How would you answer these interview questions?

[butt]

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.

This is how I see it:

Lets say you're taking off from a rural Utah airport that is uncontrolled, and it's 3 AM, so there is no one around. Your destination is another uncontrolled rural airport in the middle of nowhere. You have functioning strobes, a working beacon, and the other two nav lights are working. There is a very slim chance that you will even see another aircraft for the duration of this flight, even if you did, you have a lot of experience flying in that area, so a mid air collision is very slim. That is not a blatant disregard for the regulations.

On the other hand, lets say you have no strobes, the beacon is very weak, and both red and green nav lights are burnt out. You will be flying from Philadelphia to New York. The controllers at both airports are known for their snitchieness, and at New York, the Feds are said to be in town. You have very little experience flying at night. This situation I'd call a blatant disregard for regulations.

Here another situation: Lets say you're flying an air ambulance flight from Phoenix to Denver. After you get to cruise, you kick on the auto pilot. You pull out the AFM to read something so you don't fall asleep. You notice that one of the pages have been ripped out. Its one of the table of contents pages. According to the letter of the law, if that AFM is not complete, the plane is not airworthy. What do you do? Land at a rural airport in the middle of nowhere as soon as possible? You are flying a non-airworthy plane, are you not? Is it not illegal to continue a flight after you have discovered the plane to be not airworthy?

 

[jhugz]

This is how I see it:

That is not a blatant disregard for the regulations.

How do you figure? You know the regs, the nav light is required, to me it looks like a blatant disregard for regulations.

 

[CoffeeIcePapers]

This is how I see it:

Lets say you're taking off from a rural Utah airport that is uncontrolled, and it's 3 AM, so there is no one around. Your destination is another uncontrolled rural airport in the middle of nowhere. You have functioning strobes, a working beacon, and the other two nav lights are working. There is a very slim chance that you will even see another aircraft for the duration of this flight, even if you did, you have a lot of experience flying in that area, so a mid air collision is very slim. That is not a blatant disregard for the regulations.

Still blatant disregard. You know for a fact that it is not airworthy, yet still continue.

1. without any attempt at concealment; completely obvious; "blatant disregard of the law"; "a blatant appeal to vanity"; "a blazing indiscretion"

WordNet® 3.0, © 2006 by Princeton University.

Where does it end? Let's say you flew a plane on November 30th, and the annual is due at the end of the month. The next day, December 1st, you decide to fly it, without the annual being completed. Is the airplane going to fall out of the sky? Probably not, you just flew it the day before. Are you blatantly disregarding the regs? Of course.

On the other hand, lets say you have no strobes, the beacon is very weak, and both red and green nav lights are burnt out. You will be flying from Philadelphia to New York. The controllers at both airports are known for their snitchieness, and at New York, the Feds are said to be in town. You have very little experience flying at night. This situation I'd call a blatant disregard for regulations.

The disregard for the regs have NOTHING TO DO WITH OUTSIDE CIRCUMSTANCES. Who cares if you are in the middle of nowhere? You are STILL BREAKING THE REGS. Who cares if the Feds are said to be in town. You are STILL BREAKING THE REGS.

Your scenarios are pretty ridiculous when you apply them to other situations. If you murder someone in the middle of no where and have basically no chance of getting caught, are you not still blatantly violating the law? C'mon man...

 

[jhugz]

Still blatant disregard. You know for a fact that it is not airworthy, yet still continue.

1. without any attempt at concealment; completely obvious; "blatant disregard of the law"; "a blatant appeal to vanity"; "a blazing indiscretion"

WordNet® 3.0, © 2006 by Princeton University.

Where does it end? Let's say you flew a plane on November 30th, and the annual is due at the end of the month. The next day, December 1st, you decide to fly it, without the annual being completed. Is the airplane going to fall out of the sky? Probably not, you just flew it the day before. Are you blatantly disregarding the regs? Of course.



The disregard for the regs have NOTHING TO DO WITH OUTSIDE CIRCUMSTANCES. Who cares if you are in the middle of nowhere? You are STILL BREAKING THE REGS. Who cares if the Feds are said to be in town. You are STILL BREAKING THE REGS.

Your scenarios are pretty ridiculous when you apply them to other situations. If you murder someone in the middle of no where and have basically no chance of getting caught, are you not still blatantly violating the law? C'mon man...

:yeahthat:

 

[Goonie]

How do you figure? You know the regs, the nav light is required, to me it looks like a blatant disregard for regulations.

And I say so what!!

It's a stupid nav light! Their is a critical patient on board and I'm not scrubing the flight because of a nav light. I'll deal with the FAA later (if the even find out or care).

Some of y'all need to get over yourselves and use common sense.

Btw... It's not a "sack of potatoes" it's a human that needs medical attention so that argument won't fly.

 

[bdhill1979]

As an EMT the ambulance is driven safely at all times.

Stop lights are stop lights.
Stop signs are stop signs.

Driving excessively fast, running stop lights, jumping curbs, etc.....will get you fired.

Does not matter one bit what is going on in back.

 

[butt]

Still blatant disregard. You know for a fact that it is not airworthy, yet still continue.

1. without any attempt at concealment; completely obvious; "blatant disregard of the law"; "a blatant appeal to vanity"; "a blazing indiscretion"

WordNet® 3.0, © 2006 by Princeton University.

Where does it end? Let's say you flew a plane on November 30th, and the annual is due at the end of the month. The next day, December 1st, you decide to fly it, without the annual being completed. Is the airplane going to fall out of the sky? Probably not, you just flew it the day before. Are you blatantly disregarding the regs? Of course.



The disregard for the regs have NOTHING TO DO WITH OUTSIDE CIRCUMSTANCES. Who cares if you are in the middle of nowhere? You are STILL BREAKING THE REGS. Who cares if the Feds are said to be in town. You are STILL BREAKING THE REGS.

Your scenarios are pretty ridiculous when you apply them to other situations. If you murder someone in the middle of no where and have basically no chance of getting caught, are you not still blatantly violating the law? C'mon man...

You seem to be under the belief that any break of regulation is a break of regulation, regardless of the severity. Flying without a nav light = taking off with 3 inches of clear ice on your wings = continuing a flight after you notice the table of contents page is torn out of the AFM = taking off with an engine inoperative = flying with a non-MEL-able map light inop = taking off when the aircraft is on fire... I just don't see it that way.

 

[CoffeeIcePapers]

You seem to be under the belief that any break of regulation is a break of regulation, regardless of the severity.

It is...

Not only will they get you on 91.205, they will get you on 91.13 as well. The point is, in the eyes of the FAA, rules are rules. It doesn't matter what your view is.

If you wish to intentionally break the regs, that is up to you, just be prepared for the consequences when the hammer comes down.

 

[DPApilot]

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.

Where is there anything about IAA in that post?
Also, I don't get paid minimum wage, and if I did it would be a step up from your unemployment

That was about the family, as the post went to explain.

 

[mhcasey]

You guys are unreal.

JHugz...we'll let you forget it eventually. I think it just comes as a shock to us all that you are not laying low for a while. "Yeah yeah I busted my checkride a few times, had a questionable story get out there about my flying, pissed everyone off with my opinions on GoJets, etc. but then I came back and asked for everyone's support on my 3rd try and when I finally passed, I instantly became an expert at all things aviation!"

BD...come on man. Running a stop sign is way way more dangerous than flying without a nav light.

We're just asking you guys to use your heads.

 

[mhcasey]

If you wish to intentionally break the regs, that is up to you, just be prepared for the consequences when the hammer comes down.

Well said Mojo. I think the disagreement here is that some of us say "F it. This guy is not dying because of a redundant and unnecessary piece of equipment - regardless of the consequences," while others say, "No my career is too important."

And I also say, "You guys are completed misguided in thinking that a busted nav light is going to cost you your licenses."

 

[Nick]

And I say so what!!

It's a stupid nav light! Their is a critical patient on board and I'm not scrubing the flight because of a nav light. I'll deal with the FAA later

Some of y'all need to get over yourselves and use common sense.

I agree, I'd want to go because I don't care about the light either.

But I wouldn't.

Why should you and I, as pilots, be expected to risk certificate action by the FAA just because an ambulance company has not done it's homework and equipped their aircraft with redundancy?


You say there is a critical patient on board.

Of course there is.

It is an air ambulance! This is just another typical day for an ambulance.

Seven days a week there is a critical patient on board. Should the pilot be expected to constantly break FARs several times a week because there is always a critically ill patient on board?

 

[Nick]

And I also say, "You guys are completed misguided in thinking that a busted nav light is going to cost you your licenses."

This is where you may regret a decision to go with broken equipment.

If an FAA inspector watched you do the pre-flight walkaround and the nav light was broken and then he or she watches you taxi out and takeoff, you have just demonstrated, to the FAA, that you intentionally disregarded a federal aviation regulation.

 

[bdhill1979]

You say there is a critical patient on board.

Of course there is.

It is an air ambulance! This is just another typical day for an ambulance.

?

Exactly, its just an ambulance that happens to be an airplane instead of a truck/van. The same rules apply.

Day one of EMT ambulance training was a slideshow of gruesome crashes, it wasn't till about 5 minutes in that everybody realized the slides were all of AMBULANCE crashes.

BD...come on man. Running a stop sign is way way more dangerous than flying without a nav light.

how do you quantify that? Who decides?

Both pose a serious risk of collision
Both are breaking a regulation
Both could potentially kill you, and your "critically ill patient", or seriously damage or destroy you ambulance; which could potentially be needed to assist another patient immediately.

 

[jhugz]

And I say so what!!

It's a stupid nav light! Their is a critical patient on board and I'm not scrubing the flight because of a nav light. I'll deal with the FAA later (if the even find out or care).

Some of y'all need to get over yourselves and use common sense.

Btw... It's not a "sack of potatoes" it's a human that needs medical attention so that argument won't fly.

If memory serves me right you are a chief flight instructor. Now if I went to your school showed this post to your students which basically says its ok to break the rules. The FAR's are just there as more of a guideline you don't rely need to fellow them how would you think their career in aviation would end? Getting their licensce suspended or revoked from the FAA or maybe worse death. Use your brain.

As an EMT the ambulance is driven safely at all times.

Stop lights are stop lights.
Stop signs are stop signs.

Driving excessively fast, running stop lights, jumping curbs, etc.....will get you fired.

Does not matter one bit what is going on in back.

:yeahthat:

You seem to be under the belief that any break of regulation is a break of regulation...

what? yes.

You guys are unreal.

JHugz...we'll let you forget it eventually. I think it just comes as a shock to us all that you are not laying low for a while. "Yeah yeah I busted my checkride a few times, had a questionable story get out there about my flying, pissed everyone off with my opinions on GoJets, etc. but then I came back and asked for everyone's support on my 3rd try and when I finally passed, I instantly became an expert at all things aviation!"

BD...come on man. Running a stop sign is way way more dangerous than flying without a nav light.

We're just asking you guys to use your heads.

If GoJet called me for interview today would I go? Yes

Did I bust my CFI checkride twice? Yes

Was I really bumed and needed some support? Yes

Did an immature little kid spread all kind of stories of me breaking regs on the internet because I was trying to pay it forward and have noone else go through the experience I had at IAA? Yes

Do I think I know everything about Aviation? Absolutely not...not even close...however it is pretty clear to me not to break a reg. I think I learned that day 1.

 

[flyviper]

A van ambulance came to a rescue a very ill patient, after loading him he saw his head light is out...as everybody know driving without a headlight would get you a fine, but what will the driver do? umm, lets think I should stop there and get my light fix before I can move that person around or he can drive with all his lights on and possibly save a life.

Relating back to the plane situation, sure you're breaking the rules but rules are dead and the person in the back is not. Wake up guys! How can you sleep at night knowing the person died in the back and because you didn't fly with a nav light out? Make no sense to me...(off course all this is just my opinion, what you do is your choice)

 

[400A]

A van ambulance came to a rescue a very ill patient, after loading him he saw his head light is out...as everybody know driving without a headlight would get you a fine, but what will the driver do? umm, lets think I should stop there and get my light fix before I can move that person around or he can drive with all his lights on and possibly save a life.

Relating back to the plane situation, sure you're breaking the rules but rules are dead and the person in the back is not. Wake up guys! How can you sleep at night knowing the person died in the back and because you didn't fly with a nav light out? Make no sense to me...(off course all this is just my opinion, what you do is your choice)

BS response. The ride back to the hospital in an ambulance will almost always be faster than the transport by air to another airport then by ground to the new hospital.

VERY VERY RARELY is it ever a life and death situation where a patient needs to be moved right now to another facility and putting a patient in an unairworthy airplane is not in the patients best interest or passengers for that matter.

 

[flyviper]

BS response. The ride back to the hospital in an ambulance will almost always be faster than the transport by air to another airport then by ground to the new hospital.

VERY VERY RARELY is it ever a life and death situation where a patient needs to be moved right now to another facility and putting a patient in an unairworthy airplane is not in the patients best interest or passengers for that matter.

Were talking about a Very ill patient in the back, for discussion purposes we're assuming the worst..:banghead:

 

[Nick]

Were talking about a Very ill patient in the back, for discussion purposes we're assuming the worst..:banghead:

Bang your head all you want.

The question remains:

Why should you, the pilot, be expected to put your certificate on the line due to the company's lack of preparation?

 

[CoffeeIcePapers]

Relating back to the plane situation, sure you're breaking the rules but rules are dead and the person in the back is not. Wake up guys! How can you sleep at night knowing the person died in the back and because you didn't fly with a nav light out? Make no sense to me...(off course all this is just my opinion, what you do is your choice)

Maybe you aren't dead, yet. Do you know what caused the nav light to be out? What if there is a short in the wiring that didn't cause the breaker to pop?

Where do you draw the line between the regs that are breakable and ones that aren't? That is my main problem with this line of thinking. What if the critical patient is a 500 lb man that will put you over gross and you have no way of offloading weight. Do you still take it?