If the Captain went below mins...

[WileE]

Thinking

There is a big difference in talking about throwing this around in front of the computer and actual real world situations. Remember what we are talking about here.

The scenario that everyone seems to be talking about is the ILS approach down to mins with a Captain delibrately descending below 200', not one that is somehow incapacitated. Now what is really going to be going on in the cockpit?

First of all, consider the descent rate on this approach if you are on glideslope and at your approach speed. The airline I fly dictates that you fly an instrument approach at 140 kias. On the standard glideslope that means that you should be at about an 800-900 fps descent rate. That's not much time to descend 200 feet.

Second, what should you be doing here as an FO? You are primarily outside the aircraft at this point looking for the runway. While your scan should include the instruments, they are not your primary instruments.

Third, if you fly all the way to minimums, you will go below DH every time, probably by 50-100' anyway. Remember that there is a lot of momentum there. You can see the lights at exactly 200' and still make the approach so you should be preparing to call the field and not taking the controls.

Fourth, there is going to be a delay before you realize the captain isn't doing the missed like he should. Think about it, he probably isn't just going to go below mins and not say anything. What is he going to say? Probably something like "I have the lights" or "Isn't that the runway?". By the time you are sure that he is full of it, he will already be at 100' or less and is trying to land. Start wrestling for the controls at that point and you are only making it more likely that you and everyone else on board is going to die, not making it safer. Remember that you couldn't have even flown this approach without the mins having been reported from the ground (121) so it's not like you know you aren't going to see the field ahead of time. You are prepared not to, but you are really expecting to see it.

My response is based on the fact that this is the first time the captain has done this. If he has a pattern of this kind of behavior and has done it to you before, why are you still flying with him? I'm not denying that this is a dangerous situation, but don't make it worse from the right seat. After that you have to decide what you are going to do. IF you decide to keep flying with him you better have a talk with him before you leave again. Tell him in no uncertain terms that you are not comfortable with what he just did and that if it happens again you WILL be prepared to one: take the controls, two: file a report with the FAA, and three: report it to the chief pilot. If he is being an ass about it or if you feel you can't get back in the plane with him, do all three and ground the plane. Just be prepared to be on the street the next day and hope you are in a union that will work to prevent your termination.

Also, this my response is all based on what is really going to happen out on line. This is not what you should be answering on your interview question. There you need to be following all the PC responses that they want to here about taking the controls, hitting your captain with the fire ax and flying to your alternate single pilot.

 

[AWACoff]

What happens in an interview and what happens on line should not be two different things. Interviewers don't want to hear just any answer, they want to hear the CORRECT answer. I see this a lot out on line. Guys do one thing but when the FAA is in the jumpseat, they do things a different way. That's ridiculous. Fly the plane as if a fed is always in your jumpseat. I've been in a situation while flying the line that was time critical and almost required the PNF to assume control. Do what you need to do to prevent an accident. The "3 strike" rule works wonders in these situations.

Announce the problem...if no response, Strike 1.
State the problem while using the person's name...if no response, strike 2.
State the action you are prepared to do...if no response, strike 3 and assume control.

Ex.- Minimums....Dave, you're below minimums...Dave, I am going to take control.

A person who is not incapacitated will respond before strike 3. This can be accomplished in 5 seconds easily. Assuming 14 seconds until impact, that still leaves you 9 seconds. WileE, I completely see your point of view. It is definitely easier to just go with the flow and not ruffle any feathers. Let's simply agree to disagree and we'll let others decide which course of action to take.
Blue skies and good packs.

 

[Toad4]

I think that both sides here are correct. The problem is this, either action could result in an accident/incident and both are unsafe.

The key here is to never have this situation. The ONLY way to do that is to ALWAYS adhere to SOP and NEVER allow someone to use their so called "judgement". The problem with that is two fold. SOP can never cover everything, hence you need pilots to use their judgement (otherwise we would have been replaced long ago). However, pilots are human and are prone to having poor judgement.

It is an interesting quandry. I have been in this situation and have come close, real close to taking it away (he was a little guy). I am curious if any of those "cowboys" we are discussing are on here and have had someone else try to take over. How did it turn out? The time I almost did the Captain circled 200-300 foot below minimums after breifing a straight in VOR approach. We circled 3 times , each time seeing the 5000 foot runway while over it and in no position to land, the 3rd time I was just reaching for the controls when we miraculously broke out and were lined up. Of note here is we never went missed. We landed and I refused to fly with him again. He still thinks he was right.

 

[Focker]

Since we're on the interview board....

All responses are have been important to me, lots of experience giving lots of food for thought.

What I'm really wondering:
What response have you guys given at an actual interview and were you hired!

I expecially like Toad4's decision tree for flying the line, but what about the interview. Same?

I appreciate all responses to add to my clue bag, since I'm still trying to get job, I'd love to hear interview specific examples that have worked. Thanks! line pilot wannabe

 

[Toad4]

You should, under no circumstances, no matter what the interviewer says, or tries to lead you into, go below the minimums or anything else. If it can't be MEL'd don't fly, if the descent rate from the MAP to land is excessive and you don't see the runway before MAP don't attempt to land, etc.

I must re-inforce something here. The interview answer IS the right answer. A respectable company and a solid Captain would NEVER do anything that would put you in a position where you are uncomfortable about safety, regulations, etc. Unfortunately, many of us have had to work for less reputable companies and "cowboy" type Captains to get the experience and qualifications to get out of there. I am in no way saying that this is acceptable, but I think it is unrealistic to expect a First Officer to change an entire portion of the industry.

Regardless, under no circumstances should you allow yourself to become dead. That is the first directive and supercedes all others regardless of consequences. If you make it through safely then the people behind, below, and in front of you all live by default and I assure you they along with your government will be most grateful.

Best of luck in that interview!

 

[WileE]

Another thing about the interview.

The interviewer isn't necessarily looking for the "right" answer, he is also looking at how well you think and act under pressure.

I had this question come up on the interview. I answered with the correct response of challenge/response/act and then he started expanding the question with stuff like "He won't give you the controls, now what do you do?" "He's fighting you and continuing the approach?" At this point there is no "right" answer IMO, you do what you feel you have to do.

 

[acaTerry]

....and besides the other answers, realistacally the FO would not be "scared $hitless at 300 AGL". Reasons being that flying approaches to minumums is something that most FO's do soon after being on line. And besides that, especially for those who flew on the west coast before getting to the regionals, it's kinda neat....
Also, lets say that you have a Vtgt speed of, say 150 KTS. At the 600 fpm glide path to keep Glideslope, you have @18 seconds. Not really time to have a debate, but not an immediate crash either.
Also, you usually have a feel for the CA by the time you get to the APP phase and know whether to expect something like this from him, so you're spring-loaded.

..."Bonanza 36R climb and maintain field elevation"

 

[LUVStruck]

Limits

A couple of thoughts come to mind while I'm reading this thread.

1/ There are legal limits, safety limits, and personal limits. None should ever be exceeded.

2/ If you operate by the book everytime, you have nothing to fear (FAA, Chief Pilot, etc.).

3/ Oh yeah, I forgot, this is the real world. Well it's food thought and something to strive for anyway.

Fly safe, fly smart, fly tomorrow.

 

[Sctt@NJA]

"2/ If you operate by the book everytime, you have nothing to fear (FAA, Chief Pilot, etc.)."

This sentiment is a natural reaction against the "cowboy mentality."

Unfortunately it is not true. No matter the FARS, SOPS, or Manufacturer Recomended Procedures, human judgement is still a crucial and constant factor in flying.

Its too easy to think of examples where you will be Legal and Unsafe at the same time. Common Sense still has its place in aviation.

In fact I will go a step further and say that worrying about getting in trouble by your boss or the FAA is actually counter productive to saftey. What we need to worry about are the things that can hurt us.

IE... you are taking off in Citation II from a dry sea level airport, length 12,000 feet. Pass through V1. You are committed-- no need to think-- thats the procedure. Cabin fire, hitting a moose who takes off a few feet of a wing tip (maybe we are at Bangor Maine), whatever. Hmmm... we have got probably 10,000 feet of runway straight in front of us but we wont abort cause that will be hard to explain to the FAA, or our boss? Fudge the FAA! Fudge my Boss! Let them tear up my certificates. I am going to take the course of action that I determine gives me the highest odds of survival.

Any SOP nazis care to offer rebuttal?

 

[acaTerry]

I don't think they meant it that harsh....just that you don't want to be an "inventor" in an airplane. We all know (hopefully) that common sense is the king. Whatever you do.....live through it!
Seeeeeeeeeee yaaaaaaa

 

[Riverdance]

Maybe it's the culture at the airline you fly for, but in my experience, if I called minimums and there wasn't anything flashing outside the window, and the Captain didn't call for a G/A like right away, I WOULD assume he died and do the G/A myself.

Or to put it another way, I have never flown with a Captain were this would be any kind of an issue. Because of that, it makes my situation as a first officer very clear. "Minimums" and nothing outside and no response from him, I'm now pilot flying.

On the other hand if I was looking out the window, called minimums and he said: "I'm seeing lights," and I didn't I'd keep looking and letting him fly.

Either way, if we landed in a field and bent something, the CVR makes it his problem. (Assuming we were still alive.) (And I'm also assuming that if I intiated a G/A, we would have diverted and landed safely.)

In the event that things were not normal, such as we dealt with an engine fire and shut something down, or were still on fire, I would have been briefed whether or not crashing where the firetrucks are is preferable to wandering around in the fog and crashing on the side of hill somewhere etc... And if there had not been a brifeing I would have asked prior to 200 feet AGL.

All of this would be my response should I ever get the chance to interview anywhere else, though I might word it a little smoother.

Hope this helps for what it's worth...

 

[publisher]

ask

Why don't you ask the Gulfstream f/o that piled into the ground at Aspen below minimums what he would do different this time.

 

[Toad4]

That sounds cruel...but it's true.

Publisher hit the nail on the head. I envy you 700 hour guys who instructed for 6 months and then got on with a commuter (that sounded smarta** but I don't mean it that way). I went the more traditional route and the SOP was whatever works or whatever the Captain says. I have to say that, the right answer (unless there are extenuating circumstances) is the 1, 2, 3, rule. MISSED (ACTION), MISSED (ACTION) w/name, Take the aircraft. It just is never that easy. I am a pretty strong willed person and it was a real dilemma when a Captain begins a circle off of a VOR A and before you can blink you are 200-300 feet below minimums, IMC, in a 30-45 deg. bank. He knew I was pissed and scared (I told him repeatedly) and he knew what he was doing. We stayed in that configuration for 3 circuits (never went missed) and I was just about to take over when we saw the 5000 ft runway and landed. I was busy trying to make sure we weren't going to hit anything solid and keeping track of where we were in relation to the field and feeding him info that I couldn't do much else. I was, for all practical purposes, a hostage. Both decisions, fighting him or letting him go, is bad. All I could really do was to try and ensure the most positive outcome. I will never do that to a Co-pilot and any Captain that would should be beaten senseless. I was always taught and told the same things that everyone else here was. Reach the missed, go missed, or land. Simple as pie. The problem is when you are a new FO with a bottom feeding company and this is the first time it has ever happened and this IS the SOP. If the real world were as easy as sitting here 70% of accidents wouldn't be CFIT and 95% wouldn't be pilot error.