mekberry

Just studying up my Air, Inc. "Questions Questions" book and reading about other peoples experiences with the LOI and there is a pretty standard scenario given to an applicant during the interview.

It usually goes something like this: You take off from XYZ airport that is above takeoff minimums, but below landing minimums. 20 minutes into the flight a flight attendant notifies you that there is a passenger having severe chest pains. The closest airport having landing minimums is 1:30 away. What do you do?

There are unlimited variations (you are enroute, there is smoke or fire, system failures, the available airports have varying abilities to handle emergencies, etc) but they share the same essential problem: Do you get on the ground ASAP (assuming you still wouldn't duck below decision altitude?) Or do you try to push it for a lot longer flight in an attempt to make a more adequate airport?

I am just curious what the menagerie of aviation professionals here has to say about it. Especially those that might currently be or previously been on the interview board at the airlines. What are they looking for exactly? Is one answer more preferred? I realize that they are looking for you to handle the situation quickly and appropriately using all available resources, make a decision and go with it.

What have you been asked and what are your thoughts?

flyingtigermco

So I guess for this scenario they are throwing out any consideration of the FAR that states you must have a take-off alternate that is within 1 hour, still air, one engine inoperative if the weather at your departure is below CAT I landing mininmums?

Seems to me you have no option but to continue to an airport to which you can safely land. Why risk the entire aircraft and everyones life on board to possibly save one person?

EvilGN

I have never been asked this one, but like the above post, I make sure there are no closer airports, so I would start my answer with that.

mekberry

I thought the same thing too. Actually, the way it is written in the "Questions Questions" book is that the airport is 2 hours away. Go figure. Maybe your takeoff alternate "just" went below mins. Anyway... the point is do you use your captain's authority to try the approach - again not dipping below mins - but just to try since it is the closest and best chance for the passenger in trouble, or do you go to some distant alternate.

Another scenario I have heard is that you are enroute over DEN, on a flight say from ORD-LAX. Passenger has chest pains, DEN is below mins, LBB is closest airport above mins, but currently exceeding the tailwind limit. SLC is next closest but is 2 (?) hours away. You get the idea.

j1b3h0

I think the reasoned anwer is not to endanger the entire aircraft full of people because of one passengers' health issue. Sure head to an alternate, start communicating with your company's medical dept., etc,. But don't bust mins.

dundem

It would seem that there is no entirely correct answer for this question; it seems they want to get to know you and your thought processes. Just think everything out aloud paying special emphasis to CRM which involves internal and external resources.


Here's my take:
Firstly, make sure that they realize that you know you should have had a departure alternate closer than 90 minutes away (for a two engine airplane). Just think everything out aloud, placing special emphasis on CRM which involves internal and external resources.

I would like to know what is it that is making the departure field and the surrounding fields below mins. Once a Captain declares an emergency, he/she is now able to disregard some regs as necessary. Let's say the approach usually requires 1/2 s.m. vis., but now they are reporting 2,000 RVR. Do you think you could safely land with that and explain your actions to the Feds?
What if it were a scenario with an uncontained fire? Would you try to make a distant field if you had a confirmed fuel-leak?

There was a mention of a field where the tailwind limit would be exceeded:
-What about the reciprocal runway?
- How much is it exceeded by? Is it now 12 kts and it should be no more than 10kts? Is it a 12,000' dry, runway? Do you think that you could safely land and then justify your actions to the Feds?

Limitations and regulations must be followed in normal circumstances. However, deviations to the extent required to meet the emergency may be the best course of action depending on the specific situation.

KC10 FATboy

I was asked an almost verbatim question in one of my interviews. I think you are missing the main point though. J1B3H0 has is correct.

This question isn't about do you know takeoff or landing minimums. The bigger point is, do you risk a very difficult landing/possibly a go-around in order to try and save one person why putting everyone else at risk? Or, do you go with what would be conservative/safe for the aircraft and try to see if there are other airports closer that you could perform a safe landing; therefore, getting the patient the care they needed without jeopardizing the flight.

-Fatty

joepilot

Ref FAR 121.617

If your departure airport is below your landing minimums at that airport (not limited to Cat I, may use CAT II or Cat III minimums if aircraft and airport are both so equipped), you must file a takeoff alternate.

The takeoff alternate must be within 1 hour flight time for a two engine aircraft, or two hours for a three or more engine aircraft, with one engine inoperative.

The takeoff alternate must meet normal alternate weather minimums.

Note: Since alternate weather minimums are significantly higher than normal landing minimums, there very well could be closer airports with legal landing minimums that would not meet weather minimums for a takeoff alternate

Joe

dundem

Good point joepilot.

Respectfully KC10, I'm not sure if I agree entirely with your post. I think in an interview situation, demonstrating knowledge of the FARs should always be done and I'm pretty sure most interviewers would be paying attention. That said, my guess is that you were successful in your interview, so I am sure that you are familiar with what you say.

I believe they want someone who knows the FARs and who would follow them conscientiously. Moreover, I definitely do not promote randomly disregarding limitations and FARs as the first course of action, but you can't appear inflexible and callous. Your argument for not endangering all the occupants of the aircraft for the sake of one is valid. However, in the scenarios I mentioned, specifically shooting an ILS at 2,000' RVR versus the 1/2 mile that is required is hardly dangerous. Let's face it, if you were doing this for real and already inside the FAF when the visibility fell, would you go around or continue down to DH and take a look. It gets more interesting as the scenarios escalate- smoke in the cabin and/or the floor over the cargo hold is hot to the F/A’s touch. I know I would not be willing to fly 90 minutes to the first wide-open, fully-legal airfield when the aircraft is on fire.

I have heard of guys who flew around in sim until they ran out of gas because they were already engine out, the only fields available were Cat III conditions, and the aircraft was not certified for single-engine CAT III ops.

Along the same line, I heard of a foreign carrier evaluation sim that included an engine out scenario where the live engine caught fire at 200' above DH and the candidate chose to go around and fight the fire in-flight.

In the end, I guess it depends on the company, and most certainly the individual. I still maintain some of these scenarios have no completely correct answers and company’s culture will have some influence on the answers that they find acceptable.

j1b3h0

I respectfully posit that, when you're out of fuel, the aircraft (and all its inhabitants) is more at risk remaining inflight - argueably a more dangerous situation than one persons' time critical health issue. Nothing worse than being out of gas and ideas at the same time!