How would you answer these interview questions?
- Thread starter Michael95U
- Start date
Xcaliber
El Chupacabra
I'm not an interviewer, nor have I really done many interviews, so take my response with a grain of salt. I have also never done any sort of Air Ambulance, but I have talked to several pilots while I working on the ramp at several different airports. I think these are the answers I would give:
1) No, I would not fly the aircraft while it is unairworthy. However, that does not mean that we couldn't get the patient to where they need to go. First, it says you are doing preflight. I don't know for sure, but I would assume that most air ambulances would do their preflight well before they need the aircraft for a patient (either at the beginning of the shift for a surprise patient or well before the patient in scheduled to arrive). That means that there should be plenty of time to deal with the situation. Are you at an airport with a maintenance shop? If so, have them fix the problem. Asuming it's just a burnt out bulb, it shouldn't take more than 10 min to get everything done. Also, from my experience on the ramp, I've noticed that most of the patients that are transported by Air Ambulances (at least the one's going through the FBO) are in stable condition (not sure if you can be in a critical but stable condition, but that's why I'm not a doctor). The medical officers won't take someone on board an aircraft unless they're ready to be transported. If they can wait to make sure the patient is stable, another 10 minutes (probably) won't cause any major issues. As a second option, I know a lot of air ambulance companies have two or more aircraft in their fleet. If this is the case, use another aircraft. If nothing else works, than there is always an actual ambulance. Aircraft are not the only way to transport people.
2) If the snow is that heavy and the taxiways and runway are not clear, that pretty much makes the decision for you. If you can't drive a tug on it, then you probably won't be able to drive a plane on it either. Assuming the taxiway and runway are clear enough for you to operate on, then the only snow that should be an issue would be the stuff right in front of the hanger. In that case, you should be able to shovel out three tracks for the tires in front of the aircraft rather quickly, even if it is "heavy". If you have enough shovels, get others to help you.
I really like Nick's response to this one too.
3) I think this one has a lot of "it depends" in it. Are you still in cruise or just starting your descent? It could take you as long to descend to the closer airport as it could to get to the destination. What's the weather like? If you have to shoot an approach into the closer airport, it could take you 20 minutes anyways. What is the performance of your aircraft? Which airport has ARFF? If you do decide to go to the nearer airport, make sure you have ATC or someone notify those that were waiting for you to arrive. With the given times/distances, they could be halfway to the new airport before you touch down.
1) No, I would not fly the aircraft while it is unairworthy. However, that does not mean that we couldn't get the patient to where they need to go. First, it says you are doing preflight. I don't know for sure, but I would assume that most air ambulances would do their preflight well before they need the aircraft for a patient (either at the beginning of the shift for a surprise patient or well before the patient in scheduled to arrive). That means that there should be plenty of time to deal with the situation. Are you at an airport with a maintenance shop? If so, have them fix the problem. Asuming it's just a burnt out bulb, it shouldn't take more than 10 min to get everything done. Also, from my experience on the ramp, I've noticed that most of the patients that are transported by Air Ambulances (at least the one's going through the FBO) are in stable condition (not sure if you can be in a critical but stable condition, but that's why I'm not a doctor). The medical officers won't take someone on board an aircraft unless they're ready to be transported. If they can wait to make sure the patient is stable, another 10 minutes (probably) won't cause any major issues. As a second option, I know a lot of air ambulance companies have two or more aircraft in their fleet. If this is the case, use another aircraft. If nothing else works, than there is always an actual ambulance. Aircraft are not the only way to transport people.
2) If the snow is that heavy and the taxiways and runway are not clear, that pretty much makes the decision for you. If you can't drive a tug on it, then you probably won't be able to drive a plane on it either. Assuming the taxiway and runway are clear enough for you to operate on, then the only snow that should be an issue would be the stuff right in front of the hanger. In that case, you should be able to shovel out three tracks for the tires in front of the aircraft rather quickly, even if it is "heavy". If you have enough shovels, get others to help you.
I really like Nick's response to this one too.
3) I think this one has a lot of "it depends" in it. Are you still in cruise or just starting your descent? It could take you as long to descend to the closer airport as it could to get to the destination. What's the weather like? If you have to shoot an approach into the closer airport, it could take you 20 minutes anyways. What is the performance of your aircraft? Which airport has ARFF? If you do decide to go to the nearer airport, make sure you have ATC or someone notify those that were waiting for you to arrive. With the given times/distances, they could be halfway to the new airport before you touch down.
Nick
Well-Known Member
And the event review committee will sit there and look at each other and say, "why did this guy even file an ASAP report?"
If the nav light was working when you did the walkaround, then you have no need to file anything.
Just write it up after the flight since you saw it was out during the post-flight inspection.
mhcasey
Well-Known Member
Jhugz, [edit]? I took out the derogatory part since I've already had my wrist slapped once for this guy.
I think the nav light is the hardest question because it's a little more complicated, it's the pilots decision on the ground and there is nothing physically stopping the pilot from doing the task. The snow issue is an natural element problem, easy answer don't go against company, not FAA,procedures to remove snow.. The in flight issue is also easy, just follow the regs for an engine failure.
mhcasey
Well-Known Member
Concur. You guys are absurdly paranoid. You think your career will be over because of this? Even the Feds have better things to do than end a career because a guy took off with a piece of equipment that is pretty redundant (you've got ATC alerting you and other traffic, your other position lights, strobes, landing light, beacon). Don't forget they know they'd be dealing with some sort of appeal and drawn out/costly law suit.
"What? Put my career in jeopardy to save a life? No. No we don't do noble things as pilots." :banghead:
Nick
Well-Known Member
No, the feds do not always have better things to do other than violate pilots for things that we all believe to be trivial.
What kind of lawsuit would you possibly attempt against the FAA when they know you've willfully broken a regulation?
How can they possibly prove that you intentionally took off with a broken Nav light. Again this is completely off topic as far as the interviews intention.
R
Roger, Roger
Guest
I'd use my privileges as a commercial pilot to replace the light bulb. I guess if this place operates mostly 135, a pilot probably can't do that. If that is a problem, well, there is always the A&P certificate I have...
I like the idea of asking permission to substitute the 4x4.
And unless the nearer airport had a clear reason why it was superior (approach minima, weather, runway available, etc) I would continue to the destination. It was, after all, a precautionary shut down and there would seem to be no immediate danger to the aircraft.
I like the idea of asking permission to substitute the 4x4.
And unless the nearer airport had a clear reason why it was superior (approach minima, weather, runway available, etc) I would continue to the destination. It was, after all, a precautionary shut down and there would seem to be no immediate danger to the aircraft.
mhcasey
Well-Known Member
Ever had a speeding ticket dismissed? Judges are not always giant d-bags. "Sorry your honor. I learned my lesson. Won't happen again."
You know what this reminds me of?
Maverick: The shot was there and it was safe, so I took it.
Viper: You took it...And broke a major rule of engagement!
Come on...who wouldn't have taken the shot at Jester?
Also...
Maverick: When you're up there you don't have time to think. You think; You're dead.
Kind of unattractive girl: Well that's an awfully large gamble to take with a 45 million dollar plane Lieutenant.
Then Maverick ends up winning the girl!
Seems like a no brainer to me...
amorris311
Well-Known Member
there are a lot of what ifs. nick is right when it comes to regs and company policy. i cannot dispute that. what i would do in real life is another issue. some of these are gametime decisions. the nav light is an easy one to walk around. it worked when i took off. the snow factor is a would i drive my own car on this?! the shut the engine down is once again continue unless you have no performance. all the questions have many traps. there are a million possibilities to answer those questions. i know how i would answer them and the company can take it or leave it.
Maybe it's the pt121 mentality but usually when you're single engine, you land at the nearest suitable airport. If the nearest suitable airport is ONLY the destination, then I would continue.
1. You're quoting a movie..... 2 You're not a gay fighter pilot..... No offence to Max, didn't mean to group you with fighter pilots.:laff:
JumpWake
Well-Known Member
Top Gun???? Really????
Somehow, Maverick, I don't think "Top Gun" quotes are going to cut it dealing with the FSDO...
amorris311
Well-Known Member
i agree with the quotes not cutting it with the fsdo. what about a leather jacket?
jhugz
Guppy gear swinger
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.
If that is not the answer the interviewer wants then maybe just maybe you don't want to be working for that company.
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.
If that is not the answer the interviewer wants then maybe just maybe you don't want to be working for that company.
Maybe they're not looking for a robot? Who knows!
mhcasey
Well-Known Member
Sorry guys...Thought I could hijack the thread with Top Gun quotes because there are way too many self serving dorks that think nav lights should prevent a flight that would otherwise have saved a life.
Since I was a philosophy major I'm going to take this one to its logical extreme (because Jhugz appears to think it will hold up).
You're hanging around at work when you get a call to medevac a woman and her young child that have just been in an accident and are critically injured. As the ambulence rolls in you realize that the nav light isn't working. Then you realize that said woman and child are your wife and your child. Do you still act like a giant tool and park it, or do you decide "ok well this one is worth risking my career," thus "endangering everyone else in the sky?"
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..."
Viper just said it best...a bunch of freaking robots out there.
Since I was a philosophy major I'm going to take this one to its logical extreme (because Jhugz appears to think it will hold up).
You're hanging around at work when you get a call to medevac a woman and her young child that have just been in an accident and are critically injured. As the ambulence rolls in you realize that the nav light isn't working. Then you realize that said woman and child are your wife and your child. Do you still act like a giant tool and park it, or do you decide "ok well this one is worth risking my career," thus "endangering everyone else in the sky?"
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..."
Viper just said it best...a bunch of freaking robots out there.
If a fed came up to me right now, I probably couldn't even tell them which nav light goes with which side. And I fly paying pax for a living. I know it's one of those instrument/atp questions but when have you used the nav lights of another plane to avoid a midair collision, oh.. sorry, near miss.
Nick
Well-Known Member
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.
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.
Similar threads
