How would you answer these interview questions?

[Tram]

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?

Well, personally.. If I was doing the walk around on a flight I knew might save someones life and found the bulb, I'd discover it on the post flight..

How would I answer it in an interview? I'd probably tell I'd scrub it.. Air Ambulance - life and death is the name of the game.. I wouldn't go breaking the "law" to move an everyday 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?

What kinda outfit am I interviewing for? Life and death decisions and no one to move the aircraft?

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?

Nearest suitable... I think being 20 minutes out makes the nearest suitable the destination..

 

[Realms09]

I doubt the nav light will be a topic of conversation, but it looks like there are some safety concerns in this sector of aviation.

NTSB to Hold Three-day Public Hearing on EMS Operations

"The report involved the analysis of all EMS-related aviation accidents that occurred from January 2002 through January 2005. There were a total of 55 accidents that occurred during this 3-year window; 41 helicopters and 14 airplanes. These accidents killed 54 people, and seriously injured 19. Analysis of the accidents indicated that 29 of 55 accidents could have been prevented with corrective actions identified in the report."

http://www.amtonline.com/article/article.jsp?siteSection=1&id=6754

 

[SpiceWeasel]

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.

.... is perfectly legal. I regularly do 320+ at 10,000. When I plan on going below 10,000, I ensure my speed is 250 prior to beginning the descent.

 

[RynoB]

The simple answers to these questions are:

1: scrub the flight.

2: scrub the flight.

3: nearest suitable

But, as someone has mentioned before, interviewers are wanting to know your thought process, your problem solving skills. I believe the correct answers have already been addressed by several of the posters.

#1 should never come up as an issue. You can carry extra bulbs or equip the aircraft with dual nav lights that can be MEL'd, which has already been mentioned. I believe someone also mentioned preflighting the aircraft when arriving on duty, not waiting until called out for an EMS flight. I have heard of some operations that have the crews preflight the aircraft at the beginning of each shift. This minimizes the chances of maintenance issues popping up, and also minimizes the time to get airborne when called out.

#2 I believe it was Nick that recommended calling a manager to get approval from the company to use the unapproved tug. I would do the same. The FAA will unlikely bust a pilot for breaking a company policy, unless it also breaks a reg. The only issue here that might cause the FAA to get involved would be damaging the aircraft while towing it with the 4X4.

#3 I think too many have rushed to the conclusion of diverting to the nearest suitable airport. The interviewer wants to see your problem solving skills here. Every one would agree that you need to check the weather at the diversion airport before you divert. Say that the airport you want to divert to has a 7000' long runway with an ILS that has 200' and 1/2 mile minimums. Sounds good doesn't it? What if your destination that is 20 minutes away is 10 miles and clear, but the airport that is 10 miles away is down to 200 and 1/2? Are you really going to fly a single engine ILS to minimums when you have a perfectly good VMC airport a little farther away? If the diversion airport was not your original alternate, you probably didn't get the FDC NOTAM about the temporary construction crane that raised the ILS minimums to 350' and 1 mile. You just busted a regulation, and compromised safety.

If both airports are VMC, then I would agree that the closer airport would be the wiser choice, unless I was flying at high altitude. Then, it may take just as long to descend and set up for the nearest suitable airport as it would to proceed on the the destination.

The key to an interview like this is to show that you are willing to try to find ways around the problem without breaking any regs.

 

[fly8slep]

I think we can all agree that we would not do anything intentional to bust the regs however these questions weren't designed just for that. As someone said the legal answers are No, No, and No. I think some of us have done their best to defend their answers but have taken it quite literally as if it would happen in real life.... What if the interviewers give you a scenario where you have to bust something like a reg or an airplane limitation, are you just going to remain silent because in real life you could get an LOA from the feds??

 

[RynoB]

I took a test that has several different flying scenarios. Each scenario has 2 choices. Neither choice is very desirable, but you have to choose 1. The point is to find out what your most hazardous attitudes are. It was pretty interesting. Not unlike some interview questions.

 

[butt]

The point is to find out what your most hazardous attitudes are. It was pretty interesting. Not unlike some interview questions.

Furthermore, I think the intent of the questions is to determine what your priorities are when making decisions. It seems a lot of people here seem to have the following as their priority list:

Tied for first: following every single regulation to a T
Tied for first: maintaining safe flight
Last place: everything else, including whether the cargo gets there too late to matter, or the patient dies, etc.

This is not at all what employers want. How would you like it if you were interviewing a lawyer, and he told lead you to believe that his #1 priority was to get paid and not get disbarred, while his last priority is pretty much everything else, including whether you get convicted or not.

If I were an interviewer asking these questions, it wouldn't matter one bit what your final answer was. I've always felt it to be very unprofessional to fault a peer for having a different opinion, as long as that opinion is based on sound reasonings. If a pilot told me he would take off with a busted nav light because "#### the FAA, what do they know", then I'm not going to be impressed, because that opinion is not based on sound reasoning. The same goes for a pilot who would feel no remorse for canceling a life-critical flight because his certificate runs a 0.0001% chance of being revoked.

 

[Itchy]

So Butt, what exactly is it that a safe, good to work for, employer wants then??

Believe me, just about any employer WILL throw you under the bus when they get a call from a FSDO asking why you did something that was not congruent to the regs/ FOM.

Think about that.

 

[butt]

So Butt, what exactly is it that a safe, good to work for, employer wants then??

Employers want someone who will get the job done. The don't want someone who is always thinking up ways to cancel flights because it may expose them to certificate action.

Would you rather have a lawyer that will do whatever it takes to get you off, or would you rather have one who will be super conservative with your case because he doesn't want to run the minuscule risk of getting in trouble with the bar?

Its not about whether you would break a regulation or not. The employer is putting you in charge of a million dollar aircraft, they want someone who is going to understand their needs.

If you want to fly a jet with your own needs as the only thing that enters your decision process, then start saving your money and buy your own jet, and fly it on your own time.

Believe me, just about any employer WILL throw you under the bus when they get a call from a FSDO asking why you did something that was not congruent to the regs/ FOM.

Think about that.

Employers don't give a crap if you break regs, because they aren't going to be the ones that have to bear the consequences? Do you really think the FAA is going to punish your employer for you taking off without nav lights?

 

[Itchy]

Employers don't give a crap if you break regs, because they aren't going to be the ones that have to bear the consequences? Do you really think the FAA is going to punish your employer for you taking off without nav lights?

I don't even know why I respond to the bait, but I will, last time.

Do I think the FAA is going to punish the employer? I KNOW they will, and HARD if the FAA thinks this was a condoned, wink wink, tacit approval.

And, you are reading this from the voice of experience.

I don't think you even play the game, or if you do, not for long.

 

[gomntwins]

The one of these three questions I want to answer is shutting an engine down. In my opinion, this is purely a situational question, and sometimes overflying the nearest 'suitable' airport is the best option. My personal experience: I had to shut down one of my two turbines a few months back and I overflew a perfectly good airport and flew another 60 miles on 1 engine. Why? A lot of reasons. I overflew an airport that was uncontrolled that did have plenty of runway (almost 7000 feet), but why? This is why: My destination airport I had already briefed. I was extremely comfortable with my destination airport (flown into there for years). My destination airport was controlled and had emergency personnel standing by- and the runway was an extra 1600 feet longer. Also, flying an extra 10 minutes (about the scenario of the question raised) gave me adequate time to run checklists a few times and come up with some possible scenarios that could arise on landing. Engine failure or shutdown is an emergency. Getting on the ground is important, there is no doubt, but the closest option is not always the best. If I were this medevac flight I'd probably continue-- by that time I would've been familiar with the approaches, runways, etc. and hate to give up plan A when stuff goes wrong. That just complicates things most times. 2 pilot crew may be different. My opinion is that of a freight pilot flying turbines alone.

 

[ladder360]

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?

I can only speak from experience in a few industries I've worked in over the years which have strong regulation and SOPs. My attitude is that there are so many variables which are out of your control, all you can do is focus on the ones which are in your control - following regs and SOPs being in that category. In most cases, breaking a little reg isn't going to have catastrophic consequences, but it opens up a door to causing you extreme headaches in the future. Just not worth it.

 

[Lawndart]

Being a medical professional, I’d like to bring up a few points that ya’ll may have over looked.
In a legal sense there are more ramifications for doing something you think is right, but is outside a normal scope of practice. The proverbial “life and death” decision is not made by the pilot. It is made by the company the pilot works for. Potentially endangering multiple lives because your decision making process clouded by a “hero” factor, is not in the companies best interests.
No doubt about it….. They HAVE been sued before, and for something more benign than a light bulb. The company pays malpractice insurance in some way; therefore they are also mandated rules. They are asking those three questions to see if you are going to be a liability.

Don’t get me wrong…..this sucks!
If you have any professional license, you do not fall under the "Good Samaritan Act"
Have you thanked a lawyer lately?

 

[t-cart]

Lawndart, I dont normally talk about people and pretty much stay out of others business, But, that dude in your avatar reall needs some help. Maybe a haircut or something. I apologize if that is a picture of you, but it's kinda spooky. T-Cart

 

[Lawndart]

LOL…. don't worry it's not me. I just thought it was a funny picture, but if it is creeping anybody out a change is in order.

Is this better?

 

[t-cart]

LOL…. don't worry it's not me. I just thought it was a funny picture, but if it is creeping anybody out a change is in order.

Is this better?

Ha, Just messin with you. And Welcome to JetCareers.