What would you do?
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2001
Location: England
Posts: 1,904
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What would you do?
Hi all,
I’m just a lowly PPL with 100 hours. I recently had an interview for a sponsorship scheme where I was asked the following question by a retired Captain:
“Suppose, me (the Captain) and you (the FO) got on extremely well with one another, I liked you, you liked me, we’d flown together all day long without issues. On the last sector of the day I am proposing to do something which you do not approve of. What would you do?”
My first response was:
“Firstly I would carefully review the planned action and consider it in light of company SOPs, then aircraft operating limitations. In that case I would voice my concern regarding the planned course of action but would leave it up to you to decide.”
He then went on further….
“Suppose it was something that you considered totally jeopardised the safety of the aircraft, what would you do?”
I then said:
“If the a/c was about to crash, and the Captain was not responding in the correct way, I would see that as a threat to my life and would interfere by taking immediate action to avoid a crash.”
I wasn’t sure about this, I know it’s probably the wrong answer but gave it anyway. He then pressed on further and asked:
“Suppose it wasn’t quite so severe, for example we were on an NDB approach where the minimums were 600ft, and the cloud base was at 400ft, and I said to you this is our home base, there’s no high terrain and I’m going to do it anyway. What would you do then?”
I replied:
“I would voice my concern highlighting that this is plainly illegal, we are bending the rules and will be caught.”
He then added…
“What if I listened to your concerns but said I was going to bend the rules anyway. Then what would you do?”
My reply:
“I don’t know at this stage, I hope to learn this when it comes to my MCC training.”
Did I do OK for someone of my experience? What would've been a better answer?
Thanks
I’m just a lowly PPL with 100 hours. I recently had an interview for a sponsorship scheme where I was asked the following question by a retired Captain:
“Suppose, me (the Captain) and you (the FO) got on extremely well with one another, I liked you, you liked me, we’d flown together all day long without issues. On the last sector of the day I am proposing to do something which you do not approve of. What would you do?”
My first response was:
“Firstly I would carefully review the planned action and consider it in light of company SOPs, then aircraft operating limitations. In that case I would voice my concern regarding the planned course of action but would leave it up to you to decide.”
He then went on further….
“Suppose it was something that you considered totally jeopardised the safety of the aircraft, what would you do?”
I then said:
“If the a/c was about to crash, and the Captain was not responding in the correct way, I would see that as a threat to my life and would interfere by taking immediate action to avoid a crash.”
I wasn’t sure about this, I know it’s probably the wrong answer but gave it anyway. He then pressed on further and asked:
“Suppose it wasn’t quite so severe, for example we were on an NDB approach where the minimums were 600ft, and the cloud base was at 400ft, and I said to you this is our home base, there’s no high terrain and I’m going to do it anyway. What would you do then?”
I replied:
“I would voice my concern highlighting that this is plainly illegal, we are bending the rules and will be caught.”
He then added…
“What if I listened to your concerns but said I was going to bend the rules anyway. Then what would you do?”
My reply:
“I don’t know at this stage, I hope to learn this when it comes to my MCC training.”
Did I do OK for someone of my experience? What would've been a better answer?
Thanks
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Everywhere
Posts: 783
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Make standard calls e.g. Minimums. If the appropriate responses aren't received assume pilot incapacitation. Who's to say he wasn't bending the rules because he was poisoned or drugged? I'm also a lowly PPL by the way, not an airline pilot, but that's what I would have said to the last questions. Reviewing the planned action against SOP's and safety margins sounds about right as a generic answer.
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: the Milky Way
Posts: 194
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
“Firstly I would carefully review the planned action and consider it in light of company SOPs, then aircraft operating limitations.
leave it up to you to decide.”
Suppose it wasn’t quite so severe, for example we were on an NDB approach where the minimums were 600ft, and the cloud base was at 400ft, and I said to you this is our home base, there’s no high terrain and I’m going to do it anyway. What would you do then?”
“I would voice my concern highlighting that this is plainly illegal, we are bending the rules and will be caught.”
“I would voice my concern highlighting that this is plainly illegal, we are bending the rules and will be caught.”
However, I assume what he was getting at was what you would do if you were not visual at minima and he wanted to continue. The answer to this is clear and simple: "Go around." And this is as far as it is ever likely to get in your career, if indeed there was to be any hesitation about a GA, which would be unlikely.
But supposing there was, no matter what you can or can not see, if you hear "Go around," you do just that and discuss why later. Remember, you may see no need for it, but the other guy may easily have seen something you have not.
At this time, if he refused to GA, it's getting messy.
If still IMC, you have little choice but to announce "Captain I have control" and execute a GA (in my company, the use of the word "captain" denotes a very serious situation).
If you have become visual, are clear of terrain and are in a position to land, I would do so, rather than risk a fight over the controls. However, I wouldn't take off with him again.
Did I do OK for someone of my experience?
Remarkably so! I think you held your own under the circumstances.
Particularily in view of the fact that you are 100 hour PPL holder, and that the apparent intent of the interview was to explore your suitability for sponsorship, you would not normally be expected to have received airline style CRM and SOP training at this level. I would tend to believe that your specific proposed actions in response to the hypothetical scenario given were not really the thrust of this interview. So I'll leave any critique of your specific responses to others.
Your overall attitude and your tendancy to apply a structured thinking process to problem solving were likely the focus of the conversation. This appears familiar to me as a rather often used type of "pressure interview" technique whereby it is the overall demeanor and poise of the interviewee which is being explored more closely than any specific knowledge. Were you more experienced, or a graduate of the program you seek to enter, your responses might be expected to be more in line with some of the answers given in the other posts on this thread. In any case, you were not grossly off the mark in the responses you gave. If you are selected, you'll likely be studying these type of scenarios in greater detail at some time in the future.
So good luck and please post any results you receive from the sponsoring
organization.
Best of success,
Westhawk
I'm afraid, it was a big fat NO!
Must've been the HR type questions that let me down!
Must've been the HR type questions that let me down!
Dust yourself off and move on to the next thing. It's the persistent who will inherit the earth. The meek usually get left behind.
Best of success,
Westhawk
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have been told that the correct answer to this particular question is: "Announce over the radio that you are missed approach."
At that point, captain is in position to land illegally or make the go-around. First Officer is alleviated of any responsibility because he announced the go around.
Another possible answer to the dilemma is that the interviewer wanted to see if you knew that you could leave minimums if you spot lights, runway markings, etc. There is nothing wrong with going down to "take a look," continuing to the missed approach point, then going around if nothing is spotted.
Having been a charter pilot for many years before beginning my airline career, I can tell you that many times I ducked down to minimums, spotted a suitable visual aid, then continued down to a successful landing. A precision approach is different. "DA" marks the decision altitude at which you have several seconds to decide whether or not to go around or land.
Could this be what your interviewer was looking for?
At that point, captain is in position to land illegally or make the go-around. First Officer is alleviated of any responsibility because he announced the go around.
Another possible answer to the dilemma is that the interviewer wanted to see if you knew that you could leave minimums if you spot lights, runway markings, etc. There is nothing wrong with going down to "take a look," continuing to the missed approach point, then going around if nothing is spotted.
Having been a charter pilot for many years before beginning my airline career, I can tell you that many times I ducked down to minimums, spotted a suitable visual aid, then continued down to a successful landing. A precision approach is different. "DA" marks the decision altitude at which you have several seconds to decide whether or not to go around or land.
Could this be what your interviewer was looking for?
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Herefordshire
Posts: 153
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Superpilot,
I have extreme doubts that the questions you were asked and your replies had anything to do with you not getting the job. Getting sponsorship is very hard and competative. They were probably inundated with responces and they simply chose those who were maybe a little more advanced in their experience. The fellow who interviewed you was probably no idiot and was almost certainly aware that you had no multi-crew experience.
Don't let it put you off, you have a dream - try and try again!!
I have extreme doubts that the questions you were asked and your replies had anything to do with you not getting the job. Getting sponsorship is very hard and competative. They were probably inundated with responces and they simply chose those who were maybe a little more advanced in their experience. The fellow who interviewed you was probably no idiot and was almost certainly aware that you had no multi-crew experience.
Don't let it put you off, you have a dream - try and try again!!
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Switzerland
Posts: 118
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Superpilot,
In light of the circumstances (interview to get a job, not being prepared), I think you did extremely well on that question, so not getting the job was what I believe definitely not a result from that answer.
I'd experienced questions like this a few years ago, I know how they're gonna ask you and I found it veery difficult to find a suitable answer spontaneously...
In light of the circumstances (interview to get a job, not being prepared), I think you did extremely well on that question, so not getting the job was what I believe definitely not a result from that answer.
I'd experienced questions like this a few years ago, I know how they're gonna ask you and I found it veery difficult to find a suitable answer spontaneously...
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 2,584
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Superpilot, I think you did a top job, well done.
I find it hard to think what was going through an interviewer's mind (if anything) to make him put such an extreme situation to a 100hr PPL.
Well done!
I find it hard to think what was going through an interviewer's mind (if anything) to make him put such an extreme situation to a 100hr PPL.
Well done!
