How would you answer these interview questions?

[fly8slep]

I'm sure you could get the nav light changed real quick like if you told the mechanics the situation

What if there is no mechanic? Make it you're in the middle of nowhere.

 

[Michael95U]

That's the whole point, they want to get you out of your bubble. They will have an MEL for nav lights and they sure as hell will have a snow plower to move airplanes out of the hangar, that's not the point. It's about theory, there is no right or wrong answer, just the answer that they like. They are in the business of saving lives. It's a little cold to say I'm not going to save that life because of a burnt light that will violate regs, eventough it's a correct answer in an airline interview, it may not be for them. The next question they will ask you is; so you're ok with the person dying because of a burnt light?

To play devil's advocate, couldn't you be putting a lot more patients in jeopardy if you ARE caught and the FAA suspends you and the air ambulance's certificate?

 

[Michael95U]

2) Use the 4X4 to clear the snow, then use the tug.

All three questions are asking you to balance customer service against protecting company assets. I'm guessing the company is more interested in its assets. Otherwise company policy would read "Do what you need to do to get er done."

The interviewee said (and I paraphrase) "I guess I will be shoveling a ton of snow before I move the aircraft with the tug"

 

[Realms09]

3) You are 20 minutes from your destination when the chip detector detects a chip in the left engine which causes you to shut down the engine. Do you continue to your destination with the patient, or do you divert immediately to the airport with 10 miles that can handle your aircraft?

Perhaps relevant information is the difference in time since last overhaul of the two engines. If the right engine has been maintained in the same manner as the left, it should be experiencing similar wear conditions and might be close to producing a chip of its own. If they've been maintained differently you have a stronger basis for continuing the flight.

That being said, if you're close, why can't they drive the patient the rest of the way?

 

[Nick]

That's the whole point, they want to get you out of your bubble. They will have an MEL for nav lights and they sure as hell will have a snow plower to move airplanes out of the hangar, that's not the point. It's about theory, there is no right or wrong answer, just the answer that they like. They are in the business of saving lives. It's a little cold to say I'm not going to save that life because of a burnt light that will violate regs, eventough it's a correct answer in an airline interview, it may not be for them. The next question they will ask you is; so you're ok with the person dying because of a burnt light?

Yeah that is why I said I wouldn't fly with it.

I am the pilot, not the administrator.

I'm not going to get hired at some place and then start breaking the rules in their airplane.

I don't care what is in the back -- flowers, critically ill patients, it is all superfluous information.

 

[Itchy]

I would not be shutting down a perfectly fine engine over a chip light in the first place.

 

[fly8slep]

I would not be shutting down a perfectly fine engine over a chip light in the first place.

That is irrelevant info, they just want to make sure you know you're not on fire and give you reason to keep going. Again, theory.

 

[Goonie]

even if that means completely annihilating your career?

Yep!

"Worked when I took off."

 

[fly8slep]

Yeah that is why I said I wouldn't fly with it.

I am the pilot, not the administrator.

I'm not going to get hired at some place and then start breaking the rules in their airplane.

I don't care what is in the back -- flowers, critically ill patients, it is all superfluous information.

Lol, then you're not going to get the job. It's amazing how people take interviews as a matter of fact. It's a game. There is a difference in what you would do in real life vs what you would during an interview. Again, it's their game, they want to see your reasoning. You just said, you don't care who you have in the back, life, flowers, or checks. If you're in the business of saving lives, would you hire you?

 

[USMCmech]

Since it is company policy to only use the tug and nothing else, I'd call the company.

"Hi -- I'm here with the plane and the taxiway is plowed enough to use and the runway should be plowed enough for me to takeoff in a few minutes. I can't get the tug to work in the snow here at the hangar. We can't do this mission unless I can use the 4x4, but that's against the rule of using the tug and nothing else. Would you like me to cancel this flight, or try using the 4x4?"

If they want to waive their own rule then that is their prerogative. If they say no to changing the rule, then there is no decision to even be made -- the plane is stuck.

I can't speak for any company, but if I were interviewing somone for a job that's an attitude I would like to see.

 

[skydog]

These questions were asked of someone close to me in a recent interview with a Fixed Wing Air Ambulance Company. How would you guys answer these questions:

1) You preflight the aircraft and notice that one nav light is inop. The nav lights are not on the MEL and are required for the flight. Would you still take the flight to move the critical patient?

2) You arrive to pull the aircraft out of the hangar and there has just been a heavy snow fall. The tug (which is the only approved vehicle to move the aircraft) cannot operate in such heavy snow. But you do have access to a 4x4 truck. Do you go against company policy and use the 4x4 or do your scrub the mission to move the critically ill patient?

3) You are 20 minutes from your destination when the chip detector detects a chip in the left engine which causes you to shut down the engine. Do you continue to your destination with the patient, or do you divert immediately to the airport with 10 miles that can handle your aircraft?

I know how I would answer these (which was similar to how the person answered them in the interview; the person did not come away with a good feeling from the interview). How would you answer these questions?

Notice that all the questions include some form of the words "critically ill patient." This information is irrelevant. It's a distractor to see if your aeronautical decision making can be influenced by such factors. Remember, you are a pilot, not a medical specialist. Your sole concern is to get the airplane from point A to B safely. If you do that, the patient gets there by default. Put it another way. If the words "critically ill patient" were replaced with "sack of potatoes," (perhaps "perfectly healthy passenger" would be a better choice) would you still make the same decisions? My opinion is you should.

The first two scenarios are pre-flight, so everything being discussed is in the planning stage of the operation. The third scenario occurs in flight, or in the "execution" stage. The rules are still the rules, but become more, well, "pliable" is the way I would describe it. For example: You are twenty minutes away from your destination, or 10 miles from a suitable alternate. If you are up at FL300 when you shut down the engine, you probably have twenty minutes more flying regardless of which airport you choose. In that case, it may make more sense to continue to the destination. Other factors to consider are the presence or absence of suitable services (crash, fire, and rescue, etc). You see my point?

I see these questions as designed to test, not only your aeronautical decision making, but also your ability to command. They're not looking for just yes and no answers. They're looking for you to show leadership and management. In other words, you need to tell them the book answer, but then you also need to show them how you might try to find a way to make the flight work. Some other posts in this thread have given some excellent examples of this.

 

[flyviper]

Personally, if the patient's life is depended on my actions, I would go and file ASAP report later. I guess you can call that different kind of works require different kind of approach. I don't know, just my personal preferences.

 

[Nick]

For the second time

Lol, then you're not going to get the job. It's amazing how people take interviews as a matter of fact. It's a game. There is a difference in what you would do in real life vs what you would during an interview.

Lol, then I probably don't want to work there to begin with. It's amazing how people take interviews as anything other than what they are -- answer the question without lying. It's an interview.

 

[Nick]

Whoa

Personally, if the patient's life is depended on my actions, I would go and file ASAP report later.

If that is what you are going to do, then do not even file the ASAP report because it is not going to be included in the ASAP program anyway!

You've intentionally disregarded flight safety and that is in the criteria that would make your ASAP report exempt from protection.

 

[Itchy]

Personally, if the patient's life is depended on my actions, I would go and file ASAP report later. I guess you can call that different kind of works require different kind of approach. I don't know, just my personal preferences.

Again, until you get an LOI.

I *guarantee* you, - you would answer the question differently. Everyone always seems to think that it won't happen to them, it happens to the other guy. Operate like that, and sooner or later you will be the "other guy".

 

[fly8slep]

Re: For the second time

Lol, then I probably don't want to work there to begin with.

See you're making it personal, that is exactly what the interviewers want to catch so they can make people frustrated and weed them out. You and they know that you will NOT break any FAA regulations. They know that in real life you will not takeoff with anything broken. However they will go into it deeper, they will then ask you "so you don't care if the guy in the back dies" That is where they catch you, by saying you don't care who you have in the back, that equates to YES you don't care if they die. That is not what they want to hear, you may be a good pilot but you're not the type they want, who is wiling to think outside the box by showing that you care.

 

[the_dmn8tr]

Personally, if the patient's life is depended on my actions, I would go and file ASAP report later. I guess you can call that different kind of works require different kind of approach. I don't know, just my personal preferences.

An ASAP will not cover you if you knowingly break a reg. AC-00-46B says it must be "inadvertant and not deliberate." Take a look at Ferguson vs NTSB 678 F 2d. 821 (1982)

The case deals with a pilot who landed at the wrong airport without a clearance, then filed a NASA form and said he couldn't be violated. This is the case that the FAA would reference when they get you. Specifically, the line in the ruling that says, "He should have known that his conduct demonstrated a gross disregard for safety and created an actual danger to life and property."

If you take off without a nav light and cause an accident, then file a NASA report, it is not going to protect anything.

 

[flyviper]

Re: Whoa

If that is what you are going to do, then do not even file the ASAP report because it is not going to be included in the ASAP program anyway!

You've intentionally disregarded flight safety and that is in the criteria that would make your ASAP report exempt from protection.

Again I just said if it was me and his life is depended on me..I certainly will not ground the flight because of a Nav light. I think your opinion might be different if you think about it this way, What if that ill patient is a family of yours? You can say all you want but if you see someone is dying back in the plane and you didn't takeoff because of a light bulk, where is the sense of being a human being?

oooh, by the way I think his life is worth lot more than my cert if the FAA was that harsh.

PS: Again, thats whey i'm not in Air Ambulance because I would be in a lot of trouble. =)

 

[JayAre]

Why would it matter if there was a patient onboard. I always thought from other ems pilots never base you actions on your patient. Seems it could cloud your judgement when the pressure was on.

As for the nav light if I remember right during the preflight no way. Waiting in line for takeoff I believe we can per ops spec but than again I fly boxes not people

 

[USMCmech]

1) You preflight the aircraft and notice that one nav light is inop. The nav lights are not on the MEL and are required for the flight. Would you still take the flight to move the critical patient?

Get on the phone to dispatch ASAP. How long to fix it? Can we get a waiver from the POI? Can we get another plane?

The one thing we can't do is fly an unairworthy airplane. If you start cutting corners with MX, where will it end.

2) You arrive to pull the aircraft out of the hangar and there has just been a heavy snow fall. The tug (which is the only approved vehicle to move the aircraft) cannot operate in such heavy snow. But you do have access to a 4x4 truck. Do you go against company policy and use the 4x4 or do your scrub the mission to move the critically ill patient?

I liked Nick's answer,

"Hi -- I'm here with the plane and the taxiway is plowed enough to use and the runway should be plowed enough for me to takeoff in a few minutes. I can't get the tug to work in the snow here at the hangar. We can't do this mission unless I can use the 4x4, but that's against the rule of using the tug and nothing else. Would you like me to cancel this flight, or try using the 4x4?"

If they want to waive their own rule then that is their prerogative. If they say no to changing the rule, then there is no decision to even be made -- the plane is stuck.

3) You are 20 minutes from your destination when the chip detector detects a chip in the left engine which causes you to shut down the engine. Do you continue to your destination with the patient, or do you divert immediately to the airport with 10 miles that can handle your aircraft?

Head to the best airplort for getting the plane on the ground considering weather, runway lengths, aproaches, facilities ect. Getting the paitent to the hospital is one consideration, but not the only one. The paitent will not be helped by me pushing safety and wercking the airplane.


I have spoken to several Helo EMS pilots, and their Go/NoGo decision is made without any paitent information. It dosen't matter if it's a child dying, or a simple ferry flight, either a flight can be made safely and leagley, or it can't.