Collection of blood samples at roadblocks ires Alabamans

Drivers in Alabama over the weekend were concerned as rumors of sporadic roadblocks spread through northeastern Alabama. According to the rumors, which spread quickly on Facebook and other social media, the roadblocks were manned by local law enforcement and agents of the Department of Homeland Security who were collecting DNA samples from drivers.

The rumor seemed to be confirmed by law enforcement officials on the Alabama news site, AL.com. The AL.com report said that law enforcement authorities in St. Clair and Bibb counties had confirmed that the roadblocks took place as part of a research study by the Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation.

Lt. Freddie Turrentine of the St. Clair County Sheriff’s Department told AL.com that the roadblocks were positioned at several locations around the county from Friday through Sunday. Off duty deputies would stop cars and ask for participation in the voluntary and paid survey. Turrentine said that signs at the roadblocks clearly stated that participation was voluntary and for pay. Drivers were offered $10 for a mouth swab and $50 for a blood test. Those who refused were not detained, Turrentine said, even though social media reports had indicated otherwise.

A report on Birmingham’s ABC 33/40 quoted Erika Skeivlas, a driver who participated in the survey. Skeivlas said that researchers swabbed her mouth and took a blood sample after asking her a few questions from an iPad. Skeivlas said, “Basically they were asking how much over the counter or prescription medication you take? How many times a day do you take it? Do you drink alcohol? Do you drive after drinking?”

Skeivlas said that she was given a paper stating that the Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation was conducting the survey which was funded by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to “better understand impaired driving on our nation's roadways.” There was no indication that the Department of Homeland Security was involved in any way.

Jose Ucles, a spokesman for the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, told AL.com on Sunday that the researchers did not collect DNA, but were testing the volunteer drivers for over-the-counter, prescription, and illegal drugs as well as checking the driver’s blood alcohol content. The results of the tests were kept anonymous and not relayed to law enforcement.

The roadblocks were part of a major driver impairment study at 60 different locations within the country. Previous studies were done in 1973, 1986, 1996 and 2007. Lt. Turrentine confirmed that St. Clair County had also participated in the 2007 study.

Diane Williams, the Pacific Institute’s communications officer, confirmed to Examiner that no DNA samples were taken at the roadblocks. John Lacey, the researcher responsible for the study was not immediately available for comment.

Originally published on Atlanta Conservative Examiner

Verizon phone records are different from IRS scandal

This week’s revelations of widespread data gathering by the federal government have shocked many Americans.  Coming on the heels of the recent scandals about Justice Department spying on reporters and IRS agents harassing political opponents, the new information about America’s intelligence gathering activities have drawn widespread opposition and indignation.  There are important differences between the activities of the National Security Agency and the other scandals, however.

On Wednesday, leaked court documents demanding that Verizon turn over phone records to the federal government sparked an uproar over the NSA’s phone surveillance program.  On Friday, James Clapper, the director of national intelligence, released more details about the program.  Reported by the Associated Press, Clapper noted the program, which presumably includes other companies as well as Verizon, is reviewed every 90 days and the government is prohibited from indiscriminately examining the records of Americans.  The information obtained by the NSA does not contain the content of the calls, but only “metadata” such as the phone numbers involved, time, location, and duration of the call.

On Friday, the Washington Post also published leaked reports of PRISM, a secret program that analyzes internet traffic in a manner similar to the NSA’s examination of phone records.  According to the leaked documents, “e-mail, chat, videos, photos, stored data, VoIP, file transfers, video conferencing, notifications of target activity...log-ins, etc., online social networking details” were available from major internet companies.  A CNET analysis of the PRISM documents indicates that it is theoretically possible that the government has been reading private emails of American citizens.

Even though the amount of information collected by the NSA and PRISM is staggering, there is so far no evidence that it has been used to spy on Americans or intrude on their privacy.  Instead, it seems that the federal government has been engaged in a process called “data mining.”  Data mining is the use of computer programs to discover hidden patterns in data.  Private companies frequently use data mining to target advertisements to likely customers.  Cookies on websites and tracking software collect information about internet users, which is then sold to internet advertisers.  Computer programs can even “read” your emails to target ads to your screen.  Similar programs might be used to block suspicious credit card transactions based on the user’s past history. 

While the NSA is not interested in selling anything to Americans, it is presumably interested in suspicious contacts between the United States and known terrorists in other countries.  On Thursday, Mike Rogers (R-Mich.), chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, told Politico that “Within the last few years, this program was used to stop a terrorist attack in the United States.”  Rogers added, “It is a very valuable thing. It is legal.”

Rogers appears to be correct.  Both programs appear to be legal if they were implemented properly.  In 1979, the Supreme Court ruled in Smith v. Maryland that telephone users have no expectation of privacy with regard to telephone numbers dialed because telephone companies regularly track such information.  Likewise, CNET points out that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 2008 and the Protect America Act of 2007 permit intelligence gathering of internet data.  The Protect America Act is limited to people “reasonably believed to be located outside of the United States” (Section 105A) and the Section 702 of the FISA Act clarifies that U.S. citizens or people within the United States cannot be targeted. 

On Friday, President Obama defended the NSA programs, saying, “Nobody is listening to your telephone calls.” In a PBS transcript, Obama continued, “By sifting through this so-called metadata, they may identify potential leads with respect to folks who might engage in terrorism. Now, with respect to the Internet and e-mails, this doesn't apply to U.S. citizens, and it doesn't apply to people living in the United States.” 

In a separate speech on Friday, transcribed by NBC Bay Area, Obama noted that “ if people can't trust not only the executive branch but also don't trust Congress and don't trust federal judges to make sure that we’re abiding by the Constitution, due process and rule of law, then we’re going to have some problems here.”

The other scandals of the Obama Administration have worked to diminish public trust in government, however.  Even before the recent scandals, Pew showed public trust in government at all-time low levels.  The reports of systematic abuses of power against the president’s political opponents (summary on Examiner.com) and spying on reporters have only heightened the crisis of confidence in the federal government.   A June 5 Rasmussen poll showed that an unprecedented 56 percent of Americans view the federal government as a threat to individual rights.  Even normally trusted agencies such as the FBI have been implicated in the Obama Administration’s apparent suppression of conservative groups.   Even the New York Times said Thursday that “The administration has now lost all credibility on this issue. Mr. Obama is proving the truism that the executive branch will use any power it is given and very likely abuse it.”

Unlike the data mining by the NSA, the allegations against Obama Administration in the IRS and DOJ media spying scandals include the specific targeting of American citizens.  The IRS has admitted that it specifically targeted conservative groups and an investigation by McClatchy News confirmed that no liberal or nonpartisan groups received unfair treatment.  Several IRS employees have said that their scrutiny and harassment of conservative groups was directed by IRS officials in Washington according to the Associated Press.  Likewise, Attorney General Holder personally approved the warrant for surveillance of Fox News reporter James Rosen according to MSNBC.  Unlike the NSA surveillance, which was apparently a legitimate program directed at foreign terrorists, the IRS and Justice Department programs were specifically directed at Americans and apparently had political motives.

The NSA’s surveillance programs are not new.  They have been public knowledge since 2005 when the New York Times published an account of the program.  However, the programs are likely viewed with more concern by many Americans due to the recent reports of spying and abuses of power against American citizens.  If the IRS and DOJ could illegally target Americans for political purposes, many are concerned that NSA data might be used for the same reason.  

Originally published on Examiner.com

TSA says no knives on airliners after all

The Transportation Security Administration announced on Wednesday that it was reversing its previous decision to allow small knives and other previously prohibited items to be carried on airline flights. In March, the TSA had announced that it would allow airline passengers to carry small folding knives with blades less than 2.36 inches long and less than half an inch wide in carryon baggage. Sporting equipment such as golf clubs, hockey and lacrosse sticks and miniature baseball bats would also have been allowed.

The items have been prohibited from carryon baggage since the September 11 attacks. The TSA focus on knives and small, sharp objects led some to joke that the agency’s acronym stood for “taking scissors away.”

The proposed changes were part of move by the TSA to transition toward risk-based security initiatives which recognize that the majority of airline passengers do not pose a risk, even if they carry a knife or hockey stick. Risk-based security focuses on determining which passengers pose a greater risk through behavior analysis, interviewing, and screening out low-risk passengers through additional information provided voluntarily through programs like Pre-check and Clear.

Even though risk-based screening has a proven history in Israel, the technique has sparked criticism in the United States. According to a USA Today report, a Homeland Security inspector general cited problems with assessing the effectiveness of risk-based screening and the lack of a comprehensive training program. Critics have also alleged that the system amounts to racial profiling.

The proposed changes to the prohibited items list drew opposition from a wide range of groups. 133 members of Congress, primarily Democrats, wrote to TSA administrator John Pistole to oppose the change. Flight attendants, air marshals, and other law enforcement officials also opposed the new rule.

Airline travelers can find a comprehensive list of acceptable items for both carryon and checked baggage on the TSA website. As a general rule, knives and other items that are considered weapons are permitted only in checked baggage. Chemicals and flammable items may not be permitted at all. When in doubt, travelers should also contact their airline.

See the 10 dumbest things people try to get through airport security.

Originally published on Examiner:

http://www.examiner.com/article/tsa-decides-not-to-allow-knives-on-airliners

Listen live as solar airplane crosses U.S.

The Solar Impulse, a solar powered airplane that Swiss pilots Bertrand Piccard and Andre’ Borschberg hope to fly around the world without using fuel, is crossing the United States. The airplane is flying today from Dallas to St. Louis using only the energy of the sun for propulsion. The flight can be watched live on the internet at the SolarImpulse.com. The team plans to land in St. Louis in the early morning hours of June 4.

The plane was disassembled and transported to Moffet field in Mountain View, Calif. earlier this year. From California, the Solar Impulse began its journey across America on May 4. The first leg consisted of a flight from Moffet field to Phoenix Sky Harbor airport in Arizona, a distance of approximately 550 nautical miles. The Solar Impulse made the trip in 18 hours and 18 minutes for an average speed of about 40 miles per hour. The average altitude was 10,000 feet, but the plane flew as high as 21,000 feet on its trip to Phoenix. The 18 hour 21 minute leg from Phoenix to Dallas took place on May 22.

The Solar Impulse is powered by 12,000 solar cells that are built into the wings. The solar cells power four 10 horsepower electric motors. Because the solar cells also charge the Solar Impulse’s lithium batteries, the airplane can also flight at night or in cloudy weather. To make the Solar Impulse a reality, the team had to make advancements on lightweight solar energy technology, batteries, and decrease the necessary weight of the airplane as well. The Solar Impulse website contains many details about the aircraft itself.

Because of the long and slender structure of the wings and fuselage, the Solar Impulse is very vulnerable to high winds and turbulence. The team typically tries to take off and land and night to minimize exposure to turbulence. The recent severe weather and tornadoes in the Midwest have led the decision to park the airplane in an inflatable hangar during its stay in St. Louis for protection.

The current Solar Impulse, the HB-SIA, will be replaced by the HB-SIB for an attempted flight around the world in 2015. The HB-SIB will have several improvements over the HB-SIA. Performance will be better and there will be a larger cockpit to accommodate the pilot for flights lasting several days. The HB-SIA has already set three world records for maximum altitude (30,298 feet/9,235 meters), gain in altitude (28,687 feet/8,744 meters), and maximum duration (26 hours 10 minutes 19 seconds).

The founders of the Solar Impulse program are Bertrand Piccard and Andre Borschberg. The two Swiss pilots have worked on the program for more than a decade. Piccard is a psychiatrist by profession, while Borschberg is a mechanical engineer.

Originally published on Aviation Examiner

IRS and press harassment similar to other Obama scandals

The Obama Administration has become embroiled in three simultaneous scandals over the past few weeks. Much speculation has been made about what President Obama knew and when he knew it. Regardless of whether President Obama gave the order or had personal knowledge of spying on reporters or the harassment of conservative groups, the charges are well within the character of an administration well known for executive overreach and disregard for the law. The Obama administration has been hallmarked by disregard for the rule of law since its early days.

In the spring of 2009, the Obama Administration ignored established bankruptcy law to cast aside secured creditors of Chrysler and GM in favor of unsecured but better connected creditors such as the United Auto Workers pension according to National Affairs. Creditors were denied their right to have input on the company reorganizations through a sub rosa plan in which the assets of “old” Chrysler and GM were “sold” to “new” Chrysler and GM, bypassing creditors in the process. When some investors stood up for their rights, President Obama attacked them as “speculators” in a speech at Chrysler.

The closing of dealerships in the aftermath of the auto bankruptcies fueled speculation and rumors that the Obama Administration was using the auto bankruptcies to target political opponents. The Washington Examiner pointed out at the time that dealers on the list of closures had donated millions to Republicans, but only $200 to Obama. The list of closures seems to have been dictated by Steve Rattner, President Obama’s “car czar.”

On the heels of the auto bankruptcies came “Fast and Furious.” In the spring and summer of 2009, Democrats from Secretary of State Clinton to Sen. Diane Feinstein (D-Calif.) claimed that 90 percent of the guns used in Mexican crimes came from the United States. While claim is not accurate, thousands of the guns that actually did get to Mexico from the United States apparently were allowed across the border by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE). Whistleblowers later told Congress that they had orders to let smugglers take illegally purchased guns across the border into Mexico. As Examiner reported in 2011, several of the illegal weapons were found at the scene of the murder of Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry on December 15, 2010. The guns turned up at numerous other crime scenes in Mexico as well. In 2011, another American officer, Jaime Zapata, was murdered in Mexico with a gun that had been tracked by the ATF according to CBS News. The Mexican government was not pleased with the revelations that the Obama Administration allowed thousands of illegal guns into their country.

After the BP oil spill in 2010, President Obama issued a unilateral moratorium on deepwater drilling. When a court ruled that the drill ban was unconstitutional, the Department of Interior still refused to issue new drilling permits. This led a federal judge to hold the Obama Administration in contempt of court for its “determined disregard” for its continued drilling restrictions.

In the spring of 2011, after dithering for months, President Obama approved U.S. intervention in the Libyan civil war. Obama notified Congress within 48 hours as required by the War Powers Act, but neglected to seek congressional approval within 60 days. Obama also failed to end American involvement within 30 days of the deadline for seeking congressional approval as required. The N.Y. Times called the Libya intervention “illegal” and said that it “set a troubling precedent that could allow future administrations to wage war at their convenience — free of legislative checks and balances.”

The matter is all the more stark because President Obama had said in 2007 that “The president does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.” After Libya, Politifact rated the statement a “full [flip] flop.”

Also in 2011, the Obama Administration’s loan to Solyndra, a solar panel manufacturer, went sour. While most analyses of the Solyndra scandal focus on the poor judgment involved in making a loan that ultimately cost taxpayers $535 million according to Yahoo, laws might have been broken here as well. According to the Christian Science Monitor, it may have been illegal for the Obama Administration to restructure Solyndra’s loan to put private creditors ahead of taxpayers.

In 2012, the Supreme Court affirmed the power of the government to compel its citizens to purchase a private product, keeping Obamacare’s individual mandate intact. The legal status of other parts of Obamacare remains questionable. The mandate that all insurance policies cover contraceptive and abortifacient drugs has been successfully challenged in court as a violation of the freedom of religion.

Since 2010, the Department of Health and Human Services has issued more than 1,200 Obamacare waivers to companies according to The Hill. As noted in Examiner, the language of the Affordable Care Act did not permit such waivers. In 2013, Politico reported that members of Congress were secretly negotiating an exemption from Obamacare’s requirements under concerns that staffers would face sharp increases in premiums when Obamacare goes into effect.

More recently, faced with a $1.5 billion shortfall in funds to implement Obamacare, HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius resorted to soliciting donations from insurance companies according to the Washington Post. As Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) points out in the Wall St. Journal, the Constitution and other laws do not permit the government to spend money that has not been appropriated by Congress. Soliciting donations from companies that Sebelius regulates is likely a conflict of interest as well.

Earlier this year, President Obama received a strong rebuke from a federal court for several appointments that he had made to the National Labor Relations Board. The president styled the appointments as recess appointments even though Congress was still in session. The decision, described on Examiner, stated that Congress, not the president, decided when it was in session and then went a step further, stating that recess appointments could only be used to fill vacancies that arise during a recess. A second appeals court issued a similar ruling in May after the NLRB ignored the first court’s ruling and continued to issue decisions on cases heard by the invalid members.

President Obama also has a record of issuing executive decrees when Congress fails to act. In December 2010, the EPA announced plans to regulate carbon after Congress failed to pass cap-and-trade legislation. At the same time, the FCC unilaterally issued “net neutrality” rules in spite of a court ruling stating that the agency did not have the power to regulate the internet. Before even asking Congress to enact new gun control laws, the president signed 23 executive orders relating to guns.

The new scandals, lying to public about Benghazi, spying on reporters to ferret out leakers within the administration, and using federal enforcement agencies to quash political opposition, are merely the latest in a long line of abuses of power by President Obama and his deputies. The common threads among all of the Obama scandals are abuse of executive power disregard of the law for political gain. The new trio of scandals is no different.

A form of this article was originally published as Atlanta Conservative Examiner.

Obama can relax, he won’t be impeached

The “perfect storm” of political scandals that has embroiled the Obama Administration over the past few weeks has some conservatives and Republicans speculating that President Obama might be impeached or be forced to resign in disgrace. While there are plenty of serious accusations of misconduct in the White House and federal government, the scandals are all still in their infancy and President Obama’s precise role is not known. It is all but certain, however, that the president will not be impeached.

The first scandal, the cover-up after the September 11, 2012 attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, is the most advanced. The White House released emails earlier this month that showed that references to al Qaeda had been scrubbed from the administration’s talking points about the attack according to ABC News. ABC reported as early as Oct. 9, 2012 that the street protests were non-existent. More than two weeks after the attack, President Obama was still blaming a “crude and disgusting video” that allegedly “sparked outrage throughout the Muslim world” in a speech to the United Nations. President Obama’s only mention of al Qaeda in the speech was to call it “weakened” in reference to Osama bin Laden’s death. There is still no satisfactory explanation as to why there was no rescue attempt.

The second scandal involves abuse of power by Internal Revenue Service. The IRS admitted on May 10 that it had targeted conservative groups for additional scrutiny during the run-up to the 2012 election. It quickly became apparent that the problem was much more widespread than the IRS had admitted. In fact, the IRS approved no conservative groups at all for a 27 month period beginning in February 2010 according to USA Today. There were other abuses as well, including audits of Obama’s political critics and attempts to force a pro-life group to stop protesting Planned Parenthood according to Examiner. The IRS had even planted the press conference question that Lerner answered to ignite the scandal in an apparent attempt to preempt a government report on the matter.

President Obama and his aides claimed to learn of the scandal “when it came out in the news” according to Yahoo News, however multiple reports show that the White House counsel learned about the internal investigation of the matter several weeks earlier. Lois Lerner, the IRS official who broke the story, learned about the matter as early as 2011 according to the Washington Post. Several senators were also aware of the investigation, but had been unable to get answers from the IRS before Ms. Lerner’s apology.

The third scandal, the Obama Administration’s broad seizure of Associated Press phone records, may prove to be the most dangerous to Obama. In the course of investigating a leak, the Department of Justice, in another scandal that was wider than initially admitted, secretly subpoenaed phone records for five AP offices and hundreds of reporters over a two month period according to the Washington Post. Typically, government investigators ask news organizations for records or at least provide advance notice of such a subpoena. In this case, the DOJ did neither.

The government cites national security concerns for the phone records, but the case in question, the report of an al Qaeda bomb plot disrupted by federal agents, was actually the subject of a White House news conference on the same day that the AP published its story according to NBC News. Further, the press conference by counterterrorism advisor John Brennan contained an important detail that the AP story lacked: the fact that an inside informant had helped to disrupt the plot. Obama claimed not to know the details of the AP case as late as May 16, three days after the story broke according to Mediaite. Attorney General Eric Holder claimed to have recused himself from the investigation according to USA Today.

The Associated Press scandal may prove most dangerous for Obama because the media has traditionally been sympathetic to Democrats. By launching heavy-handed investigations of media outlets, the Administration risks transforming the cozy relationship to an adversarial one. The problem is compounded by the recent revelation that the FBI secretly monitored a Fox News journalist as a “criminal co-conspirator” in a 2009 leak case. Ironically, the failure of the media to look deeply into other Obama Administration scandals such as Fast and Furious and Solyndra may have encouraged members of the administration to pursue ever more risky political strategies on the assumption that they would not be subjected to rigorous fact-checking by the media.

Regardless of the severity of these scandals, there is almost no chance that any combination of them will result in the president’s impeachment. Under the Constitution, the House of Representatives has the power to impeach the president for “treason, bribery, or other high crimes or misdemeanors” which are not defined. Since the House is controlled by Republicans, a vote to impeach should pass handily, so why impeachment so unlikely?

The second step is that the impeached president must then be tried in the Senate in order to be removed from office. The Democrats currently control the Senate 55-45 (including two independents who would probably vote with the Democrats). The Constitution requires a two-thirds vote to remove the president. This means that even if all Republicans in the Senate voted to remove Obama from office, they would still need the votes of 21 Democrats or independents. It would be pointless and possibly counterproductive for Republicans to impeach Obama when they are not able to remove him from office.

In all of U.S. history, only two presidents have been impeached. Neither was removed from office. In 1868, Andrew Johnson was acquitted in the Senate by a single vote after seven senators broke party ranks to support the president. In 1998, Bill Clinton was also acquitted with 45 guilty votes on a perjury charge and 50 votes on an obstruction of justice charge, 21 and 16 votes short of removal respectively. Several Republicans voted for acquittal while no Democrats voted guilty.

The chance that Obama might be forced to resign is slightly better, but still a long shot. Richard Nixon was the only president to resign from office. In the aftermath of the Watergate scandal, Nixon resigned in 1974 to avoid impeachment. President Obama is unlikely to take similar action since the threat of impeachment is so remote. President Obama would probably not consider resignation unless he lost the support of his Democratic base.

Liberals can breathe a sigh of relief that President Obama’s job is probably safe. On the other hand, conservatives can take encouragement from the possibility that Obama may be so damaged by the scandals that he is unable to advance his second term agenda. Likewise, the Democratic Party’s troubles means that Republicans might have better odds in the 2014 midterm elections. Republicans can take comfort from the fact that if Obama were removed from office, Joe Biden would be next in line.

Originally published on Examiner.com:

http://www.examiner.com/article/scandals-won-t-result-obama-impeachment

How to prepare for an airline interview

Many aviation industry observers predict that U.S. airlines are on the cusp of a shortage of qualified pilots. The shortage is the result of a large number of looming retirements at U.S. airlines and a new FAA rule scheduled to go into effect this August that will increase the flight experience requirement for airline pilots. The pilot shortage may present a unique opportunity for prospective pilots who have the required qualifications to be considered by the airlines, but first would-be airline pilots must pass the airline’s interview process.

An airline interview is unlike an interview at a non-aviation company. An airline interview is usually a single event, unlike interviews at non-aviation companies which can involve two, three or more interviews before an offer is made. In some cases, the airline interview may take place over several days and involve multiple meetings.

The first step in preparing for an airline interview is to research the company. The prospective applicant should be aware of recent news stories about the company, have an understanding of the company’s history, and be familiar with the company’s leaders. Much of this information can be found on the company’s website, on aviation trade sites such as Aviation Week, or news sources like the Wall St. Journal. Often, company websites allow users to sign up to receive press releases via email. A directory of sites relating to aviation employment can be found on GlobalAir.com. Learn about the company’s culture as well. An interview with Southwest, Virgin America or JetBlue will require a different approach than an interview with Delta, United or US Airways.

The next step in preparation is to find out what the company’s interview process is like. Several websites offer “gouge,” or details of their experience, from previous interview candidates. One of the most popular such sites is AviationInterviews.com, but other sites such as Will Fly for Food offer interview gouge as well. Job seekers can also use forums on websites such as FlightInfo.com to ask questions of current employees or others who have interviewed with the company. Airlinepilotcentral.com is a good source of information on many aviation companies and also has forums.

There are two types of questions on an aviation interview. First, there are normal human resource questions. These questions are of the “getting to know you” type. Examples would be “tell me about yourself” and “what are your strengths and weaknesses?” The second type of question to be expected is the technical question. Technical questions include subjects such as systems on the aircraft that you currently fly, the Federal Aviation Regulations, and how to brief an instrument approach.

Some companies concentrate on human resource questions while others tend toward technical questions. In most cases, companies ask both varieties of questions. In some cases, there are even separate interview sessions for each type of question. A sample list of general interview questions can be found online here, but interview gouge sites often report the questions most recently asked of interviewees.

Many companies also put prospective new hires through a simulator evaluation. Normally the sim ride is a simple evaluation of the pilot’s flying abilities to help the company determine whether the applicant would have problems in training. In many cases, the simulator evaluation covers basic maneuvers like climbs, turns, descents, ILS approaches, and holding patterns. Some companies, especially those that require that applicants already be type rated in the airplane to be flown, may have more in-depth simulator screenings with engine out maneuvers. To find out exactly what your experience will entail, check the gouge.

Some companies also require their applicants to take a written test. These tests often consist of basic aeronautical knowledge with multiple choice questions similar to those that might be found on the instrument and Airline Transport Pilot written exams.

Once you have determined what to expect on your interview, the next step is to start studying. A good method is to make a list of questions found on the interview gouge sites. Go down the list, answer the questions and then study your answers. For longer answers, write your answer in outline form. Don’t try to memorize the answer word for word, just remember the points that you want to make. Practice answering the questions out loud. Start in front of a mirror and then have your family and friends quiz you.

Many applicants also choose to go to a professional interview coach. There are several companies that special in helping applicants prepare for airline interviews. These services put the applicant through a mock interview and then critique their performance. Especially if the interview is with a company where hiring is very competitive, the experience of a mock interview can be valuable. Two companies that provide coaching for aviation interviews are Clark Aviation Consulting and Aviation Interview Prep Services. Other coaching services may be mentioned in interview gouge.

Pilots who are not accustomed to flying a simulator should definitely take a simulator prep course. If possible, the sim prep should take place in the same type of simulator in which the interview will take place. Follow the interview simulator profile as closely as possible, especially if it involves a complex maneuver like the ILS approach into Louisville, Ky. with a quick missed approach turn and holding pattern that was used in the simulator evaluation for a major cargo carrier. Again, check the gouge for referrals from previous applicants.

With preparation and study, you will have an excellent chance of becoming the next airline new hire. If you don’t get a job offer, don’t give up. Some companies, notably Southwest and FedEx, like to hire applicants on the second or third interview. As with anything, practice makes perfect and more interviews will improve your presentation. If all else fails, keep trying with other companies until you get your chance to hop in an airline cockpit.

Originally published on Examiner.com:

http://www.examiner.com/article/preparing-for-an-airline-interview