How would you answer these interview questions?

[derg]

Well, let's use a real world example.

Say you've just landed at JFK.

You taxi off of 31R and you're told to hold short of taxiway "W".

The flight attendants call and say "We have a medical emergency".

Do you cross "W" without clearance to expedite getting to the gate or do you notify ATC that you've got a medical emergency?

What if ground control says, "Hold short of taxiway W", do you continue?

 

[DPApilot]

Well, let's use a real world example.

Say you've just landed at JFK.

You taxi off of 31R and you're told to hold short of taxiway "W".

The flight attendants call and say "We have a medical emergency".

Do you cross "W" without clearance to expedite getting to the gate or do you notify ATC that you've got a medical emergency?

What if ground control says, "Hold short of taxiway W", do you continue?

wait, contact tower or ground for clearance

 

[bdhill1979]

Well, let's use a real world example.

Say you've just landed at JFK.

You taxi off of 31R and you're told to hold short of taxiway "W".

The flight attendants call and say "We have a medical emergency".

Do you cross "W" without clearance to expedite getting to the gate or do you notify ATC that you've got a medical emergency?

What if ground control says, "Hold short of taxiway W", do you continue?

I would say "Screw you ground, I know Doug Taylor on the internet and he said 3.2 is awesome!!!!!"

i would just feel terrible if that patient died because the flight couldnt be completed, but i guess it would be out of my hands?

It does feel terrible. Even as the EMT in back it is primarily out of your control. The condition of the patient has more to do with what caused the call to go out, rather than what happens after EMS arrives. I am not sure how many times we arrived to have our patient DRT from something we might have been able to stabilize and transport.

Its just what the job is.

 

[derg]

I would say "Screw you ground, I know Doug Taylor on the internet and he said 3.2 is awesome!!!!!"

3.2 is an aberration and disgusting! GACK!

The Germans and Czechs, who perfected beer, would pass out for the ridiculous hilarity which is 3.2.

 

[bdhill1979]

3.2 is an aberration and disgusting! GACK!

The Germans and Czechs, who perfected beer, would pass out for the ridiculous hilarity which is 3.2.

Too late, internet rumor started.

 

[Number1atNumber2]

Ok here's my diplomatic response, interpret as you will.

Guys, lets keep in mind what you write online and through email anyone (FAA, newsmedia, bosses) can find potentially find out. So if I hypothetically admit that I'm not going to follow the rules, and later on I can be jammed up over it, then broadcasting that position online isn't very bright.

When you step beyond the flight training/instruction world things do change. Most feds know that I'd wager. They do audit maintenace records, and they'll see that 98% of things seem to have broken enroute. Do you really think they don't know what's going on?

The offical answer most of us should give from a legality standpoint is: "no to 1, no to 2, and land at the alternate in question 3."
Only you can decide for yourself what standard you'll honestly hold yourself to.

I'd be willing to bet good money that if you give the standard "always be as conservative as possible" answer to these interviews will in many cases get you the: thank you, we'll send you your rejection letter in the mail as soon as you're out the door. I'm not saying it's right, I'm staying it happens. Things can get interesting when the job market is bad and you need a job and bills are pilling up, and you have a family to support.

Everyone has their own comfort level for flying. Find out where yours is and stick to it. Stick up for yourself, its your certificate and your life.

With that said, what may scare the hell out of one pilot, may not even bug another. Say you could MEL that nav light? If flying that plane still scares you so much that you scrub the flight, IMO you need to grow a pair, or keep to VFR only sight seeing.

Even the crappy employers out there will often talk up how safe and professional they are, and that they'll back the pilot 100%. Then you get there and it may or may not be the case.

I know this doesn't answer any of the questions, it's just an opinion. It's worth what you paid for it.

I look at the questions not as right or wrong, but as ones that give an insight to your thought process. With number 2 for example: I'd have to ask: how will my plane handle taxing and T/O? If the engine fails and I have to abort, can I maintain control? etc etc.

Here's another one: you are on your T/O roll and notice the Captain has his safety belt unbuckled what would you do? Hint: telling him about it during the roll may be something to help keep him legal, but if you distract him, you're creating a dangerous situation. So maybe telling him about it later may be a better idea...

 

[mhcasey]

As insane and little progress as has been made in this thread, it's clear that we have some experienced voices and those are certainly appreciated.

Mojo...While I don't agree with you 100% on this one, I certainly respect the attitude you have taken and lessons you've derived from the tragedy last year.

BD...Your medevac experience certainly gives you credibility...I'm starting to get the feeling I would not pass medevac indoc.

Butt...uh...I think you're taking it too far. I'm still with you on the nav light (which is an absurd scenario to begin with), but not sure I follow you on the MDA thing...

It's been an enjoyable exercise...I'm out.

 

[Keefe Overby]

why would you say no to two,you can move the snow with the truck,THEN USE THE TUG.and i will repeat...scrub one, and divert three

 

[butt]

It seems the underlying opinion here is that if you break a regulation, no matter how small or banal, you are a bad pilot that is not worthy of getting a job, on the basis that following rules and regulations is a very important core value of the piloting profession.

Just as a thought experiment, could someone explain why they feel this way? Since day one of flight school we've been drilled into our heads that you must follow all regulations, but why? I know it may sound like a silly question, but can someone give it a shot, other than just saying "because the FAA says so"? What is it about following rules, as opposed to recognizing limitations and assessing whether they apply to the situation at hand is such an integral part of good airmanship?

Also, lets consider for the sake of the argument that in Kenya, their version of the FAA does not have a regulation that forbids flying with a burnt out nav light. If a pilot takes off without a nav light in the US he is illegal and unsafe, but if he takes off without a nav light in Kenya he is safe and legal, correct? Or are both pilots equally safe?

 

[ppragman]

Ok here's my diplomatic response, interpret as you will.

Guys, lets keep in mind what you write online and through email anyone (FAA, newsmedia, bosses) can find potentially find out. So if I hypothetically admit that I'm not going to follow the rules, and later on I can be jammed up over it, then broadcasting that position online isn't very bright.

When you step beyond the flight training/instruction world things do change. Most feds know that I'd wager. They do audit maintenace records, and they'll see that 98% of things seem to have broken enroute. Do you really think they don't know what's going on?

The offical answer most of us should give from a legality standpoint is: "no to 1, no to 2, and land at the alternate in question 3."
Only you can decide for yourself what standard you'll honestly hold yourself to.

I'd be willing to bet good money that if you give the standard "always be as conservative as possible" answer to these interviews will in many cases get you the: thank you, we'll send you your rejection letter in the mail as soon as you're out the door. I'm not saying it's right, I'm staying it happens. Things can get interesting when the job market is bad and you need a job and bills are pilling up, and you have a family to support.

Everyone has their own comfort level for flying. Find out where yours is and stick to it. Stick up for yourself, its your certificate and your life.

With that said, what may scare the hell out of one pilot, may not even bug another. Say you could MEL that nav light? If flying that plane still scares you so much that you scrub the flight, IMO you need to grow a pair, or keep to VFR only sight seeing.

Even the crappy employers out there will often talk up how safe and professional they are, and that they'll back the pilot 100%. Then you get there and it may or may not be the case.

I know this doesn't answer any of the questions, it's just an opinion. It's worth what you paid for it.

I look at the questions not as right or wrong, but as ones that give an insight to your thought process. With number 2 for example: I'd have to ask: how will my plane handle taxing and T/O? If the engine fails and I have to abort, can I maintain control? etc etc.

Here's another one: you are on your T/O roll and notice the Captain has his safety belt unbuckled what would you do? Hint: telling him about it during the roll may be something to help keep him legal, but if you distract him, you're creating a dangerous situation. So maybe telling him about it later may be a better idea...

Well, blowing snow, and foot deep drifts were no problem to the 1900. Slick ice, ehh, Bethel's got it every time as you taxi to takeoff 36, sometimes going around the corner you might need to throw it in reverse to change direction, no biggy, that's what its there for. The question for the interview depends substantially on what airframe you're driving. Nav Light, ehh, stupid, we go. Snow, if its a king air, and we can get it out, and the wx is good for minimums etc. We go. If its a king air and we lose a motor, then it depends on what the airplane wants to do after we lose it and also on whether I have to shoot an approach or not when I get to my alternate or my final destination. I'm not going to pile up things against me by shooting from the hip for my alternate, and the visibility and cx at my destination may preclude me from feeling comfortable diving out of the flight levels with one motor. If I don't have to, I don't want to shoot a single engine approach to mins, not that its really difficult, but I don't want the accident report to say, "the loss of an engine, combined with poor weather at the arrival airport contributed to the loss of the aircraft and the deaths of all its occupants." The real answer to these questions is that there is no right or wrong answer, and its a case by case scenario. But nobody in HR seems to think that way.

 

[ppragman]

It seems the underlying opinion here is that if you break a regulation, no matter how small or banal, you are a bad pilot that is not worthy of getting a job, on the basis that following rules and regulations is a very important core value of the piloting profession.

Just as a thought experiment, could someone explain why they feel this way? Since day one of flight school we've been drilled into our heads that you must follow all regulations, but why? I know it may sound like a silly question, but can someone give it a shot, other than just saying "because the FAA says so"? What is it about following rules, as opposed to recognizing limitations and assessing whether they apply to the situation at hand is such an integral part of good airmanship?

Also, lets consider for the sake of the argument that in Kenya, their version of the FAA does not have a regulation that forbids flying with a burnt out nav light. If a pilot takes off without a nav light in the US he is illegal and unsafe, but if he takes off without a nav light in Kenya he is safe and legal, correct? Or are both pilots equally safe?

You're using the beards paradox, when, if I systematically remove each peice of freight earned facial hair at a time, do I no longer have a beard? Answer? Its preposterous, there is no quantity of hairs that makes or breaks the beard.

The regs won't protect you, you can only think in terms of "how will I survive today," and "what will protect my certificates." How will I survive is much more important yes, but completing the mission doesn't really factor into that if "what will protect my certificates," comes into play. Up here in alaska, you can pretty much do what ever the hell you want, scud run, continued VFR into IMC, bootleg ifr, busting minimums, making up your own approaches, flying an airplane without a navlight, whatever. However, if you get caught, you have to suffer the consequences. The thing about being up here is, its harder to catch you for the feds. Anchorage is dangerous, you have to fly "conservatively," but do you think anyone is looking when ACE goes down to 100' and into 1 mile at dutch harbor? No, radar contact is lost way the hell up there. And the airport can be beautimous, and only a mile a way it can be ####. You can be down so low, that you have the wx radar tuned up to sweep for boat masts (they appear as a vertical line, not that I'd know) as you rocket in on the NDB towards hog island. Is it safe? No. Is it something you could lose your tickets for? Ehh, maybe down in the states. Does it happen ten times per day? A resounding "you betcha." If you want to do it, fine, do it. But when you #### up, you have to be willing to suffer the consequences, and at 180KIAS at 100' in IMC, sometimes that consequences is death.

I am not a meat computer. There are some guys on this thread that probably deserve that moniker, but most pilots out there are not. You don't have to willfully break regulations to prove how much of a badass you are, or howmuch you think for yourself. But thinking for yourself is paramount, you just have to use common sense. Will it kill you to take a "peak?" Hell no, not every time. How many pilots go missed on the last ILS of the day at the homebase? Maybe some, but a lot will "oooh! There it is!" Common sense comes into play when you start differentiating what you can do, and what you should do. Think, just because you can get away with it in some circumstances does not mean you will get away with it in all circumstances. Start thinking in terms of the money you've spent on your certificates and maybe that will sober you up a bit in respects to this. If you want to be a pirate, there are places to do that kind of thing, the states are not the place. Too many buildings, too many pilots, too much stuff. Too dangerous, too much liability. If you want to be a pirate, come up here, there are plenty of pirate sort of jobs in this neck of the woods, just be advised, if you aren't as good as you think you are, you will probably be dead with a "hell yeah, I can do it," or violated and out of the job. I like to play it safe for the most part, and only push it when I absolutely have to, and that's what the survivors (meaning the old pilots up here) say is the best course of action. Don't do anything to get you killed in an airplane, its not worth it.

 

[gtpilot]

For the guys arguing the nav light - from personal experience, you would be putting my life in danger by flying that plane at night sans nav light. Almost squashed a cessna on T/O at night because one wing tip light was out and the others were hidden by the profile of the aircraft as we flew up to meet him. Don't be that idiot!

And again, the patient is a red-herring. Once airborne, Lifeguard ships will get special handling, but on the ground the go-no-go decision has nothing to do with the cargo.

 

[CoffeeIcePapers]

Just as a thought experiment, could someone explain why they feel this way? Since day one of flight school we've been drilled into our heads that you must follow all regulations, but why? I know it may sound like a silly question, but can someone give it a shot, other than just saying "because the FAA says so"? What is it about following rules, as opposed to recognizing limitations and assessing whether they apply to the situation at hand is such an integral part of good airmanship?

Also, lets consider for the sake of the argument that in Kenya, their version of the FAA does not have a regulation that forbids flying with a burnt out nav light. If a pilot takes off without a nav light in the US he is illegal and unsafe, but if he takes off without a nav light in Kenya he is safe and legal, correct? Or are both pilots equally safe?

Flying is a privilege, not a right. The FAA grants us this privilege. When we accept our pilot's license, we are accepting responsibility that goes with it, which includes following the rules as they are written.

 

[My Flight Surgeon]

The questions were designed to see if you follow the rules. Too many people have the sense that they must deviate from the rules to "save the life". They are interested in have pilots who consistently follow SOP's (remember Al Haynes' talk in LAS?) and do not bend the them thinking they are the savior on the big white horse.

Everyone's adrenalin surges when they think they have an emergency. The first rule we teach medical students is "check your own pulse first".

A crashed airplane and a dead pilto will save no one in the future.

 

[ladder360]

Okay I am getting tired of repeating myself

Anybody responding in this thread with actual EMS experience please correct me if I am wrong.

To answer the original three questions all you have to do is, as someone else said, remove the "Critically Ill patient" factor.

As an Air Ambulance pilot you are not saving lives, you are flying an airplane.

The patient is not your responsibility, the airplane is.

You are not in back, you are in front.

If the airplane crashes they will blame you; If the patient crashes, they don't blame you.

As I have said already, the responsibility of an ambulance driver is:

to safely drive the ambulance.



Patients die. It happens. It has happened to me, more than once.

Part of EMS training involves the psychological aspect of the job, we actually spent a lot of time on it. If you as an EMS responder cannot be emotionally detached from the situation you are pretty much useless.

If the applicant for this job shows in the interview that they will allow outside distractions to affect the normal, safe, and legal operation of the vehicle then that person will not get the job.

Simple as that.

All very true. The same goes for responding to incidents (as a firefighter, paramedic, etc.). Many fatal injuries have occurred when emergency responders get complacent with safety while responding. In most cases, had they followed SOPs, the loss in time could be measured in seconds. Which, in the grand scheme of things is nothing in relation to whether they are successful in saving a life or not. SOPs are there for a reason, in most cases you can find alternative solutions in a timely fashion without breaking SOPs.

 

[bLizZuE]

You're allowed to deviate from any reg in cases of emergency. I wonder if you can justify as patient in critical condition as an emergency?

I wouldn't want to have to answer to the FAA about it. I'm just wondering.

The point of this/these question(s) is to see if you will willingly defy/disobey or deter from FARs.

You will have a patient in critical/serious/dying condition almost EVERY day. You can't let their condition affect your decision making.

For the little stuff, ok maybe. But breaking company policy, or continuing longer than needed single engine are definite no-nos.

 

[germb747]

Also, lets consider for the sake of the argument that in Kenya, their version of the FAA does not have a regulation that forbids flying with a burnt out nav light. If a pilot takes off without a nav light in the US he is illegal and unsafe, but if he takes off without a nav light in Kenya he is safe and legal, correct? Or are both pilots equally safe?

Does it even make sense to compare the U.S. aviation safety system to that of Africa? Our system is as safe as it is because we hold ourselves to a higher standard.

 

[KLB]

For the little stuff, ok maybe. But breaking company policy, or continuing longer than needed single engine are definite no-nos.

Well of course this is the only one I had a firm answer to earlier.

 

[RynoB]

Just tell the interviewer, "we both know that I'm going to lie to you, and you're going to lie to me. Let's just cut the crap, and I'll see you Monday morning." :bandit:

 

[Michael95U]

Just tell the interviewer, "we both know that I'm going to lie to you, and you're going to lie to me. Let's just cut the crap, and I'll see you Monday morning." :bandit:

LOL. Nice!