Question about the "Capt. wants to descend below mins" interview question

[Papps]

well said

 

[Future Furlough]

Do nothing and you wind up like the Chautauqua 170 crew that slid off the end of the runway at Cleveland.

If the Captain does not respond, you have no choice but to assume he is incapacitated in some way. You MUST take control of the aircraft and execute the missed.

If the Captain responds... and says he is intentionally going below minimums. Easiest way to force a go around without wrestling for the controls at 200 feet... lean over and suck up the gear.

Funny, my CFM specifically states an altitude loss of up to 75 feet can be expected on a go-around. Forcing a missed or sucking up the gear that close to the ground is recipe for disaster. Help the captain find the runway and hope for the best.(This is the real life answer). The correct answer is the response that has the least amount of risk for the situation.

 

[LowlyPropCapt]

"Pilot Incapacitaion" does not always mean slummed over the controls not breathing, becoming rapidly dead. There are many other forms incapacitation can take.

A pilot is incapacitated anytime an event or situation causes enough distraction to compromise his/her situational awareness, inhibits his/her judgement, allows risk taking behavior or compromises the ability to physically manuever the airplane.

My point is that pilot incapacitation can be very subtle, and I think it is important to convey in any interview that you are always including the other pilot in your "scan."

If I am flying with someone who ignores an obvious go-around situation, I assume incapacitation and fly the airplane myself. Period. No other answer is acceptable under any circumstance.

 

[Spicepilots]

If the Captain is not incapacitated and is willingly descending below DH, still the same answer. I wouldn't tell the interviewer that I'm going to sit there and let someone operate their airplane illegally and unsafely. Letting a Captain bully you into doing something you know is illegal and unsafe makes you a punk. That Video above illustrates it perfectly.

This question comes in several forms: The captain wants to drink inside the 8 hours, the captain wants to take off with the Nav light broken, the captain wants to fly into severe icing....... The list goes on. They will paint a scenario involving all sorts of variables, what-ifs, pressure, time constraints, and factors to try and influence your decision. They will paint a picture that makes the situation seem like a complicated grey area. The question they are really asking in all of these scenarios is:"Are you going to knowingly break an FAR (or allow one to be broken) in a non emergency situation?" When you peel away all the B.S. it is a very black and white question.

Ding, ding, ding! We have a winner here. Regardless of what "we'll write that up when we get back to ___" minutae we let our captains get away with on line, airlines want to hire good pilots who will become good captains. (even if right now some places are settling for the "can you fog a mirror" test.) Your responsibility as a crew member is to your crew, your passengers, and your airline. If your captain is going to do something illegal and potentially deadly, who else is going to be there to stop it??

The problem with this and similar questions is that they can bend it and adjust it. You may give the correct answer initially, and they can counter with one "what if" after another. Don't be misled, it could very well be a test to see how you handle the stress, and if you break down in frustration here. Not fair, I know, but it happens at every airline, every day in interviews. No, you don't want an honest to dog fight for the controls at 200' AGL, but there is a wide spectrum of ways this scenario can play out between fisticuffs and staring blankly ahead praying they see the runway before you impact it. This is your chance to articulate to your interviewer that you are somewhere between an agressive punk and a wet blanket.

P.S. The reality of the situation is that, on an ILS at 145 IAS, you don't have time for repeated callouts to the pf, then calls to the tower, then a grab for the controls.

 

[atlcrjdriver]

To add to the controversy, I have heard of captains that are so focused on landing the a/c that they block out everything that is going on around them and zone in on the PFD. The FO and a/c call out are literally ignored and the cpt simply drives on hoping that things will work out his way. He is not incapacitated simply "in the zone".
The FO that told me this actually happened to (luckily during a LOFT) had to push TOGA to force a go around and get his attention when the command bars went nose up and the A/P kicked off.

 

[Spicepilots]

Plus, the flaw in the "express your feelings, let him land, call the chief pilot" logic is that it assumes that the end result of the captain's deviation is a normal landing. I can think of some very good reasons why I want the landing environment in sight before descending below mins... an aircraft or vehicle inadvertantly on the runway, an obstacle between me and the runway on a non-prec. Don't just assume that if you let the captain continue you'd get the chance to complain to your chief.

 

[Striptyler]

Wow...
Ah, done lots of interviewing, new to Fltinfo

So many miss the whole point of the question. Pick your answer and stick to it, we want to see confident decessoin making, the rest you'll get trained on. Don't cause conflict, fighting for the controls, is the LAST thing an interview CA wants to hear. If the 350hr wonder sitting next to me ever grabs the controls, i'd prob. shoot him.

The CA signed for the plane. Most FOPMs, state, that during flight, the CA has full command authority over the AC, and it's crew without limitation.

Pick an answer and stick to it.

Most common answer i recieve, is; Would call missed, advise ATC of missed and start to set missed up, (APA etc.) While advising CA of situation. Fighting over controls? What if you accidentaly unplugged your headset? he might be responding, calling lights in sight, and have no clue why you'r suddelny on the yoke.

 

[ImbracableCrunk]

The CA signed for the plane. Most FOPMs, state, that during flight, the CA has full command authority over the AC, and it's crew without limitation.

Ah, the Nuremburg Defense. Good choice.

I vas only following orders! Mein Kapitan told me not to follow Das Regs.

Unless you're squawkin' 7700 or preventing an emergency, you still gotta follow the regs, whether or not ya got four stripes.

 

[samballs]

Chq doesn't have 170s.

captain said go around twice to the FO and he still said I got it I got it. landed long, ran off the runway.

make sure you say over the radio, Tower, <callsign> going missed!

now you are committed.

Good Luck, you'll do fine.

oh and in the interview, if you get asked the captain has alcohol on his/her breathe, the answer is you would call the chief pilot. good luck

Well we all see where that srategy got them as of last month that plane was still in the hangar by the terminal in
CLE

 

[Striptyler]

Ah, the Nuremburg Defense. Good choice.

I vas only following orders! Mein Kapitan told me not to follow Das Regs.

Unless you're squawkin' 7700 or preventing an emergency, you still gotta follow the regs, whether or not ya got four stripes.

It's an interview ?, i hope to hell it not to see it happen. There are way too many variable to make it a ligeit question, so pick a good, CRM sounding answer and stick to it.

I am in no way for busting regs, But heck, 5 yrs. ago, the FO's name didn't even make it on our releases - wouldn't wan't a nobody flyin the plane would we

 

[CesnaCaptn]

Wow...
Don't cause conflict, fighting for the controls, is the LAST thing an interview CA wants to hear. If the 350hr wonder sitting next to me ever grabs the controls, i'd prob. shoot him.

The question that keeps popping up in my head has to do with the way Alaska's flight handbook is written. At minimums on a CAT II/III, if the captain doesn't say "landing," the FO's call is, "I have it, going around." Theoretically the FO is taking control of the aircraft at 50' to execute a missed approach That's not exactly "fighting over the controls," but it's pretty darn close.

What's the difference?

 

[Flyer1015]

Well we all see where that srategy got them as of last month that plane was still in the hangar by the terminal in
CLE

"Delta Connection Flight xxxx arriving at Gate 4... Gate 5.... Gate 6.... Gate 7....."

 

[EdAtTheAirport]

The best answer to this question is this: I have to rely on my instinct to determine whether I will take control of the airplane. I can't tell you in this interview what I'd do in this hypothetical situation, but if I'm scared of what the Captain is doing, I'll push up the throttles and pitch to the go-around. If I'm not scared of what he/she is doing, I will sit there, continue to call below minimums, but support the Captain in his/her illegal activity -- until I get scared.

 

[Papps]

After I posted that, I knew that post was imminent.

It was far from a "hero" moment, I shouldn't have let either situation get that far.

Well at least we know who was the "real" captain on those flights. Keep saving those left seat FO's when they "freeze up".

 

[NEDude]

The CA signed for the plane. Most FOPMs, state, that during flight, the CA has full command authority over the AC, and it's crew without limitation.

The problem is this does not jive with the way the FAA has ruled on past crew violations. FOs have been violated for following captains decisions stating that the FOs do share in responsibility for the safety of the flight and they cannot defer that responsibility to the captain. Seems the POIs approving that wording in ops manuals are not in tune with the current thinking of administrative law judges who are ruling on violations.