Quote Originally Posted by carl View Post
In the projects I have worked on, all the pilots seemed to be qualified. One or two unqualified slipped through but I attribute that to the normal flaws in the hiring process and not to any rush to get bodies in the seats.

Something I have noticed about the equipment operators is that at times, they seem to be hired based on computer proficiency almost to the exclusion of all else. We've had guys who didn't know what a mortar was or couldn't see the importance of using the phrase "apparent machine gun with a bipod" vs. "automatic weapons."
The more I look into this, the more I'm convinced that a lot of this is the fault of the hiring agencies. The great majority of job announcements are horribly mis-written, and the people who do screening and hiring go off the job requirements as written on the announcement.

The hiring folks are most often caught in a "box" mentality. With pilots, and other specialists, the box works, but in the less easily defined jobs, "boxing in" candidates actually gets you less qualified people. Add to this the problem of "qualifications". In my opinion, I would rather hire an unqualified guy who is trainable and adaptable, than a fully-qualified individual, who is not, except in those few cases where qualifications really matter. (I think Academia is the worst for leaning upon qualifications, where qualifications are functionally irrelevant.)

I've seen where a certain company requires knowledge of FARs for all employees hired, even the wheeled vehicle mechanics and trans/log weenies. It's obviously just some hack cutting and pasting an announcement that started as an A&P slot, but there it is, right on the requirements list.

I'm currently in competition for a job with a person who is more qualified on paper than I, (according to the job announcement) but if she gets the job, she will be an epic fail: The job announcement says that they are looking for "her", but in reality, what the really need is "me".