Networking vs The Resume

Aug 31

Posted by Chris in Uncategorized | No Comments

Dave Smith, the Chief Pilot for Helicopter Academy, recently posted this comment in the Careers section of wikiRFM:

It is my firm belief that we should avoid the widespread fixation on resumes and concentrate instead on effective broad-spectrum career-development methods. My model for this is the book What Color is Your Parachute; the key notion is that resumes are a waste of time, networking and job research are far more important and effective.

I mostly agree with this. I’m biased toward the resume (which should always be accompanied by a cover letter) because it’s been productive for me, and because a good resume can easily be created with enough time and attention. Dave is definitely right that the resume has it’s limitations, and in reality, a resume is the lowest common denominator when it comes to job searches.

For a resume to work, at least 3 conditions have to be met:

  1. Your resume has to reach the right person;
  2. Your resume has to fit you into a need or job they have;
  3. Your resume has to say the right things to get their attention.

Now, even if your resume meets those 3 criteria, resumes often go to complete strangers. Before they’re going to offer you a job, they’ll want to know a lot more about you and your skills. Sending just a resume isn’t much different than cold-calling prospective employers, whether it’s for an advertised position or not.

There are also some specific limitations for each of those conditions. Getting your resume to the right person isn’t easy. A large employer will have a human resources (HR) department screening all the resumes, while a small employer may have only a single individual (who’s inundated with resumes). For these reasons, your resume has to get in front of the right person at the right time, or it’s likely to go ignored. This is especially true for entry-level jobs.

What are the right things for your resume to say? This isn’t a very deep field and most of us are going to have very similar qualifications. So a resume that says the right things (1700 hrs PIC, 500 hrs turbine, etc…) is going to look just about the same as many other resumes. You may be lucky to have some extraordinary experience, but the vast majority of us aren’t.

While there might be some exceptions, most resumes you send are going to lead to nothing. You cast a wide net of resumes and hope for the best. (This isn’t an excuse to send out the same resume/cover letter to 100 companies, as this strategy is very often unproductive.) Or you can invest a lot of effort in a few resumes and hope for the best.

Networking and research to get into the right job/company are more effective approaches, but they take time to work. Your network is everybody you know—former colleagues, other students, your instructors, friends, head hunters, people you meet hanging around the airport. You keep in touch with them, see what they’re up to, and tell them what you’re up to. Expand your network to include people in their network whenever you have the opportunity. Here’s how it works…  

In my pharmaceutical industry job, I had to turn down a project somebody offered me. Just didn’t have the time for it. Right away though, I recommended 2 former colleagues, briefly summarized why they would fit the employer’s needs, and provided them with my friends’ contact information. One of my friends—who had been sending resumes all over for over 18 months—was able to accept the project that I turned down. Why’d I do it? Next time he has work that he can’t take on, I expect he’ll reciprocate.

That’s why networking is so effective. In this case, I helped my contacts get to the right person, at the right time, with an intro got the employer’s attention. I also provided a personal recommendation that let the employer know more than they would have gleaned from any resume, and since I’m a pretty good guy, they’re trusting that I wouldn’t recommend somebody who I didn’t respect. Here’s another example:

While I was flying with a CFI (Mike, from BoatPix) during a photo flight, we were on the CTAF and he recognized the call sign for a company that he’d been interested in getting a job with. They switched over to the air-to-air frequency, and he introduced himself. Turned out, the other pilot was the chief pilot, who Mike had met through his neighbor. The CP remembered Mike, told him they were looking to replace another pilot, and that he’d be in touch. Several days later, the CP emailed this CFI with his company’s requirements.

I like this second case because it illustrates the indirect way that networking can sometimes go, and that the personal connection can mean more than experience. Not only was this the product of a couple of chance encounters, but turns out that Mike didn’t meet all the hiring minimums—which the CP directly told him they “can waive for the right candidate.” No, Mike didn’t get a job offer, and one might not materialize out of this contact right now; the point is that Mike now has a lead to follow. If it works out, he’s going to fill a job that was never advertised.

Networking is the slow and steady approach. Although it might take longer, it’s usually less painful. Like a resume, the point of networking isn’t to get you a job today; it’s to make an impression so the right person thinks of you when they need to fill a job. Ideally, the jobs come to you rather than the other way around. Because of the personal relationship, your qualifications aren’t always what the employer remembers. It might simply be that your shared connection has been a good employee, or just having a face to put to your name. Either way, sometimes you can network your way past better-qualified candidates, to the top of a stack of resumes, or into a job custom-made for you. Unless you keep a long view though, all that small talk and hand shaking can seem like a waste of time.

Why bother with resumes then when networking is so great? Networking, resumes, and research (something I didn’t even touch) are all part of your tool kit when it comes to looking for a job. For those of us just getting a start, your network is probably pretty small and consists of a lot of folks in the same situation as you. This isn’t always the case, but if it is, your network isn’t terribly valuable right now. In addition, the odds are so stacked against a 200-hr pilot that discounting any job-hunting strategy will probably hurt you. I got my first job in the pharmaceutical industry by answering an ad in a newspaper. But early in your career is the time to be hanging out at the FBO, meeting all the pilots you can, and keeping in touch with other low-time pilots. At the same time, you should be contacting every prospective employer you can (either in person or using a cover letter). This sets the foundation for building an extensive network.

The other reason I wouldn’t blow off your resume is that it’s often the first thing a contact asks for when they’re considering you for a job. This is especially true when your contact is recommending you to her hiring manager. As you progress through your career, you should keep a ready a draft copy of your resume that you can spiff up and send of whenever somebody asks for one.

All that said, in a few weeks I’ll be adding a link to my Linked-In profile. Join it, experiment with it, and use it. Also, consider going to the Heli-Success Networking Event in Las Vegas.

Helicopter Ground Handling Signals

Aug 19

Posted by Chris in Real work | No Comments

I got busy. The first few weeks of this month I was in San Diego for work, and had the chance to fly with BoatPix again. I had the video camera with me again, and have about 10 hours of video that I’m sorting through. In the meantime though, I thought I’d post a short clip of our departure from KMYF. After we fueled up, the FBO attendant parked his truck, grabbed his batons, and took up station in front of us. Hand signals for directing traffic on the ground wasn’t something I’d ever studied, and I wasn’t sure what to expect. In this case, it was pretty straightforward--when he saw that we were ready to pick up, he “cleared” us to alight, then directed us to the right away from the parked traffic. I say “cleared” because we were at a towered airport and communicating with the tower. For the most part, it was nice to have another set of eyes since we were parked in the middle of the transient area, with an active movement area behind us.

Of the 5 airports that we worked out of, 4 of them had personnel on the ramp to direct traffic into parking spaces (the exception was KTOA, which didn’t have much traffic at all, and no jet traffic that we saw). The BoatPix CFI that I was flying with had visited most of these airports before and already had an out-of-the-way parking spot for our little Mariner. But the FBO’s ground handlers directed the jets and larger helicopters where they wanted them. The AIM (section 4-3-25) has a couple of pages on the hand signals, but--given that the first 2 figures show positioning of a signalman relative to an airliner--this isn’t something that garnered much attention during ground school. In addition, none of the signals covered in the AIM seem particularly important for helicopter operations. That said, the National Wildfire Coordinating Group has a guide to hand signals for helicopter ground operations.

This short video is just a prop for this post--the signalman basically tells us to lift up and not fly over anything that we wouldn’t have flown over anyway. I let the video run for another 30 seconds so you can see the Skycrane parked on the ramp. Check back over the next couple of weeks…now that I’m getting to fly some, I’ll have some video of the me learning some aerial photography techniques and transitioning from “flight school flying” to commercial flying.

helicopter hand signals

Tags:

Time Building In San Francisco

Jul 24

Posted by Chris in Building time, Real work | 2 Comments

I got to fly a few hours with BoatPix down in San Francisco over the July 4th weekend. Time building with BoatPix comes in one of 2 flavors--in my case, I was sitting in on their photo contract, with the eventual goal of taking a contract pilot position with them. This happens weekends and holidays only, and you’re flying around taking pictures of boats. You need to at least be a commercial pilot for this, preferably a CFI.

Our plan was for the 500-hr CFI to demonstrate a few of the maneuvers we’d be using in the Bay, then we’d head out to shoot a sailboat race near the Golden Gate Bridge. The weather wasn’t working in my favor though, and we quickly scrapped that plan and diverted to Lake Berryessa. Totally different environment (hot, higher, calm, and sunny) compared to the Bay (cold, low, windy, and foggy), but turned out to be a good learning environment. He’d flown it several times this year, so we knew where the obstructions were (wires on the southern inlets). I was able to grab a bit of fair quality video--I haven’t exactly had much of a chance to test my video set up, and it’s stowed so I can’t check it in flight. Okay, it’s a downright shitty video, but you can kind of get the idea of what the flying was like.

I have to admit I was pretty nervous going out for this flight. Probably 85% of my flying is in the pattern, 14% off-airport, and the remaining 1% is maneuvering close to the ground. What surprised me though is that I had all the skills I needed to do it. By the end of the day, I was getting comfortable with maintaining my airspeed during the circuits around our subjects, had a good sight picture for our altitude over the surface, and maintaining good separation from the moving boat.

After a few hours at Lake Berryessa, we flew back to Napa (KAPC) to refuel (they pass out free bottles of wine if you fuel up enough there) and take a break. Then we flew into the delta east of our base at Concord (KCCR). This is a cool area--all these interweaving waterways, islands in the middle of swamps with a restaurant and bar, and ad hoc assemblies of boaters just hanging out. Here we also saw everything from the big dollar yachts to houseboats that were held together with plywood and wire. Flying here was even more challenging than over the lake, because most of the water ways were narrow. This concentrates the traffic (more evasive maneuvering) and put us over land during some passes (obstructions, wires). We got to working together pretty well, with both of us reconning the area, verbalizing instructions and the plan for making the photo pass, dropping in and taking the shot, and calling obstructions again.

After an hour or so, we made our turn back to KCCR and fought a headwind back to base. Definitely the most challenging flying I’ve ever done, and the longest I’ve been in the seat flying in one day. I was surprised at how quickly my basic skills came back and how much I learned. In one day we hit 2 class D airports, were on with NorCal Approach, went from sea level to 3200′ DA, flew low level and cross-country, and saw a few things I’d never seen before (that’s another post tho).

Utility Helicopters on the Columbia

Jul 14

Posted by Chris in Real work | No Comments

No flying for me this week, but I did get to go watch a pair of helicopters setting high voltage transmission lines. Out here, wind and hydroelectric power is pretty easy to come by, and most days you can see trains or trucks moving the components for wind turbines east. With that, there’s the need for expanding transmission capabilities. Getting power lines along the Columbia River Gorge back to the west side is a challenge because of rough, remote terrain. In this area, it’s easiest to do it with helicopters.

I watched an Erickson Skycrane setting the steel transmission towers. An MD500 orbited the area, checking out the set before the Skycrane released the tower, then moving to the next base to make sure it was ready for the upper part of the tower. Check out the downwash from the Skycrane…these towers are >200 feet high, and the Skycrane is easily kicking dust up. Later in the afternoon, a couple of F15s did a low-level pass over the river before pulling up and cutting back to the north. Not many days you can see a Skycrane and jets doing what they do best.

Wildfire in New England

Jul 7

Posted by Chris in Off-topic | No Comments

Saw on my news alerts that there’s a wildfire burning Mount Major in New Hampshire. The video has a few good shots of the helicopters working the fire. Other than that, this post has not much to do with helicopters.

I used to hike all over the White Mountains in New Hampshire when I was living in Massachusetts, and I’d hit Mt Major every few years because it was close and a pretty easy day hike. One of my first up-close experiences with helicopters was on Mt Techumseh on an early spring hike. Waterville Valley Ski Area sits on one side of Mt Techumseh, and the top has a mess of ski lift equipment and towers. As I was getting toward the summit, a Bell whipped up the slope with sling, dropped it at the top, set down for a minute, and went back down. I hoofed it up the rest of the way and got to watch him set down again. The dog and I were probably only 50 yards from his LZ. When they finished doing what they were doing, the pilot saw us and came over. Gave me a little brief on the hazards of the tail rotor and told me what they were doing (repairing some radio equipment).

At the time I was also in a bit of a career crisis, and had looked at what it would take to get into flying. I already had a mound of debt from 10 years of school and living in Boston, and taking on more debt wasn’t a consideration. But I remember the pilot talking about the responsibility and freedom of getting to fly. “Best job in the world.”

If I’d really been thinking, I’d at least have gotten a ride off the mountain with him. Instead, the dog and I glissaded down the patchy snow on the ski slopes. Good day either way.

HOT Spots

Jul 4

Posted by Chris in Uncategorized | 2 Comments

This week I’m headed down to San Francisco to do a few hours of time building with BoatPix. In preparation, I’ve been reviewing the airspace (much busier than I’m used to) and the airport layout. The airport looks like it has a fair bit of helicopter traffic, and you can see several “helicopter alighting areas” (lower left corner). One thing I wasn’t familiar with were the 4 areas marked “HOT.” No airport I’d ever flown out of had anything like this, and I had no idea what they were. The legend for the airport diagrams wasn’t much help either–it just identifies them as Hot spots.

Right after the legend though, there’s an index of all the HOT Spots, similar to how you’d see alternate minimums or departure procedures listed in the TERPs. The preface describes the HOT spots as movement areas with a history or risk of collision or runway incursion. Makes sense–all these HOT spots are at complex intersections or intersections with high intersection angles. The number then refers to an index of explanations for each spot. In this case, 2 of the spots identify areas where pilots often make wrong turns, another is for the complex intersection of Rwy 01R-19L, Twy J, Twy A, Twy C, and Twy K, and the last is a hold-short area for 32L. The FAA lists about 90 airports that have identified HOT spots.

Unfamiliar airport, airspace, and aircraft, not to mention that I have only 6 hours in the R22 in the last 30 days. Should be a daunting flight. Wish me luck and good weather.

Tags: ,

Cherry Drying Season

Jun 25

Posted by Chris in Off airport, Real work | No Comments

Spring is cherry season, which means all kinds of helicopters come into our area for cherry drying contracts. This year, I was fortunate enough to know one of the pilots working what turned out to be a pretty rainy season. Luck wasn’t all working for me though--I had a 1-week business trip and had scheduled my BFR right in the wettest period. I ended up with just 0.8 hrs actually flying the contract with him, but got to see him work a couple of fields from the ground as well as from the air.

Yeah, he’s doing it in an R22. I watched a UH-1 do the same field a few years ago, and it seemed like he was 50-75 feet up. In contrast, the R22 was right down on top of the trees. Once the R22 is low enough, the force of the downwash is the same though--it looks like the trees are going to lay over flat when you’re right over the top of them.

On the flight that I did with him, we covered what seemed to me to be a nightmare scenario. Lots of farmers out here have small cherry orchards--one of the reasons why you need to find a cherry contract is because those contracts serve lots of small plots. It’s not uncommon to find a house in the middle of an orchard which brings all the other obstructions. Rows of trees to break the high winds border many orchards, and there are usually wind turbines spread throughout for frost control during the cold desert evenings in the spring. This field had all those obstructions, plus an unusual layout, power lines running at an angle through the middle, uneven terrain, and a few birdhouses just for fun. It’s unnerving enough to be hovering so high (even though we were only a few feet off the tops of the trees) and in gusty conditions. Being surrounded on all sides by obstructions--and having to maneuver close enough to them to dry the trees below them--added to the fun. Just keeping track of what to look out for was beyond my ability, and I was content to watch this 1000+ hour pilot do his work.

You Are Correct: I Don’t Know Everything

Jun 14

Posted by Chris in Administration | 2 Comments

Last week I received a comment on the Settling with Power lesson plan, but didn’t see it until recently (spam filters sometimes send valid comments to the trash).

This is far too erroneous. It is conflicting in places and the entry height is suicidal.
If you don’t understand the topic, please don’t spread your solutions on it to everyone else???

Feedback like this bothers me, not so much on a personal level, but on a big-picture, professional level. On a personal level, I’m a 200-hr pilot, and I don’t claim to know anything. Some might see this as a character flaw, but I’m also not ashamed to admit that, although I have learned a lot in the past 3 years, I still know relatively little about flying helicopters. Admitting what you don’t know is necessary to be open to learning. The whole point of this web site is to provide a forum for like-minded CFIs to expand their knowledge.

I also don’t take these lesson plans lightly. On average, a lesson plan takes me about 8 hours to develop, and involves a considerable amount of research. I start with some basic resources. Since I’m most familiar with the R22, most of my lessons start with the R22 Maneuver Guide, but I also go to the FAA Rotorcraft Flying Manual and the Helicopter Flight Instructors Handbook. From there, I draw on personal experience–especially where my actual training differed from what I later learned at the RHC Safety Course or what experienced CFIs have taught me (a good friend, Mike Franz, has a short course on how ab initio training diverges from real life, and he has been an invaluable source). I also go to the forums, where there are often discussions that draw in the experiences of active instructors and students. On occasion, I refer to instructional resources published by Transport Canada, the Australian Civil Aviation Authority, and Advisory Circulars (like AC 61-13b, the Basic Helicopter Handbook). It’s overwhelming, and there are many lessons that I stop midway through because I can’t consolidate all that information into a coherent lesson plan. It’s harder than just teaching what I was taught. And it’s also why fewer than half the lesson plans are populated with content.

The reason a comment like this bothers me–and should bother you–is on the professional level. This visitor basically tells me that I’m full of shit and putting others at hazard by disseminating erroneous information. I’m certainly not going to dismiss this feedback, and this response isn’t my way of snapping back. I’m also not going to defend that lesson or any of the lessons here because I think there are many shortcomings in the way ab initio training is conducted. BUT what’s in that lesson plan:

  • Is exactly what I was taught;
  • Is how I demonstrated VRS on my private pilot check ride (which was a clear pass);
  • Incorporates elements from what I was taught at the Robinson Factory Safety Course;
  • Draws on a talk given for CFIs at HAI;
  • Is what was covered with me during my recent BFR; and
  • Has been edited to incorporate some of the info from Transport Canada and CASA.

What does this tell me? It tells me that there’s a disconnect between what we’re being taught (and teaching) and the way things really work. An experienced pilot/instructor on VerticalReference said it very well:

We don’t need new methods to teach, we just need to utilize the methods we already have.

Here’s the problem: 200-hr instructors don’t know the methods. We have to make them up as we go along. By the time instructors have things figured out, they go on to “real jobs”, leaving a new crop of clueless 200-hr instructors to start the process over again. Students ultimately pay the price for this, and I’ll admit I’m an example of this: I received very little training on recognizing VRS and might not be able to recognize it from the feel of the aircraft alone in-flight. I have received very extensive training on how to avoid it, which is good. But what I learned at the Safety Course is that I was initiating a recovery way too early and not assertively enough. At the Safety Course, I did exactly what I was trained, but in that scenario, my recovery was too slow to recover from a more fully developed VRS condition.

So where does this leave me and other CFIs who were trained the same way (whether they admit it or not)? I can guarantee that I’m not going to go out with a student and do anything different that what I was trained. Ideally I’d teach at a school that invests in initial and recurrent training for their instructors but I can tell you that not every school does this (which is why I recommend that this is one question prospective students ask when selecting a school, and if the school doesn’t, find out if the instructor seeks out supplemental training on their own). I also would like to be at a school with an extensive, working syllabus (not just a meaningless list of maneuvers) that ensures consistency in training. What would I do now? I’d do the in-flight demonstration that I was taught with one important distinction: during pre- and post-flight ground lessons, I’m going to reinforce that I am illustrating a scenario that could lead to VRS, but that we will initiate a recovery before VRS actually develops by decreasing power and gaining forward airspeed.

Now the last thing that bothers me about a comment like this one is that I haven’t done my job to correctly convey the purpose of this site. I’m here saying that low-time CFIs and students need access to those methods that high-time instructors have figured out. That’s the only way training is going to get any better. Anybody who disagrees with something here, sees a flaw, or has a better or alternate way of doing something can easily add that by editing a lesson plan or making a comment. In this case, I’ll post this comment at the end of the plan, but it’s practically useless without some feedback from this user on how he teaches VRS recognition and recovery.

L NOTAMs Extinct

Jun 1

Posted by Chris in Regulations | No Comments

Those of you who have done your PPL within the past year have no idea what I’m talking about. The “L” or local NOTAM was one of 3 types of NOTAMs, and it covered operations on the airport surface. The classic was personnel and equipment working, but sometimes included special events, local hazards, inoperative equipment. The line between a D NOTAM and an L NOTAM was unclear. That’s been corrected, and the NOTAM system considerably simplified. L NOTAMs are gone, and that information is now covered by D NOTAMs. FDC NOTAMs stay the same.

There’s also a new type of NOTAM: the Pointer NOTAM. See, there also used to be this uncomfortable thing about NOTAMs where some were published. When you called flight services, you’d get all the L and D NOTAMs, but it was possible that there were published NOTAMs that FSS wouldn’t give you. Pointer NOTAMs take care of that: if a D NOTAM has been around long enough, there will be a Pointer NOTAM that will tell you where to look for it.

When I did my PPL, the L-D-FDC system was still in effect, and for some reason, I didn’t get the memo when it changed during my commercial training. I figured it out this past week when I was doing some FAAST/WINGS courses in preparation for an upcoming flight review. I highly recommend the Know your NOTAMs course…doesn’t take long, and really makes sense of the whole NOTAM system in a way that just didn’t seem possible with the L-D-FDC set-up. There’s a link to the FAAST site in the new NOTAMs lesson plan (which is a watered down version of what you’ll find on the FAAST site).

Change in Phraseology for Taxi Instructions

May 26

Posted by Chris in Regulations | 3 Comments

Something that’s not terribly relevant for us, but after June 30 there’s going to be change in taxi clearances that include crossing another runway. AOPA has a good article on this, with scenarios, so I’m not going to try and top them. You can read it here. Well…they coulda given you the airport diagrams for the scenarios, so here are those (answers stuck in the first comment). But you should still read their article.

Situation 1: Lincoln Airport, Lincoln, Neb., taxiing from the east ramp to Runway 14, no other traffic.

Situation 3: Baltimore/Washington International, Baltimore, Md., taxiing from the GA ramp to Runway 22, no other traffic.

Situation 4: Crystal Airport, Minneapolis, Minn., taxiing from the southwest ramp to Runway 24R, no other traffic.

Situation 5: San Antonio International Airport, San Antonio, Texas, after landing Runway 12L taxiing to the FBO on the far south part of the airport east of Runway 03.

© WikiRFM 2009

Like legal stuff? Read the Terms of Service

Hosted by Chris Fischer, LLC--Email me anytime with questions or comments

SEO Powered by Platinum SEO from Techblissonline