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

[Striptyler]

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?

That is a planned and briefed procedure, much like a crew coordinated approach, when if a set condition occurs, the responce is expected.

As i said, i wouldn't expect this to happen, and i would hope that it would be evaluated on a case by case basishis question was what to answer in an interview. The answer for that should always be simple, to the point and backed up. If you bring "take control of the aircraft" into the mix.. when else would you be "taking it"? If the crosswind landing looked a little off centerline?

Same as a check ride, answer the question but don't give too much, and don't go too deep

 

[QuasarZ]

Thanks to everyone who has replied, your comments have helped greatly and should make this interview question go more smoothly.

 

[evilbeef54]

+1 on the call missed, if he is not incapacitated, and still continues, call out altitudes, give any help possible, do not fight for controls that low

 

[Midnight Flyer]

DO NOT GRAB AT THE CONTOLS, like has been stated earlier, call tower and tell them that you are going missed. If he then lands it is his problem.
DO NOT BRING UP THE GEAR.

I disagree. If you raise the gear, TRUST ME, the Captain WILL NOT LAND. He/she has no other choice than to go around, thus saving your @$$.
I do agree with not touching the controls. Two pilots have no business wrestling over the controls at 100 feet.
Remember, aircraft are operated as crewmembers in the airline industry. If one of the pilots is an idiot and blatantly disregards minimums by continuing the approach, the entire crew risks being violated, regardless of who was physically flying the aircraft.

Raising the gear is fine. Most of us do 50 Ft. rejects in the simulator all the time.

 

[dav8or]

interview question:

"Minimums. MINIMUMS! CAPTAIN, DO YOU REQUIRE ASSISTANCE? TOWER, XYZ123 EXECUTING MISSED APPROACH PROCEDURE."

real life:

"Minimums. MINIMUMS! CAPTAIN...nice landing."

real life is more like:

"Minnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnimims, lights in sight"

 

[norskman2]

I disagree. If you raise the gear, TRUST ME, the Captain WILL NOT LAND. He/she has no other choice than to go around, thus saving your @$$.
I do agree with not touching the controls. Two pilots have no business wrestling over the controls at 100 feet.
Remember, aircraft are operated as crewmembers in the airline industry. If one of the pilots is an idiot and blatantly disregards minimums by continuing the approach, the entire crew risks being violated, regardless of who was physically flying the aircraft.

Raising the gear is fine. Most of us do 50 Ft. rejects in the simulator all the time.

You've GOT to be s***ing me! You would actually raise gear when busting out below 100' on a Cat II approach??????

What if the Captain is incapacitated? Or just plain frozen at the controls? You'd dig a pretty nice no-flare divot at the touchdown point.

NOTE: See T-Gates, FutureFurlough and LowlyPropCapt's entries above.

 

[PCL_128]

I disagree. If you raise the gear, TRUST ME, the Captain WILL NOT LAND. He/she has no other choice than to go around, thus saving your @$$.
I do agree with not touching the controls. Two pilots have no business wrestling over the controls at 100 feet.
Remember, aircraft are operated as crewmembers in the airline industry. If one of the pilots is an idiot and blatantly disregards minimums by continuing the approach, the entire crew risks being violated, regardless of who was physically flying the aircraft.

Raising the gear is fine. Most of us do 50 Ft. rejects in the simulator all the time.

Please tell me that this was sarcasm. You can't possibly be advocating raising the gear in this situation.

 

[Striptyler]

really,shouldn't you pull the flaps first to avoid the gear unsafe horn? thus not scaring the passenegers?

then the gear?

 

[siucavflight]

I disagree. If you raise the gear, TRUST ME, the Captain WILL NOT LAND. He/she has no other choice than to go around, thus saving your @$$.
I do agree with not touching the controls. Two pilots have no business wrestling over the controls at 100 feet.
Remember, aircraft are operated as crewmembers in the airline industry. If one of the pilots is an idiot and blatantly disregards minimums by continuing the approach, the entire crew risks being violated, regardless of who was physically flying the aircraft.

Raising the gear is fine. Most of us do 50 Ft. rejects in the simulator all the time.

I am guessing that you are being sarcastic right? If so good job I almost believed you. If not do you know how much altitude loss you can expect from the plane you fly once deciding that a go around is necessary? I know on the EMB it is 75 feet.
DO NOT TOUCH THE GEAR UNLESS HE CALLS GEAR UP!

really,shouldn't you pull the flaps first to avoid the gear unsafe horn? thus not scaring the passenegers?

then the gear?

No you would still get the Gear unsafe horn due to the altitude provided by your RA.

 

[Flyer1015]

Please tell me that this was sarcasm. You can't possibly be advocating raising the gear in this situation.

Raise the gear, raise the flaps, deploy the spoilers, and yell, "HEEEEE HAWWWWWW!"

That will wake up the captain even if he WAS having a heart attack to begin with.

 

[FR8mastr]

Oh for crying out loud. The interviewer will not have the Captain incapacitated, that is too easy, you take the controls do a go around. The interviewer will have the Captain mentally there, but busting mins. DO NOT fight for control of the AC at mins! Do not hit TOGA. You Make the calls and allow the landing, to be followed by a terse discussion on the ground with the Captian. If not resolved, it goes to professional standards. Or if extreme problems with this Captain then it goes to the chief pilots office.

Prior to answering, do a follow up question like, are we on glidepath? If the answer is yes everything is on profile, the above then is the correct response. If the answer is no, then it would be safer to take the controls than to allow the landing to continue. The answer is always the safest way. Fighting for control at mins on a otherwise textbook approach is not safe. They are trying to make sure you are not some cowboy out to save the world. They also want to know that you will follow SOP's and take control if the flight is in jeopardy.

 

[FR8mastr]

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?

The difference is, if that is the way they train and operate, the Captain in question would not be shocked at the FO's taking of the controls and would not instictivly pitch down to counteract that sudden pitch up that he knew nothing about a holf second earlier.

 

[Rez O. Lewshun]

another option to PSC is ASAP...

these questions are really mickey mouse (along with the drunk Capt.). They represent old school airline mentality and don't reflect the modern way of flying jets. These types of questions are very hypothetical and not realisitc. In addition, as this post demonstrates the answers are incredibly canned. The real way to get to know an applicants thought process and mentality is "tell me time when...."

Airlines that still use the 'drunk capt' and 'going below mins' are wasting everyones time...

 

[Midnight Flyer]

You've GOT to be s***ing me! You would actually raise gear when busting out below 100' on a Cat II approach??????

What if the Captain is incapacitated? Or just plain frozen at the controls? You'd dig a pretty nice no-flare divot at the touchdown point.

NOTE: See T-Gates, FutureFurlough and LowlyPropCapt's entries above.

Norskman2, my company is not authorized to fly Cat II approaches, so I'm looking at this from a 200 ft, 1800 RVR perspective.

The original question was "the Captain wants to descent below minimums".
For the purpose of this question only, the interviewer says the Captain intentionally chooses to fly below minimums, thus ruling out the possibility that he/she could be incapacitated.
If the PF is at 200 ft (minimums) and nothing is in sight and he/she says "aw, f*** it" and keeps descending, and the PNF raises the landing gear, there is more than enough altitude execute a safe go around.
If a pilot is hesitant, unwilling, cannot execute a go around at minimums (200 ft) or in this case, just under 200 feet, then that pilot has no business flying.

You're on final and about to land at Burbank. What would you do at 50 feet when AA (or whoever) taxis onto the runway in front of you and you're at 50 feet? I don't know about you, but I'm going around

 

[Axel]

...at 200 feet... lean over and suck up the gear.

In actual operations this would be called "Out of the frying pan and into the fire."

If you say this at an interview, hopefully you will learn not say it at your next interview.

 

[FmrFreightDog]

You're on final and about to land at Burbank. What would you do at 50 feet when AA (or whoever) taxis onto the runway in front of you and you're at 50 feet? I don't know about you, but I'm going around

And the gear comes up AFTER a positive rate of climb has been established, not while still descending at 700 FPM. There's a big difference. I would love to know how the "Bring the gear up" answer goes over at your next interview.

 

[FR8mastr]

Norskman2, my company is not authorized to fly Cat II approaches, so I'm looking at this from a 200 ft, 1800 RVR perspective.

The original question was "the Captain wants to descent below minimums".
For the purpose of this question only, the interviewer says the Captain intentionally chooses to fly below minimums, thus ruling out the possibility that he/she could be incapacitated.
If the PF is at 200 ft (minimums) and nothing is in sight and he/she says "aw, f*** it" and keeps descending, and the PNF raises the landing gear, there is more than enough altitude execute a safe go around.
If a pilot is hesitant, unwilling, cannot execute a go around at minimums (200 ft) or in this case, just under 200 feet, then that pilot has no business flying.

You're on final and about to land at Burbank. What would you do at 50 feet when AA (or whoever) taxis onto the runway in front of you and you're at 50 feet? I don't know about you, but I'm going around

Its answers like this one that are the reasons we are asked questions like that in an interview.

 

[Amish RakeFight]

In both cases, don't do this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZnrTq9Y-uJY

LMAO. Holy Shoot, that was a pretty funny video!

 

[Papps]

Many FNG F.O's right out of school think they are gods gift to aviation, and the captain has hidden his poor skills, padded his logbook, or fell through enough cracks to make it to the left seat. I have flown with many, many captains, and none of them have ever "frozen up" or needed me to "save the plane"

now that I am a captain I realize how annoying a 300 hour F.O is when he thinks his natural abilities outway the captains years of experience in the left seat. I just laugh when a green low time kid tells me about how he "saved an airplane" with the captain he was flying with last month... lol.

If the captain is really an airhead, you will know it on taxi out. Take that into consideration, but don't go grabbing at the controls 150' off the ground. In this senerio you will be lower than 200(minimums) you will be more like 150' or less. Call the missed.

 

[FmrFreightDog]

Many FNG F.O's right out of school think they are gods gift to aviation, and the captain has hidden his poor skills, padded his logbook, or fell through enough cracks to make it to the left seat. I have flown with many, many captains, and none of them have ever "frozen up" or needed me to "save the plane"

now that I am a captain I realize how annoying a 300 hour F.O is when he thinks his natural abilities outway the captains years of experience in the left seat. I just laugh when a green low time kid tells me about how he "saved an airplane" with the captain he was flying with last month... lol.

If the captain is really an airhead, you will know it on taxi out. Take that into consideration, but don't go grabbing at the controls 150' off the ground. In this senerio you will be lower than 200(minimums) you will be more like 150' or less. Call the missed.

Well said.

 

[s3jetman]

Have always had this question maybe I am missing something but consider the following.

20 in line for takeoff your on approach

you "tower airline xxxx going missed"

two seconds later

tower "airline yyyyy clear for takeoff"

now what happens just dont like the announcement of you performing something that you knowingly are not doing? just have the image of 2 747 colliding. I know it was something totally different but just makes me think!

 

[Papps]

now what happens just dont like the announcement of you performing something that you knowingly are not doing? just have the image of 2 747 colliding. I know it was something totally different but just makes me think!

Huh....?

 

[Axel]

Huh....?

All your base are belong to us.

I think he means that if the FO calls a missed approach, but the CA continues to descend for landing there is the potential for a collision on the runway. Then you would have no hope to survive, make your time.

 

[ImbracableCrunk]

I love how this thread assumes all FOs are clueless thumb-suckers and all Capts are God's gift to aviation.

When you get beyond the scope of the mid-twenties Capt. and the fresh outa school FO, you might think something different.

How about an older Capt with a heart problem? How about you're finishing a red-eye and the Capt. is falling asleep?

I've seen some nice "I'm invincible" mentalities in some of these posts.

If you're the Capt., and you miss your calls, you screwed up. If the FO questions you, that is his job!

 

[FR8mastr]

I love how this thread assumes all FOs are clueless thumb-suckers and all Capts are God's gift to aviation.

When you get beyond the scope of the mid-twenties Capt. and the fresh outa school FO, you might think something different.

How about an older Capt with a heart problem? How about you're finishing a red-eye and the Capt. is falling asleep?

I've seen some nice "I'm invincible" mentalities in some of these posts.

If you're the Capt., and you miss your calls, you screwed up. If the FO questions you, that is his job!

I had the completely opposite take from this thread. It seems to me the FO's are the only ones preventing disaster at every step. Your own post illustrates this. Remember this thread started from the interview question of the Capt. going below mins. Many of the answers came back with all sorts of wrong answers about taking over the aircraft below mins. The original question could be either pilot flying below mins. the answer is the same, if the aircraft is on profile DO NOT fight for control.
By the way, I am a FO, again.

 

[NoahWerka]

There is no back and white answer to this. Too many variables.

In real life that is true. In an interview?


Actual answer from an interviewee in a 4 Captain Board interview. He got hired on that answer alone. They said it showed maturity. That is what they are looking for.

In real life that is true, in the interview:
1...Do nothing... Assume he Fuccked Up.
2...Say something about it...."Don't let it happen again, next time I say something, it will be to the CP".
3...Go to the Chief Pilot.

 

[NoahWerka]

Most everything previously said is a bulls answer.The question was about an interview question. Think about the interview, not real life.

 

[Spicepilots]

Captain's authority my butt... Apparently, a lot of people still don't get it... Not to make light of what happened last year, but try changing the scenario. You're lined up on the runway, cleared for takeoff, captain spools up the engines and starts rolling. You notice that you're departing the wrong runway. You speak up to that effect. Captain ignores you because he's already rolling past 80 knots and he wants to continue the takeoff. Since the captain has the authority to call and perform the abort, would you just let him continue instead of doing something about it??

Sure, tapdance around the issue all you want in an interview, but the idea that the captain is the final authority in the operation of the airplane doesn't extend into CFIT just because he's the captain and he wants to do things his way. Would you want the last thing heard on the CVR to be your voice saying "minimums... minimums, captain... okay, we'll just talk about this on the ground... uh, that ___ (tree, hill, building) looks really close..."

 

[j41driver]

...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.

And you think the least risk is to try to "find the runway and hope for the best"??? Hope I'm never flying on your airplane.

 

[j41driver]

Fighting over control at all that low to the ground can be deadly.

...and continuing an approach below minimums isn't??