Browse

Interviewer challenged suboptimal suggestions to test assertiveness and coordination with FAs/passengers.

The exercise evaluates working with others under time pressure, not racing to a perfect ending.

Specific learning point: never open the cockpit door for the unruly passenger threat. Protect the cockpit and command the plan.

Timed group CRM; no single right answer. They praised calling dispatch/maintenance and wanted the FA updated sooner.

This report explicitly described SkyWest-style 2-in/2-out: FAs/passengers and ATC/dispatch/medical.

Duplicate pasted twice; stored once. The issue is workload/schedule pressure while already near takeoff.

Evaluator wanted teamwork among PIC/SIC/jumpseater and all available resources.

Specific report said the alerts turned out faulty, but the expected behavior is still go around and evaluate fuel/diversion.

Technical/CRM scenario tied to approach minimums and visual references.

Busy Jepp plate; key was noticing the hold category/speed limitation.

Specific missed item: they forgot to declare emergency fuel with less than 30 minutes remaining.

Simple weather-below-minimums CRM scenario.

Specific guidance: ATC/tower can be faster and more current than only working through dispatch.

Interviewer said Idaho Falls worked, but she personally may have continued SLC due descent time and medical capability.

Expected answer was for the pilot to personally explain if FA explanation did not calm passengers.

Key failures noted: not updating FA enough and not using the jumpseater to help communicate while flight crew worked.

Parallel runway lineup error scenario. Expected CRM is direct challenge and go-around if not resolved.

Group CRM with CA/FO/jumpseat roles; the interviewer immediately asked them to debrief afterward.

The whole scenario tested recognizing missing/unacceptable EFC and using dispatch for information ATC may not have.

Post-scenario feedback: dispatch can compute actual fuel from current position direct to Provo.