How would you answer these interview questions?

"Look man, the FARs were written in blood! And this scenario is unrealistic anyway because girls don't really talk to me..."

Man if you want to be immature and take low blows then fine. I am going to take the higher ground.

Family is one thing. I hope to be a father one day always have...if you ask me to choose between my career and family then it is a no brainer. If anyone else chooses different then they really need to re-examine their life.

This is situation is so out of control though. I would not break a FAR purposefully if I was carrying cargo or pax or a critically ill patient. Just would not do it. Period end.
 
My anticipated Jhugz and co response: "Look man, the FARs were written in blood! And this scenario is unrealistic anyway because girls don't really talk to me..."

:rotfl: Jhugz relax I'm sure he was just messing with you in trying to defuse the thread kind of way. The thing is in an actual situation a work around would be found, even more so if such an event was literally life or death. Unfortunately real life and interview answers are not always on the same page or even the same chapter, or book. I think I agree with whoever said the interview process was more of a game, which is why I always bring my paint ball gun!:nana2:
 
This is what I hate about doing interviews. Theres what you would do in reality, and then theres what you'd say you'd do in an interview (and for that matter, on an internet forum). The two aren't always the same. Some interviewers want to hear what you'd really do, yet others just want to hear what you expect to want them to hear. You can never really tell which...

It's really easy for someone to just spurt out "I'm NEVER break a regulation NEVER EVER NEVER EVER EVER EVER EVRER NOT IN A MILLION YEARS!! EVEN IF HUMANITY'S VERY CONTINUED EXISTENCE DEPENDS ON THIS FLIGHT OCCURRING!" But in reality, I don't care who you are, you aren't going to be able to adhere to such a philosophy 100% of the time under every possible set of circumstances. There are times when its way more convenient for all parties involved and just as safe to just do the flight.

This concept came up a few weeks ago where people were saying they have never broken an aviation regulation in their entire greater-than-decade long careers. I just don't believe it.

I think the people who still have the hard line "I never beak regulations ever ever ever" mentality, have just never flown an airplane outside flight school, or at least aren't very observant. With the amount of regulations ruling over us, it's extremely difficult to NOT break a reg every now and again to get things done.
 
Re: Robots

The original post is about interview questions.

You've concocted quite the once-in-a-career, once-in-a-lifetime situation as a retort. I doubt any interviewer would sit across from you at the table and say this:

"Your wife and child have been seriously injured in an accident, and your mission is to fly them to the hospital in our airplane, which you've just found to have an inoperative nav light. What are you gonna do?"

Now if they did say that, well then that tells me a bit about how they want to make their interview. Which is why I doubt that would ever be asked.


* * *​


What you call a bunch of freaking robots, many call standardization.

The rules are to be followed.

At what point does one gain the privilege of being able to waive rules on their own in order to fly a plane? I am not talking about the once in a billion situation you've given, where you need to fly your own dying wife and kid to a hospital without a light bulb. I'm talking about real, day to day operations where people are relying on the pilot of their airplane to make decisions based on what the regulations allow.

If the pilot can disregard a regulation that says certain equipment is required, what else can they disregard? Do they not really have to have that tachometer fixed if the patient is in bad shape and needs to go now? Does the frost on the wing not have to melt the rest of the way because a heart is in a cooler on the ramp and an operating room is waiting?

The whole purpose of hiring a pilot is to know they are going to do the job and do it properly.

If you think someone is a robot, they are probably following the rules as they should be.


Any decent air ambulance company would never put the pilot in a position where they would have to watch a patient in critical condition be delayed by a light bulb. The company would have realized that being in the business of life or death response time, they need to have a plan for when things break that do not effect the airplanes's ability to fly.

Like a road ambulance driver carrying a cell phone to call another ambulence if his gets a flat tire.

Anything less would be amateur.

You're missing the point. A lot of operations do confrontational type interviews. They know that you won't do anything illegal, they just want to see how you think about why you won't do it. Not all interviews will be happy faced and relaxed. I personally don't believe in the happy/relaxed types since you won't know a candidate unless you truly put pressure in the person especially for a job such as a pilot. You can give away a lot of info bout you in 5 minutes of questioning. For example , you don't care about the guy that is in a critical condition back there. You just care about following the regs. I've only taken one type of confrontational interview and I learned a lot more than the 3 other nonconfrontational interviews I've taken.

If the pilot can disregard a regulation that says certain equipment is required, what else can they disregard?

That's why the have the other questions. They're not going to base their decision on one question but a pattern. Clearly the other 2 questions are NO but the nav light should be a Yes.
 
I think the people who still have the hard line "I never beak regulations ever ever ever" mentality, have just never flown an airplane outside flight school, or at least aren't very observant. With the amount of regulations ruling over us, it's extremely difficult to NOT break a reg every now and again to get things done.

Hi butt -

I don't think what you refer to here is the same as intentionally breaking regs.

Of course pilots occasionally do something that is not within the rules. They might be going 270 knots passing 10,000 feet and have it slowed to 250 at 9,000 because they were distracted, or they might not be night current to fly passengers but they get back with their friends late in the afternoon and pass the definition of 'night' by a couple minutes.

To blatantly disregard a regulation in normal operations is unacceptable.

And what is normal operations for an air ambulance?

A critically ill patient who needs to be rushed somewhere.
 
To blatantly disregard a regulation in normal operations is unacceptable.

And what is normal operations for an air ambulance?

A critically ill patient who needs to be rushed somewhere.

:yeahthat:
 
These pilot certificates were too much to earn to jeopardize

You can give away a lot of info bout you in 5 minutes of questioning. For example , you don't care about the guy that is in a critical condition back there. You just care about following the regs.

I'd be tempted to give them the expression:

Lack of planning on your part does not constitute an emergency on my part.


Why should the pilot be expected to put his or her own certificate on the line so that the air ambulance company can get someone to someplace!

No different than being expected to launch right into a thunderstorm because the patient needs to be expedited.

No thank you!


the nav light should be a Yes.

"Thanks, you should get a phone call from us in a few days if you're offered the job. Have a nice day now . . ."
 
I am going to take the higher ground.

Weren't you the guy talking about GoJets and insulting some of the most respected posters on this forum a few weeks ago?

Nick, the point I'm making is that the "slippery slope" argument doesn't always work because people aren't robots and not all people are huge idiots. There are exceptions to every rule and it's up to each person to decide where to draw the line. Would I take off without a tachometer or any other engine instrument? No. Would I take off with a giant visibile crack in the wing? What do you think? But a broken nav light...to save a life...without hesitation. Believe it or not the mind can be applied in determining value judgments. If you don't think it's a value judgment when lives are at stake then you need to take a step out of your shell and make some new friends.

But that's the purely ethical dilemna side of things. I like what another guy mentioned about how the issue should be addressed in an interview specifically. Interviewers ask questions to see how one thinks, not why. That gives you the opportunity to dance around a little bit and impress them with your knowledge (or maybe dig yourself a hole), i.e. "Well let's explore a few more options. Are these resources available to me? Is there another medevac group we could outsource the job to? Wtf did mx drop the ball in the first place?"
 
Of course pilots occasionally do something that is not within the rules. They might be going 270 knots passing 10,000 feet and have it slowed to 250 at 9,000 because they were distracted, or they might not be night current to fly passengers but they get back with their friends late in the afternoon and pass the definition of 'night' by a couple minutes.

To blatantly disregard a regulation in normal operations is unacceptable.

Do you thing taking off with a burnt out nav light is a blatantly disregarding regulations?

In my opinion, 270 at 10K, going 3 minutes past civil twilight without being current, taking off with a burnt out nav light... all these things are small little things that doesn't make you a bad pilot per se, as long as you have the ability and skill to handle such "distractions", if you will.

Sometimes I like to go bike riding at night. My bike does not have a light on it. Some would say I am a reckless moron because I do something outside the rules. But I've been riding for a long time, and I know what it takes to ride a bicycle from one end of town to the other end without getting ran over. I make sure I stay on the sidewalk as much as possible, and I am a lot more careful when crossing the street than I am during day light.

The same goes for when I fly "outside the rules". If I'm doing an instrument approach and MDA seems to be the exact same altitude of the ceiling; you know, when you can see below you the ground, but can't see in front of you... Do I do a missed approach and screw over all the passengers as well as my company? No. If I see nothing but solid white at MDA, I do a missed, but if I can see the ground below me, and I am familiar with the area, and am certain I can handle going down a few more feel, I'll do so. If I don't see it, I'll go missed.

This is not the same thing as just saying "MDA? Who needs it? I do whatever I want!"

I guess what I'm trying to say, is that it doesn't require a robot like approach to following regulations to be respectful of limitations. The idea is to show discretion.
 
Re: These pilot certificates were too much to earn to jeopar

"Thanks, you should get a phone call from us in a few days if you're offered the job. Have a nice day now . . ."

Yes and when I get that job and this scenario actually does happen, I will just MEL that nav light and be on my way!!! Do you get it??? Get past the interview, it's only a game, don't get suckered into it, it's not reality.
 
What I say in the interview and what I do on the job, different things. In the interview:

Interview :I don't go for the first two.

In real life. #### it. We're going to get this poor bastard out of here, and make sure he makes it to the hospital.

Lose a motor, eh, what's 20 minutes. Easier to inform ATC, and stick to the original plan, much better to stick to the plan, and keep trucking then try to shoot from the hip and change things up. Once you've got a plan, try to stick to it. Continuing on is better all the way around, especially if the patient is critical.
 
Some would say I am a reckless moron because I do something outside the rules.

...

The same goes for when I fly "outside the rules". If I'm doing an instrument approach and MDA seems to be the exact same altitude of the ceiling; you know, when you can see below you the ground, but can't see in front of you... Do I do a missed approach and screw over all the passengers as well as my company? No. If I see nothing but solid white at MDA, I do a missed, but if I can see the ground below me, and I am familiar with the area, and am certain I can handle going down a few more feel, I'll do so. If I don't see it, I'll go missed.

This is not the same thing as just saying "MDA? Who needs it? I do whatever I want!"

I guess what I'm trying to say, is that it doesn't require a robot like approach to following regulations to be respectful of limitations. The idea is to show discretion.

...let's not have another "why can't I do a flip in an uncertificated plane?" thread :banghead:
 
The same goes for when I fly "outside the rules". If I'm doing an instrument approach and MDA seems to be the exact same altitude of the ceiling; you know, when you can see below you the ground, but can't see in front of you... Do I do a missed approach and screw over all the passengers as well as my company? No. If I see nothing but solid white at MDA, I do a missed, but if I can see the ground below me, and I am familiar with the area, and am certain I can handle going down a few more feel, I'll do so. If I don't see it, I'll go missed.

That is insane. Once you cross the line (or altitude), it really gets fuzzy. You're making your own rules at that point, and if you worked for me or with me, you would be history. I would pop you for it.
 
Some of the responses in here treat this like its a good vs evil thing and that im going down a bad road if I even break the smallest reg. This isn't a long time ago in a galaxy far away and I'm not going to fall to the dark side.

The answer to the first question is the nav light broke when you arrived at your destination.

The second; how are you gonna get all the way to the runway anyway, is the 4x4 gonna tow you into position for t/o?

The third; If I'm 20 mins out from an airport, then I've already done all the setup work to land there, why make an engine failure situation make more work for myself by trying to replan everything just because I'm slightly closer to another airport.

Im surprised the fourth question isn't; ATC says good day on the handofff call, do you respond with a good day or maintain proper radio phraseology?

Of course I follow all regulations at all times and these are all hypothetical answers.
 
Really this thread just makes me shake my head.

If you are breaking a reg, sop's, or any other action that could get you fired don't do it. It is as easy as that

A little hypocritical there?

Also, doesn't the initial question say the light is NOT mel'd? If I read it wrong my bad, it broke in flight. Anyway, use the anticollision lights to prevent a collision, great idea, eh? Anyway, the beacon there and maybe even strobes! I mean, a red or green light = me letting someone die? I don't think so.

James, you said you want a family, what if that was your son or daughter and a med pilot said "can't go, no nav light". Are you gonna stand there as an educated pilot and say "ok"?

Just think about it.
 
Do you thing taking off with a burnt out nav light is a blatantly disregarding regulations?

Of course it is. Is the nav light required by the regs? Yes. Are you aware of this? Yes. Are you knowingly making a decision to disregard the regs, because you feel it is not important? Yes.

Seems pretty blatant to me. The FAA has prosecuted for a lot less than this. Practically speaking, I see where you are coming from.
 
A little hypocritical there?

Wow...is that thread ever going to go away? IAA was a terrible experience for me...I would not recommend anyone to go there. The CFI I had was terrible, the flight school was expensive, and your customer service person at the front desk was swearing on the phone while customers were in the lobby. Just because IAA pays you minimum wage and that CFI gives you free flight time doesn't mean you have to get your panties in a bundle every thread I post.

I would also appreciate it if you stop accusing me of busting regs when you were not in the airplane. After talking to a FAA Inspector he said I didn't break a reg anyway.
 
Back
Top