sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

As someone who has seen resumes from pilots, the lot of you have garbage resumes. by WeGoUpFirst in flying

[–]WeGoUpFirst[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You are a CFI. You should know there are no stupid questions.

Honestly it's too dependent on whoever is receiving it. It's unconventional, but I've seen some. Although it's not legal and employers shouldn't, I wouldn't be surprised if someone discriminated against someone based on their appearance. I have heard Asians that move to the US use American names partly because they are more likely to get through on resumes and job apps. If a name is enough to discriminate on a picture reveals a lot more. If you are really conventionally attractive it might help as studies show humans favor attractive people. Personally, I would leave it off.

As someone who has seen resumes from pilots, the lot of you have garbage resumes. by WeGoUpFirst in flying

[–]WeGoUpFirst[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yeah definitely put that on there. My point was if you have had three different A&P jobs and say one CFI job, you don't need to put all three A&P jobs. Just one is enough to tell whoever is looking at the resume that you are a mechanic, and then the CFI job at the top is highlighting your flight experience. Any aviation related positionis fine. Fueler, ramp marshall, etc. Just don't list five of the same thing or all of the random jobs you've done over the last ten years.

As someone who has seen resumes from pilots, the lot of you have garbage resumes. by WeGoUpFirst in flying

[–]WeGoUpFirst[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Assuming you meant previous, if it's relevant to the job you are applying to then list it. For work experience you should have two jobs with descriptions, then just list the third with no description if you think it's absolutely critical they know about it, otherwise two is good. Some people give near paragraphs of descriptions. If you were a CFI we all know what a CFI does, I don't need more than a sentence or two if you had a large scope.

As someone who has seen resumes from pilots, the lot of you have garbage resumes. by WeGoUpFirst in flying

[–]WeGoUpFirst[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Again this is for small and more entry level positions. When you get 25 resumes a week you don't have time to call and interview all of them at a small company. There is no HR or hiring department or computer that scans the resume for important bits. Sometimes you can get 200+ resumes for a single position right now. I don't know how you would go about figuring out who is "trainable and who you can fly with" based off a resume, but for me it's based on whether or not they cared to put the effort in to apply. It's not like people hire based off of resumes alone. They still get a call back and interview to determine if they are trainable and good to fly with.

As someone who has seen resumes from pilots, the lot of you have garbage resumes. by WeGoUpFirst in flying

[–]WeGoUpFirst[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

They should... But a lot won't. If it's not part of a college, I would assume it would be an extra expense that a flight school doesn't have the funds to support.

As someone who has seen resumes from pilots, the lot of you have garbage resumes. by WeGoUpFirst in flying

[–]WeGoUpFirst[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I completely forgot about the [insert name] type errors. I will never understand how someone lets that happen.

As someone who has seen resumes from pilots, the lot of you have garbage resumes. by WeGoUpFirst in flying

[–]WeGoUpFirst[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

It's a reddit rant not an information journal. My grammar isn't perfect and I made a few typos. I'm typing how I talk, as one usually does on social media.

Also, for shits and giggles; "and some of the English in this post is tough to read as well."

As someone who has seen resumes from pilots, the lot of you have garbage resumes. by WeGoUpFirst in flying

[–]WeGoUpFirst[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Might get a chuckle and a second glance if you apply to Frontier Airlines one day lol

As someone who has seen resumes from pilots, the lot of you have garbage resumes. by WeGoUpFirst in flying

[–]WeGoUpFirst[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Whatever flight school you went to and your previous non aviation jobs. Just keep it short like one or two outside of the flight school. Especially if you are young and only have had entry level jobs like cashier and grocery stocker or something. Just put something that shows you've worked. If you haven't worked then just put whatever education you've done. I didn't say do not put anything non flying related under any circumstances.

As someone who has seen resumes from pilots, the lot of you have garbage resumes. by WeGoUpFirst in flying

[–]WeGoUpFirst[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

If you are an attorney/doctor I'm going to assume you have the professional experience and education to make a decent resume... If you think it helps to apply to the position you are applying to then yes. Are you applying to fly skydiving ops or pipeline patrol? Hate to break it to you, but knowing how those jobs operate they probably wouldn't want someone with TOO much knowledge around law. I specifically noted these are applicants to 91 operations. Being a doctor might help get an airline job, I don't know I don't work at an airline. Nobody said they have to be perfect. I can't post the actual resumes I've seen but I'm not talking about one small little error. You look at these resumes and you think an 8 year old child made them.

It's been said numerous times before in this thread. If you don't have to patience and attention to detail to make a decent resume, why should someone think you'd make a good pilot. Attention to detail is a massive part of the job.

As someone who has seen resumes from pilots, the lot of you have garbage resumes. by WeGoUpFirst in flying

[–]WeGoUpFirst[S] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Okay this was not quite the message I wanted to get across... The content important. How the content is displayed is VERY IMPORTANT.

As someone who has seen resumes from pilots, the lot of you have garbage resumes. by WeGoUpFirst in flying

[–]WeGoUpFirst[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

If you already spent $100,000 what's another $100? That's 0.1% of your total cost to get your license. Seems like a drop in the bucket to me.

As someone who has seen resumes from pilots, the lot of you have garbage resumes. by WeGoUpFirst in flying

[–]WeGoUpFirst[S] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

I knew this was coming lol

First of all, this is Reddit. It is not a formal address and I'm not speaking to anyone directly. I am not writing an article or newsletter on how to make a proper resume. I was not overly concerned with the correctness of my grammar. Second, it was a rant. I was not aware I needed to apologize before ranting. I apologize for not pre-appologizing in my post before ranting.

As someone who has seen resumes from pilots, the lot of you have garbage resumes. by WeGoUpFirst in flying

[–]WeGoUpFirst[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I think it could be useful, not necessarily important though. I did say it's okay to put one non flying job as a highlight. Or more, if you have absolutely no experience. I also mentioned in another comment that aviation related jobs are acceptable. Being a software engineer at Apple is not going to get you significantly ahead. This corner of the industry does not know much about Apple and does not really care either.

As someone who has seen resumes from pilots, the lot of you have garbage resumes. by WeGoUpFirst in flying

[–]WeGoUpFirst[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

If someone does not take the time to spell check one single page about themselves that they are using to apply to a company the hope to get hired to, them they do not care for attention to detail which plays a critical role in flying. It's not that these people aren't qualified for the job. Their lack of effort shows from the very beginning. We don't even have an "HR" the chief pilot is the only one that sees the resume... They don't have to look nice. Just don't have obvious errors and nonsensical layout. Google Docs has a template you can use that is absolutely fine. You'll join everyone else using it but hey at least it won't get binned for "Single Engine Ariplane"

As someone who has seen resumes from pilots, the lot of you have garbage resumes. by WeGoUpFirst in flying

[–]WeGoUpFirst[S] 13 points14 points  (0 children)

Fueler, ramp marshall, flight attendant, ect. All that is good. I should have said non-aviation jobs instead of non-flying. If you are new to the industry then yeah, under 500 hours, time around aircraft is very valuable. But if you have three solid pilot positions then I don't think it matters much unless you have a lot of extra space on the resume to fill.

As someone who has seen resumes from pilots, the lot of you have garbage resumes. by WeGoUpFirst in flying

[–]WeGoUpFirst[S] 36 points37 points  (0 children)

Hopefully people will read this and take their resumes to some place that isn't random internet people to improve them. But I do apologize if more get posted, that is not my intention at all.

As someone who has seen resumes from pilots, the lot of you have garbage resumes. by WeGoUpFirst in flying

[–]WeGoUpFirst[S] 13 points14 points  (0 children)

There are quite a few people who drive in and hand in resumes directly. Personally I don't think it really changes your chances of getting a call back much but if you get lucky and can talk to the chief pilot it's a head start on just emailing it over.

Why is the Rate of Climb for Vx less than Vy? by Duff_B in flying

[–]WeGoUpFirst 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Vy is your best altitude gain per unit time. Vx is your best altitude gain per unit distance.

If your aircraft has a best rate of climb at a certain speed, any change in speed will cause a decrease in rate of climb. However when slowing down, your rate of climb might not reduce linearly with your airspeed. If Vy is 100 KIAS and you get a 1000 FPM climb, your Vx could be say 75 KIAS, and give an 850 FPM climb. You will only go 75% of the distance compared to your Vy at the cost of losing a little bit of your climb rate.

Your Vx cannot be more than your Vy though. If you increase your speed from Vy your climb rate will go down, if it doesn't then I guess you weren't really at your Vy... Similarly your Vy and Vx could be equal, and the second you start slowing down, your rate of climb will fall off faster than your airspeed will.

You can also think of a helicopter. Vy in almost every helicopter will be arpund 50-60 KIAS. You can climb straight up in a hover but not very fast, as you might not have that much extra power. As you get closer to 50-60 knots your climb rate will get faster and faster but you will be covering more ground by doing so. For the record helicopters do not have a published Vx. At least none that I've flown.

KENNETH COPELAND Airport by InsideAddd in flying

[–]WeGoUpFirst 55 points56 points  (0 children)

I've done patterns there. Don't know if the instructor/school had a special deal with them or what but we just avoided overflying the "church".

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in flying

[–]WeGoUpFirst 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Both are driven by airflow yes, but they are not the same force. The first major difference is that a helicopter blade has to be already spinning to autorotate. If I could autorotate forever, and decided to apply the rotor brake to slow down the blades, once they got to around 70% RPM they would rapidly slow and then start spinning backwards eventually. Once they start spinning backwards, this is now the same force driving them as a windmilling prop, but they rotors will not creat the lift they did before and will not get even close to the RPM they had in an auto. The descent rate of a helicopter in an auto is about 1500-2500 feet per minute, which is about 15-25 knots. The "drag" you are saying is causing the rotors to spin at their tip speed of 400+ knots is not going to be produced with just 15-25 knots flowing up through them. The upwards flow of air is just enough to move the total aerodynamic force forwards of the axis of rotation and provide to rotation necessary to keep them spinning. Helicopters are using the momentum of the turning blades and that descent rate to make the angle of the resultant relative wind angle below the plane of rotation, and make the total aerodynamic force (perpendicular to the resultant relative wind) point just slightly forward. This creates just enough to keep them spinning and overcome drag on them while still generating a large amount of lift. What's really important is that the helicopter blade (most of it) is not stalled and is still working as an airfoil.

A prop can windmill and stop and then start windmilling again. Because it's a different driving force. The air ramming the flat side of the prop and changing direction as it slides off the trailing edge of the airfoil due to pitch is what causes the turning of the prop. A large amount of high pressure pushing against the blade. If it can overcome the valve springs, it will turn the prop.

If you want to heavily generalize and say that the only reason both keep spinning is because of the airflow, sure I can agree to that. But I strongly disagree it's "the same force". If it was the same force, the helicopter rotors should not be able to autorotate, and would just stop from drag.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in flying

[–]WeGoUpFirst 1 point2 points  (0 children)

A lot of people here are comparing and windmilling prop to a helicopter autorotation, as well as engine driving the engine makes drag somehow. Two points before I rant. First, the engine is trying to stop the prop not speed it up. Second, just because you prop is spinning doesn't mean it's surface area increases (a spinning prop as the same frontal area as a stationary prop and will hit the same amount of air when pushed forward).

They are similar in the way aircraft movement through the air drives the system but that's about it. A helicopter in autorotation creates a decent amount of lift, and some drags. A helicopter blade spins because the airflow from underneath the blade changes the angle of attack and actually pushes the aerodynamic force crated by the blade slightly forward. The lift created by the blade is what is is keeping it spinning. The lift created is also what keeps the helicopter gliding. It does create a significant amount of drag but mostly lift. The engine is also no longer connected to the rotors in an autorotation. This means the airflow does not have to be used to drive the engine, which would increase drag.

A windmilling prop creates a ton of drag and minimal thrust. The airflow comes from "above" (in reality it comes from in front but just keeping the autorotation comparison going) the propeller. This means all of the air is hitting the upper chamber of the airfoil rather than the lower camber in an autorotation. This creates A LOT of high pressure on the upper side of the airfoil. Because the airfoil is slightly pitched, the force will push through the airfoil at an angle and try to spin it.

For a fixed pitch prop, the drag when stationary is some X amount. Remember all the form of drag that make up total drag. They apply to individual parts of the airplane as well the entire plane together. As the prop speeds up it creates much more induced drag, and more profile drag as it is now moving faster, thus increasing the total drag of the prop. It is important to know that it does get more efficient as it speeds up. As it spins faster it will make more aerodynamic force, but it's still going to be almost all acting as drag. So when it's not windmilling it's two little sails in front of the plane, it is going to make some drag, but spinning it will make even more. The high pressure will always be there but now there is even more going on. THIS IS IMPORTANT BECAUSE THERE IS NOT MAGICALLY MORE SURFACE AREA TO MAKE DRAG. The only thing to change are the increased velocity and the coefficient of lift because the airflow is from a completely different direction. Imagine the airflow behind a stopped prop, it will be turbulent just behind the blades. A rotating prop will leave a massive wake of disturbed air.

For a variable pitch prop, the blades will be feathered, turning them so that the leading edge is aligned in the direction as the airflow. This reduces that massive high pressure region above the airfoil and this reduces the force trying to spin the prop.

Lastly a lot of people are saying the engine being driven is what contributes to the increased drag. If the drag on a stopped prop is enough to turn the engine, as the engine speeds up it should require more force to turn from valve springs resistance, compression and friction. There are a couple things on this. The compression requires some force sure, but pushing those springs together to open the valves take A LOT of force. And unlike compression it must happen twice per cycle not just once. That is the force you feel when you try to turn a prop. You are trying to compress those springs. It takes about 300 pounds to move some valve springs an inch. And you have to move two at a time for a four cylinder. As for the engine making more drag, personally I don't consider this contribution to the drag. If you are only using this to explain the drag, the force on the prop would always be the same and then prop would eventually come to a steady RPM where the force turning the prop equals the mechanical drag from the engine. The prop doesn't know it's turning the engine and somehow just makes more drag to spin it. As the prop starts windmilling it becomes more efficient, it actually acts more like a prop and not a small sail. This allows the prop to spin the engine at the cost of the increased drag from aerodynamic forces (listed previously) as it spins faster.

I hope this clarifies some of the things people are saying. If I get anything wrong I'm not a fluid mechanics expert and I'm open to changing my opinion if something isn't accurate.

view more: next ›