airBaltic Pilot Interview Questions 2026

FBW Architecture — The Airbus A220-300 uses a fly-by-wire flight control system with side-stick controllers, conceptually similar to other Airbus types but with a distinct architecture developed by Parker Hannifin rather than the Thales/Airbus system used on the A320/A330/A350 families. The pilot inputs on the side-stick are transmitted electrically to flight control computers, which interpret the commands and drive the control surfaces through hydraulic actuators. There is no direct mechanical linkage between the side-stick and the flight surfaces in normal law. The A220 does not share a common type rating with the A320 family despite the similar cockpit interface — the underlying control laws, system architecture, and procedures are different.

Normal Law Protections — In normal law, the A220's FBW provides full envelope protection including: load factor limitation (preventing the pilot from exceeding structural g-limits), high angle-of-attack protection (preventing aerodynamic stall by automatically limiting pitch-up authority as the angle of attack approaches the critical value), high-speed protection (increasing stick force and limiting nose-down authority as the aircraft approaches VMO/MMO), bank angle protection (automatically limiting bank to a defined value, typically 67° with full stick deflection, and providing a return-to-level tendency when the stick is released beyond a certain bank angle), and speed stability (the system trims to maintain the selected speed).

Degraded Modes — If the flight control computers detect sensor failures or system faults, the FBW system degrades through alternate and direct law, progressively removing protections. In alternate law, some protections are maintained but load factor protection may be reduced and stall protection may change to a stall warning with reduced alpha protection.

In direct law, there is a direct relationship between stick input and surface deflection with no envelope protection — the pilot must manually respect all limitations. Understanding these degradation modes is essential for airBaltic pilots because a FBW degradation in winter conditions at RIX, combined with crosswind and contaminated runway, would be a high-workload situation requiring excellent manual flying skills.

Practical Implications for airBaltic Pilots — The A220's FBW protections are a genuine safety asset — they make the aircraft extremely forgiving and resistant to loss-of-control events. However, the technical interview may probe whether candidates understand the limitations. FBW protections do not protect against everything: they do not prevent controlled flight into terrain, they do not compensate for incorrect energy management on approach, and they do not override the laws of physics on a contaminated runway. The DA42 simulator assessment at airBaltic specifically tests raw data flying skills — the assessors want to see that you can fly an aircraft accurately without FBW protection, because the skills must exist independently of the technology that assists them.

Immediate Go-Around — If visual reference is lost below the decision height on a CAT I approach (200ft DH) this scenario should not arise — you should have gone around at DH without visual reference. If you are on a CAT II approach (100ft DH) and lose visual reference at 300ft, you are still above DH and should continue monitoring for re-acquisition. However, if the question implies you had visual reference and lost it at 300ft on a CAT I approach — meaning you continued below DA but conditions deteriorated — the answer is an immediate go-around. Apply TOGA thrust, follow the missed approach procedure, retract gear on positive rate, and follow the published missed approach for runway 36 at Riga. There is no decision to make — loss of visual reference below DA means go-around, no exceptions.

Communication and CRM — Call 'GOING AROUND' to the PM (Pilot Monitoring), who confirms and assists with configuration changes. Advise ATC: 'airBaltic [callsign], going around.' At Riga, with a single runway, ATC needs to know immediately because your go-around affects all traffic — departures on hold, other aircraft on approach behind you, and runway snow-clearing schedules. The PM should monitor altitude, speed, and track on the missed approach while the PF flies the manoeuvre. Brief the next action: will you attempt another approach, hold for conditions to improve, or divert to Tallinn or Vilnius?

Decision-Making After the Go-Around — This is where the scenario gets operationally interesting for airBaltic. With a single runway at RIX, you cannot request a different runway. Your options are: hold and attempt another approach if conditions are forecast to improve (check the TAF and latest METAR), request a different approach type if available (perhaps a higher-minimums approach if the ILS is the issue, or conversely request radar vectors for a tighter pattern if fuel is a concern), or divert.

Alternate selection must have been planned before departure — typically Tallinn (TLL, approximately 45 minutes flight) or Vilnius (VNO, approximately 50 minutes). Check your fuel state: do you have fuel for a hold, second approach, AND a diversion if the second approach also fails? If not, divert immediately rather than attempting another approach with insufficient fuel reserves.

Winter-Specific Considerations — At 300ft on approach to RIX in winter, the loss of visual reference could be caused by sudden snowfall onset, fog bank, blowing snow from the runway surface, or ice crystal conditions. Each has different implications for a second attempt. If the visibility is deteriorating (snowfall intensifying), a second approach may be futile. If it was a transient event (passing snow shower), holding briefly may yield better conditions.

Check the RVR trend — is it dropping, steady, or recovering? The ATIS and METAR cycle at RIX during winter weather events may update rapidly. Make a time-bounded decision: 'We will hold for 10 minutes. If conditions have not improved to above minimums by then, we divert to Tallinn.' This structured decision-making is exactly what airBaltic assessors want to hear.

Safety is Non-Negotiable — This scenario tests your willingness to challenge authority when safety is at stake — a core EASA CRM competency and one of the most important qualities airBaltic assesses. The answer is clear: continuing an approach below published minimums without the required visual references is a violation of regulations, company SOPs, and fundamental airmanship.

Regardless of the captain's seniority, experience, or reasoning, if the approach is not stabilised or if visual reference is not established at the decision height, a go-around must be executed. There is no operational pressure — schedule, fuel, passenger convenience — that justifies descending below minimums without visual reference.

Graduated Assertiveness — How you challenge the captain matters as much as whether you do it.

Use a graduated approach: first, state the observed fact — 'Minimums, no contact' or 'Decision height, I don't see the runway.' If the captain does not respond appropriately, escalate: 'Captain, we are at minimums, I recommend we go around.' If the captain still continues, state more firmly: 'Captain, we must go around — we have no visual reference.' If the captain persists and the situation is immediately dangerous, take control of the aircraft — as pilot monitoring or pilot flying, you have the authority and responsibility to initiate a go-around to prevent a controlled flight into terrain scenario. This is not insubordination — it is the legal and moral duty of every pilot.

Post-Event Actions — After executing the go-around and securing the aircraft in a safe flight condition, address the situation professionally. Do not argue in the cockpit during a high-workload phase. Once stable and with reduced workload, discuss the event: 'Captain, I was uncomfortable continuing below minimums without visual contact. Can we brief the next approach together?' After the flight, submit a confidential safety report through airBaltic's SMS (Safety Management System). This is not about punishing the captain — it is about ensuring the event is captured and addressed through the airline's just culture framework.

Why airBaltic Tests This — This question appears in various forms across European airline assessments, but it has particular resonance for airBaltic. The airline's assessment includes a psychological evaluation that specifically probes authority gradient dynamics — how you interact with senior figures, whether you can assert yourself under pressure, and whether you maintain your own standards or defer inappropriately. The psychologist on Day 2 may revisit this theme by asking about conflicts with authority figures in your personal history. The consistent message must be: you respect authority but not at the expense of safety, and you have the confidence to speak up when it matters.

Hybrid Carrier Model — airBaltic positions itself as a hybrid airline — combining the network connectivity and service elements of a legacy carrier with the cost discipline of a low-cost operator. Unlike a pure LCC such as Ryanair or Wizz Air, airBaltic operates a hub-and-spoke model from Riga with connecting itineraries, offers food and beverage for purchase, operates a frequent flyer programme (airBaltic Club), provides business class, and serves both primary airports and leisure destinations. Unlike a pure legacy carrier, it operates a single aircraft type (A220-300), maintains lean staffing, and focuses on cost efficiency per available seat kilometre.

Dual Revenue Streams — What makes airBaltic genuinely unique in European aviation is its dual revenue model: scheduled passenger services and ACMI wet-lease. In 2025, ACMI revenue grew 7% year-over-year and in 2026 the airline plans a 30–40% increase in ACMI capacity. This means a substantial portion of the fleet — up to 21 aircraft in peak season — operates under wet-lease agreements with Lufthansa Group airlines and Air Serbia. This diversification provides revenue stability: when scheduled demand is seasonal (Baltic tourism peaks in summer), ACMI contracts provide year-round utilisation for the fleet.

Baltic Connectivity Role — airBaltic serves a structural function in Baltic economies. Latvia, Estonia, and Lithuania are small countries with limited surface transport links to Western Europe. airBaltic provides essential connectivity that no other carrier replaces — linking Riga, Tallinn, and Vilnius to over 80 destinations. The Latvian government's 88.37% ownership stake reflects the airline's strategic importance beyond pure commercial return. This is why the state has co-invested €14 million alongside Lufthansa's €14 million pre-IPO investment — connectivity is a national infrastructure priority.

Single-Type Fleet Efficiency — Operating only the A220-300 gives airBaltic fleet-wide commonality in parts, training, maintenance, and crew scheduling. Pilots require only one type rating, and any crew member can operate any aircraft in the fleet. This eliminates the complexity that multi-type operators face and reduces per-seat costs. The A220-300 is sized perfectly for airBaltic's network — large enough for trunk routes like Riga–London but efficient enough for thinner routes like Vilnius–Tampere that would not sustain an A320 or 737.

Current CEO — airBaltic's CEO since 1 December 2025 is Erno Hildén, a Finnish national with over 25 years of international experience in aviation and finance. Before joining airBaltic, he served as Executive Vice President and Group Chief Financial Officer at SAS Scandinavian Airlines until June 2025, where he was closely involved in the carrier's transformation and capital-raising efforts. He also held senior positions at Saudi Arabian Airlines Group and at Finnair, where he was Group CFO, COO, and an Executive Board member. His combined aviation operations and finance background is particularly relevant given airBaltic's upcoming IPO.

Leadership Transition — Hildén replaced interim CEO Pauls Cālītis, who had led airBaltic since April 2025 following the dismissal of long-serving CEO Martin Gauss. Gauss led airBaltic from 2011 through a major transformation — fleet renewal to all-A220, the ACMI business development, and the initial steps toward an IPO — but was removed by the supervisory board after a shareholders' meeting where the Latvian government expressed no confidence in his leadership, citing the airline's financial performance. Cālītis, who joined airBaltic in 1995 as a pilot and rose to COO, provided stability during the seven-month transition and has returned to his role as COO and Executive Board member.

Context and Diplomacy — If asked this question, be factual and neutral. Do not criticise Gauss or speculate about internal politics. Acknowledge the transformation he led while noting that the airline is now entering a new phase under Hildén's leadership. The assessors will note whether you handle a sensitive corporate topic with professionalism. The safe framing is: airBaltic has experienced a leadership renewal that brings fresh financial and strategic expertise at a critical moment as the airline prepares for its IPO and fleet expansion. Why It Matters for Pilots — The CEO change and the broader strategic direction — Lufthansa investment, IPO preparation, fleet growth — signal that airBaltic is positioning itself as a mature, internationally recognised carrier rather than a small regional airline. Hildén's appointment, with his background at SAS, Finnair, and Saudia, reinforces this ambition. For a pilot, this means joining an airline with serious institutional backing and a leadership team focused on sustainable growth.