SDEA TRAINING • PART 3
Unexpected Situations – Test 09
Practice Unexpected Situations – Test 09 through three operational scenarios. Listen carefully, report what you heard, answer the examiner’s questions, and compare the three situations at the end.
09
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 09
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.
PT-FXF, [cleared to land] [runway three three]. [Wind three four zero degrees one five knots]. [Windshear reported on final].
Pan Pan, Pan Pan, Pan Pan, Galeao Tower. [We almost hit an aircraft]. [It came very close to our two o’clock position]. I think it was a Cessna, PT-FXF.
According to the exchange, the controller cleared PT-FXF to land on runway 33, reported wind from 340 degrees at 15 knots, and advised that windshear had been reported on final.
Then, the pilot declared a Pan Pan and reported that they had almost hit another aircraft. He said that it had come very close to their two o’clock position and that he thought it was a Cessna.
According to the communication, ATC cleared PT-FXF to land on runway 33, passed on (provided) the wind as 340 degrees at 15 knots, and advised that windshear had been reported on final.
After that, the pilot declared a Pan Pan and reported a near miss with another aircraft. He explained that the traffic had passed very close to their two o’clock position and added that it appeared to be a Cessna.
In my opinion, the risk can be reduced through good ATC separation, correct readbacks, compliance with clearances, and careful traffic monitoring by the crew. Systems such as TCAS can also warn pilots about conflicting traffic.
If a near miss occurs, radar data, aircraft positions, and crew reports can be used to evaluate and report the event.
From a safety perspective, preventing a mid-air collision depends on maintaining proper separation, accurate readbacks, strict compliance with ATC clearances, and continuous traffic awareness.
TCAS can provide traffic advisories or resolution advisories if another aircraft becomes a threat. If a near miss occurs, controllers and safety investigators can review radar tracks, separation data, TCAS information, and crew reports to determine how close the aircraft came and document the event.
Situation 2
Listen carefully to the communication, report what you heard, and then answer the examiner's question.
Mayday, Mayday, Mayday, Dubai Approach, Emirates 247, [flameout] on the left engine. We are [unable to maintain altitude]. [Request immediate descent].
Emirates 247, Dubai Approach, roger. [Descend (at your discretion) to flight level one niner zero]. [Inform remaining fuel] and [souls on board].
According to the exchange, the pilot declared a Mayday and reported a flameout on the left engine. He said that they were unable to maintain altitude and requested (asked for) an immediate descent.
Then, the controller instructed the crew to descend at their discretion to Flight Level 190 and asked them to report the remaining fuel and the number of souls on board.
According to the communication, the pilot reported a flameout on the left engine and explained that the aircraft could no longer maintain altitude. He asked for (requested) an immediate descent.
In response, ATC cleared the crew down to Flight Level 190 at their discretion and asked them to pass on (provide) the remaining fuel and the number of souls on board.
In my view, an engine failure at high altitude reduces thrust and may make it impossible for the aircraft to maintain its current flight level. The crew may need to descend to a lower altitude, follow (run) the engine-failure procedure, and coordinate (work with) ATC.
Engine failures are not very common because modern engines are reliable and receive regular maintenance and inspections.
From an operational standpoint, an engine failure at high altitude can significantly reduce climb performance and may force the aircraft to drift down to a lower flight level.
The crew would normally establish the appropriate engine-out speed, run the checklist, and advise ATC of their new altitude capability. Complete engine failures are relatively uncommon because modern turbine engines are highly reliable and are subject to strict maintenance, inspection, and monitoring programs.
Situation 3
Listen carefully to the communication, report what you heard, and then answer the examiner's question.
Pan Pan, Pan Pan, Pan Pan. Miami Center, American 4563 with an [engine low oil pressure]. [Request diversion to Miami Airport]. We are [at one three zero nautical miles from Miami], [levelled at ten thousand feet].
American 4563, Miami Center. Turn left [heading two seven zero degrees], [cleared direct to Dolphin VOR], sky clear, [altimeter setting three zero zero five]. Confirm persons on board and [endurance].
According to the exchange, the pilot declared a Pan Pan and reported low oil pressure in the engine. He requested (asked for) a diversion to Miami Airport and said that they were 130 nautical miles from Miami, level at 10,000 feet.
Then, the controller instructed the crew to turn left heading 270, cleared them direct to Dolphin VOR, reported clear skies, and provided the altimeter setting 3005. He also asked them to confirm the number of persons on board and their endurance.
According to the communication, the pilot declared a Pan Pan and reported low engine oil pressure. He asked for (requested) a diversion to Miami Airport and advised that they were 130 nautical miles from Miami, level at 10,000 feet.
In response, ATC gave the crew heading 270, cleared them direct to Dolphin VOR, advised that the sky was clear, and passed on (provided) the altimeter setting 3005. The controller also asked for the number of persons on board and their endurance.
In my view, low oil pressure can be very dangerous because the engine may lose proper lubrication, overheat, and eventually fail. The crew should monitor the engine indications, follow (run) the appropriate checklist, and divert if necessary.
They should also use Pan Pan or Mayday according to the seriousness of the situation so ATC understands the level of urgency.
From an operational standpoint, low oil pressure can become critical because inadequate lubrication may lead to overheating, internal engine damage, or a complete engine failure.
The crew should monitor the engine parameters, run the appropriate checklist, and shut the engine down if the procedure calls for it. They should also use Pan Pan for an urgent situation or Mayday if there is serious and immediate danger, so ATC can give the flight the appropriate priority.
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 engine flameout was more critical than the other two situations because the aircraft could not maintain altitude and the crew needed an immediate descent.
The near miss was also very serious because there was a risk of collision, but the conflict had already passed when the pilot reported it. By comparison, the low oil pressure was less immediate, although it could develop into an engine failure. Overall, I think the flameout was the most difficult to deal with because the crew had less time and fewer options.
From an operational standpoint, the engine flameout was the most critical of the three because the aircraft could no longer maintain altitude, so the crew had to drift down, run the engine-failure checklist, and coordinate an immediate descent with ATC.
The near miss was also extremely serious because it involved a direct collision risk, although TCAS, proper separation, and good traffic awareness can help prevent that type of event. By comparison, the low oil pressure was less immediate because the crew still had time to monitor the engine parameters, run the checklist, and divert before the situation became worse. Overall, the flameout would be the hardest to deal with because it affected the aircraft’s performance right away and gave the crew the least margin for delay.
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.