Medical Emergency

[Socal321]

Someone in the back needs to get down asap or they will probably die.

Right below you there is a suitable airport but the visibility is near zero airplanes are going around.

About 200 miles ahead of you there is another suitable airport with clear skies but the winds are blowing sideways at 34knots exceeding your company and airplane limitation.

What would you do?

 

[jhugz]

Someone in the back needs to get down asap or they will probably die.

Right below you there is a suitable airport but the visibility is near zero airplanes are going around.

About 200 miles ahead of you there is another suitable airport with clear skies but the winds are blowing sideways at 34knots exceeding your company and airplane limitation.

What would you do?

Continue on to the nearest suitable alternate. No point in killing a plane full of people to save one.

 

[BajtheJino]

Something tells me that if you are in a situation like this 34 knots will not be a limitation.

 

[minitour]

Continue on to the nearest suitable alternate. No point in killing a plane full of people to save one.

:clap:

You aren't going to save him by doing 7 missed approaches because you couldn't see the airport.

-mini

 

[Socal321]

What if they told you that he doesn't have enough time to get to the airport 200 miles away?

How confident are you that you will be able to land an airplane outside of it's limitations while you could possibly be able to get in at this airport with near zero visibility and save his life?

 

[minitour]

What if they told you that he doesn't have enough time to get to the airport 200 miles away?

How confident are you that you will be able to land an airplane outside of it's limitations while you could possibly be able to get in at this airport with near zero visibility and save his life?

1) I'm not going to kill everyone else on board (myself included) because we botch an ILS below minimums.

2) If we're talking actual crosswind "limitation" on the airframe and not just a max demonstrated number, then we're probably not going there either. If it's just a demonstrated number, then it's up to how confident am I that I can pull it off. If I'm even a little bit hesitant...we go somewhere else.

Sometimes you have to make the poopy decisions.

-mini

 

[MikeD]

What if they told you that he doesn't have enough time to get to the airport 200 miles away?

How confident are you that you will be able to land an airplane outside of it's limitations while you could possibly be able to get in at this airport with near zero visibility and save his life?

This would be one of those ones that if you try the airport with the near-zero and succeed, you'll be praised, however no one should criticize you if you don't.

 

[minitour]

This would be one of those ones that if you try the airport with the near-zero and succeed, you'll be praised, however no one should criticize you if you don't.

So if you try the near zero and go rolling off the side of the runway (fail), no one should criticize that decision?

-mini

 

[MikeD]

So if you try the near zero and go rolling off the side of the runway (fail), no one should criticize that decision?

-mini

Point wasn't clear.

If you try and succeed, you'll get praised. If you don't, you shouldn't get criticized.

On the try front, the gamble is you could end up a hero or a zero.

 

[derg]

Someone in the back needs to get down asap or they will probably die.

Right below you there is a suitable airport but the visibility is near zero airplanes are going around.

About 200 miles ahead of you there is another suitable airport with clear skies but the winds are blowing sideways at 34knots exceeding your company and airplane limitation.

What would you do?

Probably hit the airport 200 miles away.

My rationale:

1. IF you get in, when you land you're going to be waiting for someone to be able to attend to the passenger.

2. If you KNOW you're going to be able to land 200 miles away, you could make it in about 25 minutes if you're expeditious. Use that time to get as much information from the flight attendants about the passengers condition, forward that to dispatch so when you land, there's already a team in place, briefed, that can take care of the passenger.

3. If you're overhead at cruising altitude, it'll still take at least 10 to 30 minutes to do an emergency decent, set up for landing and chances are you'll go missed anyway, wasting far more than the 20 - 30 it'll take to get to an airport.

4. If it's +/- 10 minutes, the passenger is already probably dead if CPR/Defrib isn't working.

I might be wrong, but that's just how I see it.

No point in landing in Tulare, CA with a heart patient when you won't be able to get medical attention out there for another 20 to 30 minutes. An extra ten minutes and you can make Fresno with CFR on field and a hospital nearby that can dispatch a team.

 

[Socal321]

Interesting. I don't really know what the answer is. By the way if I remember correctly the airports were DEN and SLC.

I got this from someone I know that interviewed at Southwest last year. It's an actual scenario question he got. They put him in a room with a fake FO/FA/Dispatch complete with a loud ticking clock to put him at ease. They gave him a few minutes and they basically disagreed with every solution the poor guy came up with. In the end he made the decision to continue flying to the airport with good visibility rather than land asap. He wasn't real comfortable with that and they don't tell him if he made the right decision or not.

 

[BobDDuck]

Never risk the entire plane for the sake of one passenger. The last little bit they like to add to that scenario is that the sick passenger is your father. Obviously that doesn't change anything but if you are right on the edge of making the wrong choice they think hope this might push you over.

The only time I'm would risk landing below mins was if the entire plane full of people was at risk. Fire, low fuel, something like that.

 

[cmill]

Who says it must be one of those airports? I understand the scenario is to test ones decision making skills, but in real life, no one is limited to two airports. I'm sure there are at least enough airports to count on one hand between DEN and SLC that might offer decent vis and winds that arent howling, and still be able to provide rescue equipment.

 

[flyinpimp]

Someone in the back needs to get down asap or they will probably die.

Right below you there is a suitable airport but the visibility is near zero airplanes are going around.

About 200 miles ahead of you there is another suitable airport with clear skies but the winds are blowing sideways at 34knots exceeding your company and airplane limitation.

What would you do?

Not an airline pilot but here goes(if i may)

Is there another airport with better conditions in the vicinity?(vis., winds, med crew, etc). If so, then i would seriously consider there. If not, then would it be feasible to do a emergency descent from cruise and set up for an airport where chances are high for me to go missed possibly more than once? Chances are no, it would probably take just as long rather than just go for the airport 200 miles away.

 

[Divine Wind]

Continue on to the nearest suitable alternate. No point in killing a plane full of people to save one.

Exactly.

 

[Divine Wind]

Who says it must be one of those airports? I understand the scenario is to test ones decision making skills, but in real life, no one is limited to two airports.

A scenario limits the options for the reason you mentioned; testing decision making skills. Having unlimited options makes the question too unwieldy.

Questions like these are to test thought processes. There may not even be a right answer to the question. They just want to see how you think and explain your decisions.