SDEA TRAINING • PART 3
Unexpected Situations – Test 06
Practice Unexpected Situations – Test 06 through three operational scenarios. Listen carefully, report what you heard, answer the examiner’s questions, and compare the three situations at the end.
06
TEST
3
SITUATIONS
✓
FINAL COMPARISON
TEST STRUCTURE
Complete the three situations step by step
This test contains three different operational situations. Listen carefully to each pilot–ATC communication, report what you heard, answer the examiner’s question, and complete the final comparison after the three situations.
01
Listen and report
Listen carefully to the pilot–ATC communication and report everything you heard, including the relevant operational details.
02
Answer the question
Listen to the examiner’s question and provide a clear, organized and well-supported response
03
Complete the final comparison
After listening to all three situations, compare them in terms of severity, possible solutions and ways of prevention.
TEST 06
Complete the three situations
Part 3 Instructions
Listen carefully to the examiner's instructions before starting the three unexpected situations.
Part Three: “Unexpected Situations”. In this part of the test, you will listen to three different communications between pilots and air traffic controllers.
The recordings will be played twice. There is a five-second pause before the recording is repeated. After listening to the recording, you should tell me everything that the pilot and the controller said. I will then ask you a question.
At the end of Part Three, I will ask you to compare the three situations, so please take notes. All information is important. Do you have any questions?
Situation 1
Listen carefully to the communication, report what you heard, and then answer the examiner's question.
Miami Approach, Aeromexico 412, [leaving one five thousand feet to five thousand feet] in medical emergency, [captain is incapacitated], [request vectors to land runway two six right].
Aeromexico 412, Miami Approach, roger, [altimeter two niner niner five], [runway two seven is also available] if you’d like. [Winds are calm].
We will [accept runway two seven], Aeromexico 412.
According to the exchange, the pilot reported that they were leaving 15,000 feet for 5,000 feet because of a medical emergency. He said that the captain was incapacitated and requested (asked for) vectors to land on runway 26R.
Then, the controller provided (passed on) the altimeter setting 29.95, informed the crew that runway 27 was also available, and said that the winds were calm. Finally, the pilot accepted runway 27.
According to the communication, the pilot let Miami Approach know (informed Miami Approach) that they were coming down (descending) from 15,000 feet to 5,000 feet because of a medical emergency. He pointed out (reported) that the captain had become incapacitated and asked for (requested) vectors to land on runway 26R.
In response, ATC passed on (provided) the altimeter setting 29.95, pointed out (informed them) that runway 27 was also available, and added that the winds were calm. The pilot then opted for runway 27.
In my view, training programs prepare pilots through simulator sessions, emergency procedures, and crew resource management. Pilots learn how to recognize incapacitation, take control of the aircraft, follow (go through) the appropriate checklist, and coordinate (work with) ATC.
This also helps first officers become more prepared to manage the situation if the captain becomes unable to continue the flight.
From a safety perspective, training programs prepare crews by putting them through (exposing them to) realistic simulator scenarios where one pilot may suddenly become incapacitated.
The other pilot has to step in (assume responsibility), take over (assume control of) the aircraft, carry out (perform) the appropriate procedures, and work with (coordinate with) ATC while dealing with (managing) the additional workload. Because first officers regularly train for these situations, they should be able to cope with them effectively, although the real event would still be highly demanding.
Situation 2
Listen carefully to the communication, report what you heard, and then answer the examiner's question.
Galeao Tower, Iberia 6024, [we have hit some birds] after takeoff. [We lost thrust in our (right) engine]. [Request return to Galeao].
Iberia 6024, roger. [Maintain four thousand feet] and [turn left] [heading zero six zero]. [Expect visual approach runway one five].
According to the exchange, the pilot reported that they had hit some birds after takeoff and had lost thrust in the right engine. He requested (asked for) a return to Galeao Airport.
Then, the controller instructed the crew to maintain 4,000 feet, turn left heading 060, and expect a visual approach to runway 15.
According to the communication, the pilot reported that the aircraft had struck some birds after takeoff and that the right engine had lost thrust. He asked to go back to Galeao Airport.
In response, ATC told the crew to maintain 4,000 feet, turn left heading 060, and expect a visual approach to runway 15.
In this situation, the pilots should maintain control of the aircraft, check the engine indications, follow (go through) the appropriate checklist, and inform ATC about the problem. If the engine is seriously affected, they may need to return and land as soon as possible.
Airports can also reduce the risk by controlling wildlife and keeping birds away from runways.
From a safety perspective, after a bird ingestion during the initial climb, the crew should keep the aircraft under control, assess the engine indications, carry out (perform) the appropriate checklist, and report the problem to ATC.
If the engine has lost significant thrust, they may need to go back and land as soon as practical. Airports can help prevent bird strikes by keeping wildlife away from movement areas, managing habitats, and using bird-control measures.
Situation 3
Listen carefully to the communication, report what you heard, and then answer the examiner's question.
Lufthansa 6794, this is Montreal Center. [You are under radar surveillance]. [Confirm you are levelled at flight level two two zero]. [Temperature on the runway minus two zero degrees].
Montreal Center, we are having [disagreement between our altimeters]. [One is showing flight level two two zero] and [the other indicates two hundred feet above], Lufthansa 6794.
According to the exchange, the controller informed Lufthansa 6794 that they were under radar surveillance and asked them to confirm that they were level at Flight Level 220. He also reported that the runway temperature was minus 20 degrees.
Then, the pilot reported a disagreement between the altimeters. He said that one was showing Flight Level 220 while the other was indicating 200 feet above.
According to the communication, ATC advised Lufthansa 6794 that they were under radar surveillance and asked the crew to confirm that they were level at Flight Level 220. The controller also passed on (provided) that the runway temperature was minus 20 degrees.
In response, the pilot reported an altimeter disagreement, explaining that one instrument was showing Flight Level 220 while the other was reading 200 feet higher.
In my view, instrument malfunctions can be dangerous because they may give the crew incorrect information about altitude, speed, or aircraft position.
In case of an altimeter disagreement, pilots should compare (cross-check) the instruments, check the altimeter setting, use the standby instruments, and follow (run) the appropriate checklist.
From a safety perspective, an instrument malfunction can become serious if the crew starts relying on incorrect altitude, speed, or navigation information.
With an altimeter disagreement, they should cross-check the primary and standby instruments, verify the altimeter setting, run the appropriate checklist, and work out (determine) which source is unreliable before continuing the operation.
Final Comparison
Compare the three situations in terms of severity, possible solutions, and ways of prevention, and explain which one would be the most difficult to deal with.
In my view, the bird strike with loss of engine thrust was more critical than the other two situations because it happened just after takeoff and directly affected the aircraft’s performance. Pilot incapacitation was also very serious because the first officer had to take control (take over) and manage the flight alone, but pilots train for this type of emergency.
By comparison, the altimeter disagreement was less immediate because the crew could compare (cross-check) the instruments and identify the reliable indication. Overall, I think the bird strike was the most difficult to deal with because the crew had less time to react.
From an operational standpoint, the bird ingestion followed by a loss of thrust was the most critical situation because it occurred during the initial climb, when the crew had very little time to react and might need to run the engine-failure checklist and get the aircraft back on the ground (land the aircraft).
Pilot incapacitation was also more demanding than the altimeter disagreement because the first officer would have to take over (assume control), handle the additional workload, and coordinate with ATC. By comparison, the altimeter problem was easier to sort out (resolve) because the crew could cross-check the instruments and work out (determine) which indication was unreliable. Overall, the bird strike would be the hardest to deal with, although wildlife-control measures can help cut down (reduce) the risk.
I’ve never experienced any of these situations personally. However, I’ve trained for abnormal and emergency situations, so I understand how important quick decision-making, clear communication, and situational awareness can be.
End of Part 3
You have completed the Unexpected Situations section. Listen to the examiner and choose what you would like to do next.