that is interesting is that more than one interview is usually conducted. I've never been interviewed more than once for a helo job, so you better get it right the first time... But I have had numerous flight skills validations...

 

If any of you need interview advice / tips, PM me... I will give you my cell phone and we can talk about how to interview well and what some of the potential questions may be. I've spent years prepping candidates for job interviews.... I've also interviewed for helo jobs and gotten them so I'd be more than happy to pass along some of my thoughts and wisdom.

[rollthbns]

I would consider myself professional and good at what I do but I still think I need to be a much better interviewee. Do those out there in the know (or who interview candidates on a regular basis) think that it is possible for someone to be poor at an interview but work out great on the job?

 

Absolutely. "Interview Performance" is just a small part of the overall puzzle. Its easy to tell from an interviewers standpoint when nerves are playing a part. We have a few guys right now who were not the greatest interview, but had the key elements of what we were looking for and they are great people to have.

[r22butters]

"...They were knowledgable, smart and driven people, they just crumbled under the pressure. The good hiring managers knew this and coud see beyond the interview stress..."

 

Is there any concern that if someone crumbles under the stress of an interview, that they might crumble under the stress of certain flight situations? I only ask because I knew of an airline pilot who would get panic attacks in the cockpit!

Edited February 21, 2012 by r22butters

[Gunner]

"...They were knowledgable, smart and driven people, they just crumbled under the pressure. The good hiring managers knew this and coud see beyond the interview stress..."

 

Is there any concern that if someone crumbles under the stress of an interview, that they might crumble under the stress of certain flight situations? I only ask because I knew of an airline pilot who would get panic attacks in the cockpit!

 

Sure... There is always a concern... Hiring someone is a risk. My explanation above can go 180 degrees as well. I had plenty of people that killed the interview and got hired only to get canned down the road... Quickest was 2 weeks after starting a job one candidate of mine was sleeping at his desk and obviously hungover...

[Spike]

The majors called last night and asked if I could train up some greenhorns for future employment. They offered up a couple machines and bag full of cash to start a flight school. However, they demanded to know, what I was going to do to ensure these new guys could get past the pre-employment check-ride. This is what I told them…..

 

The incoming students need to be evaluated in order to gauge their potential for success. Just because they show up with $70k doesn’t necessary mean they can make it in this business. While this is not a wise business decision, I’d prefer not to have any malcontents representing the organization. The evaluation process starts at “hello”. Once past this evaluation process the training can begin.

 

The incoming instructors will understand; they are no different than any other working pilot in the industry. That is, even though they are teaching in a piston machine they are in fact, in the big leagues so act accordingly. Customer satisfaction is paramount and is a direct reflection of their efforts. If the CFI just wants to build time to move on to a turbine gig, then he or she can work elsewhere. Yes, instructors can and do burn out. However, in this organization instructor motivation will come in the form of cash. Each instructor will receive a bump in pay for on target, on task, on time, student pass rate. Furthermore, instructors will receive ongoing evaluation(s) to insure quality and cover all aspects of helicopter operations (insert acronyms here). This will include an evaluation from the student as well.

 

Each CFI will be assigned a student and from that point forward, the CFI is responsible for that student. All flight and ground instruction will be conducted “one-on-one”. No classroom type ground schools. No PowerPoint Presentations. White boards with dry markers and toy helicopters will be the tools utilized by the instructors to convey the lesson. Books with pages are to be used and logins, PDF’s, downloads used as teaching aids are discouraged.

 

All instruction will be based on PART 61 of the FAR’s. No 141. This school will not be profit driven and not concerned with “accreditation” or “VA approval”, or issuing Visas. Again, probably a bad business decision but the entire staff needs to focus on the customers and not on paperwork. However, 141 type of documentation including a syllabus will follow students as well as the instructors.

 

Once students grasp the basics, SBT will be implemented. Every flight will be flown as a mission. The training will be task focused oriented. Simply put, the student and instructor act as a team and accomplish the required mission successfully, -or not. If not, the instructor will document the what, when, why and how corrective action is going to be taken.

 

Once the student has completed the basic ground knowledge portion, ground sessions will include SBT. That is, application of all of the ground knowledge tasks into multi-faceted think sessions (maybe additional acronyms here).

 

Once the student nears the completion of commercial phase, he or she will have been exposed to the edges of the aircraft envelope including full-down autorotation proficiency.

 

Pre check-rides will be conducted by the Chief Pilot or his designee. Designees can, and are encouraged to be outside experienced pilots.

 

By the end of the training the student will have gained CFII certification and have been exposed to every sector of the industry via a scenario. Student and instructor evaluations can and will occur at any time. UNSAT evals require remedial training by the Chief Pilot or his designee. Any 2 consecutive UNSAT evals and the student or instructor are required to have a sit-down with the head honcho. All UNSAT evals require a written report.

 

Commercial operators and pilots will be invited to come by and spend time and fly with students and instructors. These operators and pilots will see the level of commitment and attention to detail which hopefully leads to jobs in the future (kind of like pro Baseball scouts). Plus, it would get the CFI’s and students out of their comfort zone.

 

Sometime during the training, the student will receive a “career development” or “professionalism” class. This will be the only time the student sits in a class room with other students and receives information via PPP. The instructors will be working professionals from outside the organization. They will impart the knowledge of every sector of the industry and outline, in detail, what the expectations are. Following this will be interview techniques provided by outside HR professionals and Chief Pilots including video analysis of each student during a mock interview. Resume and cover letter writing will be covered as well. This is not a pass or fail class, and “when” it occurs is still up for debate.

 

Upon graduation, the CFII is expected to have enough money left over to travel to interviews. The graduate should be confident in the training they have received and hold themselves to that high standard. Once hired, they should remember how they got there because now they are in the big leagues……

 

Oh crap, the majors called back. They said the deal was off and I was out of my freaking mind… Maybe so.... One thing is for sure tho,,, It was all biased on my opinion……

Edited February 21, 2012 by Spike

[Pohi]

Sounds like a good model for a school to me. A school building career professionals and not just exchanging piles of money for certificates.

 

On that note, I heard a while ago that there was going to be tracking (and the ability for employers to check) not only the certificates a pilot has but the pass/fail that it took to get them. Did this ever happen, or was that something I misunderstood?

[Mikemv]

Spike, thanks for taking the time to put that together. It sure addresses a lot of issues that the industry could certainly fix. If you had applied the modern FITS Methodology to the training phase it would be near perfect. Scenario Interjection Training still leaves us with pilots lacking HOTS ingrained ab initio.

 

E-mail me and let me send you the FIRC/Wings PP presentation "An Intro to Fits SBT Methodology"

[C of G]

 

Is there any concern that if someone crumbles under the stress of an interview, that they might crumble under the stress of certain flight situations? I only ask because I knew of an airline pilot who would get panic attacks in the cockpit!

 

I've seen an interviewer use just that technique on interviews. His thought was to break them down and see how they handle the pressure. I believe what he believed was that on an interview, generally it's not real you they see, but your representative and that isn't always an accurate portrayal. That and you will be faced with pressure in this line of work and how that pressure is processed and handled speaks volumes about a pilot.

[r22butters]

"...mock interview. Resume and cover letter writing will be covered..."

 

This reminds me of a question I've been meaning to ask for a while now, one I guess I should address to the younger crowd;

 

Do they not teach this in high school anymore?,...because they did when I went.

[Azhigher]

This reminds me of a question I've been meaning to ask for a while now, one I guess I should address to the younger crowd;

 

Do they not teach this in high school anymore?,...because they did when I went.

 

No, they don't.

 

Sidenote: The key to nailing down a tour job is to have basic knowledge abour regs and the A/C you're flying currently. Never let them know if the job you're interviewing for is actually your second choice, that really ticks off training directors. Also, be outgoing. You're probably going to be sweating bullets but they are looking for people with the right personality to give a good tour. (Not to mention they will have to be around you for a while)

[JDHelicopterPilot]

I know I have been off the Radar for a little while lately. So much been going on in my little world.

 

What I will say is I am excited to see the changes that are coming about with FITS,SBT and more. As a student I was left wondering what was the difference between a Private Pilot and a Commercial Pilot. All I knew about were the hour requirements needed to get that Commercial training completed. The only SBT training I got was a mock photo flight over the runway numbers (OGE) with an simulated engine failure. One time, that was it.

 

I strongly feel and also instructed this way after much research, that the Commercial level training needed to include simulated real world flying. Example, EMS, Photo, ENG, Charter, Tour and so on. Infused into those flights were simulated chip lights, GOV failures, engine failures and so forth. It provided the student with a very clear picture of "real world" flying. Sadly, I had to research and develop this method pretty much on my own back then. I am glad to see the FAA taking the steps to change the way helicopter pilots are trained. I am glad to see schools moving towards this style of training.

 

It will take time, effort but if we (students, Pilots and instructors) demand it then this change will come.

[Wally]

Very nice, Spike.

 

A very small quibble- this is ALL "Big League". Single pilot VFR piston with minimal bells and whistles can be realy challenging, you don't have a lot to work with when the issue comes. On the other hand, two pilots, multiple engines, autopilot, moving map, and every kind of doo-dad invented on board can be a handful- it means you can be really, really deep in the... "problem" when it arises. That's why one buys "big iron", to do what you can't with simpler machines.

And that kinda gets to a gripe I have with lots of pilots, not just newly minted nuggets - This is always the "big time", everybody paying me is a 'major'. The checks spend the same whether it says Uncle Sam or Uncle Bob on it, and the boss wants as much out of the machine as it'll give- which is the pilot's job, getting the maximum bang for the buck without banging it up.

Everybody with a ticket is presumed to have the basics. The potential pilot's attitude is what counts, that's what indicates what to expect from the next flight. That's not fancy interview skills, it's just honest and direct presentation that will sell. Nobody hires you for your last flight, they hire for the next one...

Edited February 22, 2012 by Wally

[SBuzzkill]

I've always been of the opinion that one should make it a goal to become an expert in whatever you fly. If you're training for a private pilot license then study the manual and know the aircraft inside and out. I felt like a lot of guys during my training, including the CFIs teaching me, only wanted to accomplish training to the standard. If it was needed to pass a checkride that's all we went over. Why wouldn't you want to go further? The only way I was able to get more out of my training was by hanging around the lounge and BSing with the CFIs, because it certainly wasn't worked into their curriculum.

[Hotdogs]

I felt like a lot of guys during my training, including the CFIs teaching me, only wanted to accomplish training to the standard. If it was needed to pass a checkride that's all we went over. Why wouldn't you want to go further?

 

That's a pretty simple question to answer. Not everyone wants to be a commercial pilot. The amount of knowledge required to pass a private pilots check pales in comparison to what a 1500 hr CFII would be expected to know going to his interview.

[colberc1]

Mike,

 

I am sure I do not have anywhere near the number of hours as most people on this thread, but from what I have seen in my training, I think the answer to your question is fairly straightforward.

 

I think a large portion of what you are talking about comes down to having the time to incorporate more training into a flight program. CFI's teach to the test, because in short, that is what the students need to know, and few students want to "waste" the extra time and money on learning concepts "more in depth" than what the FAA has deemed necessary, and what companies require of their new hires.

 

I think (right, wrong or indifferent), that there is an attitude of if I don't need it for my checkride, I'm not going to "waste" my time studying it. Take the Military for example. In every aspect of Army flight training, they have recently cut down the flight hours afforded to students, as well as the oral time with instructors. This results in simply too much information being pushed onto a student, and unfortunately they must prioritize.

 

If you know that A, B and C WILL be asked on your checkride, why would you allocate valuable time studying D and E. I'm not saying this is correct, just an unfortunate truth.

 

In my opinion, the fix to this lies with the companies doing hiring, at least to some extent. If companies demand "higher quality" more knowledgeable pilots, flight schools will be forced to change their training to incorporate the training that has been mentioned in this thread in order for their students to be competitive.

 

With the stagnant market that aviation has seen over the last 5 years, selection should afford employers the opportunity to screen prospective pilots more stringent, then set the standard in initial and recurrent training.

 

The bottom line: If companies are willing to hire a mediocre pilot, flight schools will continue to train to mediocrity.

[R22139RJ]

In my short career as a CFI I have had the opportunity to work with a wide range of students. I have had the opportunity to teach pilots from a wide range of backgrounds, pilots who fly charter in King Airs, F18s, Crop Dusters, Police and the typical private to CFII students.

 

I haven't had one initial student going from private to CFI that showed a spec of the dedication of what I refer to as professional pilots. I remember going through my training and every night pouring over the books and reviewing what my instructor told me to read. When you tell someone to read a chapter on GPS approaches in the AIM prior to doing them in the helicopter and they don't, there is nothing an instructor can do. You can throw any SBT scenario at someone but if they don't apply themselves to learn the basics, there is not much use in it.

 

There is the morally high road of refuse to fly and postpone their training but lets face it, money dictates everything. If they want to hack it through a check ride and not dedicate themselves to their career, that's fine by me. I can't care about their rating more than they do. I'll put in as much effort to teach as they put in to learn. When a commercial pilot has to be reminded to sign of the Robinson AD every time we fly, I give up. The other hand, employed pilots that want to fly helicopters to further their career are the best students. They understand what it takes to get to the level or a professional pilots and have the most ability. They are the ones showing up an hour early for a flight to study, who demand hours of ground review nailing concepts over and over. Those students make me love my job.

 

I think work ethic is to blame for poor performance. I also told myself that the ground portion is the part of a checkride I can control. You have a PTS, this is what you should know so I made sure I knew it. A student can only afford to fly so much.

 

I heard a rumor that the PTS is going to change and require SBT on checkrides for everything after private. Anyone else hear this?

[r22butters]

Yes, it is true that money dictates everything. I ran into this problem myself during instrument training, but just because I don't want to spend more money, and time, than I have to, to learn more about the GPS than I need to for the checkride, does not mean that I won't go back AFTERWARDS WHEN IT WON'T COST ME ANY MORE MONEY!

 

I'm sure there are plenty of us who further our knowledge (post checkrides). We just don't want to waste money having a CFII teach us something we can learn on our own!

[r22butters]

...When a commercial pilot has to be reminded to sign of the Robinson AD every time we fly, I give up...

 

Could you elaborate?

[Pohi]

Yes, it is true that money dictates everything. I ran into this problem myself during instrument training, but just because I don't want to spend more money, and time, than I have to, to learn more about the GPS than I need to for the checkride, does not mean that I won't go back AFTERWARDS WHEN IT WON'T COST ME ANY MORE MONEY!

 

I'm sure there are plenty of us who further our knowledge (post checkrides). We just don't want to waste money having a CFII teach us something we can learn on our own!

 

If you can learn the info on your own, and have the desire to do so, why wait until after your checkride to learn it? Why not take the initiative to learn everything you can on your own time?

 

I'm not talking about you specifically, but this theory I see a lot and don't understand. I think the saying "your pilot certificate is a certificate to learn" sets the wrong mentality. This wasn't intended to mean a person should squeak by a checkride with the absolute minimum knowledge/ability then "learn" the rest later.

 

It's like another post said in the last few days, students should have the desire to learn all they can about flying. An instructor shouldn't have to force somebody to read or study, they should be there to guide and explain concepts that the student didn't understand, and help design the students study plan.

 

I have had several students that I have asked them to read something before the next flight, and they just don't do it. I then have to cancel their flight and do a ground, basically reading the info to them instead of a 10 min review and a flight.

 

Or the commercial student who is supposed to go on a cross country flight and shows up 20 min before the scheduled launch time, and has nothing planned.

 

I know all students are not like this, but I have seem it happen way too much. Too much, to the point of when I actually have somebody come prepared for a flight I am suprised.

[r22butters]

If you can learn the info on your own, and have the desire to do so, why wait until after your checkride to learn it? Why not take the initiative to learn everything you can on your own time?

 

In my case, time (or the lack of it) was the biggest issue. Then there's the question of; "If I spend too much time on things I'm not going to be tested on, I may forget something that I am?". Remember, there's still a sh*t-load of stuff a student MUST know (especislly for the Private),...and I can only cram so much into my meager little brain at a time!

 

As for students not preparing for the next lesson (the way you ask them too), that's a mystery to me as well!?

[RagMan]

Comes back to the FOI's (Fundamentals of Instruction.) Pohi, what you need to figure out is why your student(s) continue to have those attitudes about learning to fly. Might be beneficial to sit down for 10 minutes and chat to the ones having the issues. Figure out why they don't have the motivation to study the material; Could simply be zero interest in wanting to learn how to fly. If that's the case, I'm not saying you should try to convince them not to fly, but mention that it'd be a waste of time and money on their part to try and accomplish something they have no real desire pursue.

 

That's just one example of course. Motivation, lack of seeing the end result, no true desire to be a pilot (but maybe someone is paying for them to be there), procrastinators (try to study at the last minute but never take in the material that they should be due to lack of study time), etc.

 

We have quite a few guys at our school who are simply here because the Veterans Affairs is flipping the bill. It's not that they want to be career pilots, but that someone is paying for them to be here. Therefore, they have a lack of motivation and/or desire to fly 3-4 times per week because it's just not in their best interest to do so. Following me?

 

I'd suggest though flipping through the Aviation Instructors Handbook at some of the FOI material again, Pohi. You should be able to find your answer on student attitudes as well as hopefully figure out a remedy for it. Plus, it'd be a good refresher for you!

Edited February 27, 2012 by RagMan

[Pohi]

I see your point, I haven't looked at the FOI since my last CFI student. Thats one area I dont review, which I should.

 

As for the lack of motivation, I think they just want to fly. As in, do the fun stuff, but not any of the work to be a professional pilot.

 

Fortunately for me now, I just do instruction on the side for people I choose, not people a flight school tells me to teach. Therefore, I don't see this problem anymore. If they don't do the ground study, I don't teach them.

Edited February 27, 2012 by Pohi