Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
  • Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
  • Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
  • Share the passion for aviation
  • Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun

Interview Questions

Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
  • Invite your friends
  • Share the passion of aviation
  • Friendliest aviation community on the web
If you are landing and going through a micro burst you will get an increase in headwind followed by the wind going 180 degrees on you and suddenly becoming a tailwind. This results in the mass having to be accelerated, this can only be done by increasing thrust, the bigger the aircraft the harder they fall in this situation.

Landing data is based on crossing the end of the runway at 50 feet with a touchdown at the 1000 foot mark plus I think 60% again I would have to look up the exact numbers. Wet runway requires 115% of the above number. Most 121 operations use weight as the determination of the usable runway. When you land and do not touch down at the 1000 foot mark you are using up your 60% of fundge factor which is factored into the landing distance. Most landing data is based on touchdown at 1000 foot mark, max braking, no reverse, so if you don't use the brakes again you are using your 60% fudge factor. At our airline we have a requirement that anytime the runway is shorter than 7000 feet we use autobrake 3 and 40 degree flaps. Addtionally we have to go to the QRH and determine the exact amount of runway that will be required for the conditions. This mental process inforces the fact that on a short runway we must land on the first 1000 feet and get the aircraft stopped. Smooth landings are for long runways, of course the real top guns and "grease it" at the 800 foot mark and get it stopped in a hurry.
 
I thought alternate was 70%
Windshear is dangerous with the increasing headwind on landing as state before because of the reduction of power to cope with increased indicated going above Vapp or Vref etc.
On takeoff the danger is increasing pitch to maintain a desired climb speed which would put you in a high attitude and low altitude if and when the wind shears off
 
also I dont think second segment climb is specific to 121. anything that is turbine powered uses it.
windshear certainly has nothing to do with 121 it will plant a plane in the ground whether there is a logo on the tail or not.
 
actually as Captains in 121 isnt part of our job to mentor, teach and help FO's get prepared to be Airline Transport Pilots? They certainly cant learn it outside of 121 and the time spent for upgrade training certainly cant be adequate so they have to fly with good captains that have good attitudes and will show them good habits and practices.
 
CoolSidePillow said:
I thought alternate was 70%
Windshear is dangerous with the increasing headwind on landing as state before because of the reduction of power to cope with increased indicated going above Vapp or Vref etc.
On takeoff the danger is increasing pitch to maintain a desired climb speed which would put you in a high attitude and low altitude if and when the wind shears off

70% for the alternate is for turboprops. 60% is for turbojets. I encourage anyone studying for these interview tests to verify the answers with the regs since I've seen incorrect answers on some of the common gouges and anyone can make a mistake and as you can see there can be different answers depending on the specific operations involved. You can access all the FARs at the FAA web site. "Trust but verify" as Ronnie used to say.
 

Latest resources

Back
Top