SAS Pilot Interview Questions 2026

Receive the Feedback Constructively — The correct immediate response is simple and professional: 'Thank you — I will focus on that for the next approach.' Do not explain, justify, or make excuses for the altitude deviation. The examiner has observed something specific, and your task now is to incorporate their feedback into improved performance. SAS sim assessors explicitly look for a 'positive learning trend' — meaning improvement between the first and second attempts is more valuable than perfection on the first attempt. The assessment is designed to test your ability to absorb feedback and adapt in real time, which maps directly to the Pilot Profile competency 'Self-awareness and willingness to learn.' A candidate who flies imperfectly but improves visibly will often score better than one who maintains a mediocre standard throughout because they demonstrate the learning capacity that SAS values most.

Diagnose the Root Cause Internally — While maintaining focus on the assessment, quickly analyse what caused the altitude deviation. Common root causes in raw data flying (no flight director) include: scan breakdown where attention fixated on the VOR CDI or HSI at the expense of the altimeter, inadequate or delayed trim adjustments creating a gradual altitude drift, configuration changes (speed reduction, flap extension) that altered the pitch attitude without compensating pitch input, or simply high cognitive workload during the VOR-DME approach that reduced your capacity to maintain the altitude scan. Identifying the cause internally allows you to apply a specific correction rather than a vague 'try harder.' If the issue was scan discipline, consciously widen your instrument scan to include more frequent altitude checks. If the issue was trim, make trim inputs earlier and verify the effect. If the issue was configuration-related, anticipate the pitch change during the next speed or flap change.

Apply the Correction Visibly — On the ILS approach that typically follows the VOR-DME in the SAS sim profile, demonstrate the improvement. Make deliberate altitude callouts: 'one thousand feet to level off,' 'altitude alive,' 'glideslope alive.' These callouts serve two purposes: they keep you focused on altitude, and they show the assessor that you are actively monitoring the parameter they identified as needing improvement. If flying the ILS in Normal Law with autothrottle ON, the glideslope guidance provides more support than the VOR-DME approach, but you must still manage the pitch attitude to track the glideslope accurately in raw data. Smooth, small corrections are preferable to large, late corrections — the assessor wants to see controlled, anticipatory flying rather than reactive chasing. If you notice the improvement in your own performance, you can briefly acknowledge it during the debrief: 'I focused on the altitude scan during the ILS and it felt much more stable.'

Broader Assessment Mindset — This scenario tests more than flying technique — it tests your character under evaluation pressure. SAS's interview process weights attitude at approximately 70%, and how you respond to in-sim feedback is a direct behavioural data point. Do not let feedback shake your confidence or create a negative internal spiral — one imperfect approach does not define the assessment. Do not become defensive or argue with the assessor's observation. Do not over-compensate by fixating on altitude at the expense of other parameters. The assessment profile — approximately 30 minutes PF then PM swap — creates enough time for you to demonstrate improvement. The assessors (experienced SAS captains) are looking for the pilot they would want as a colleague: someone who accepts feedback gracefully, learns quickly, communicates clearly, and maintains professional composure throughout. These are the same qualities that make a strong First Officer during line operations.

I Would Assess the Turbulence and Take Action — If I encounter unexpected severe turbulence on an A330-300 transatlantic CPH–Chicago, I would immediately ensure the seatbelt sign is on, advise the cabin crew to secure the cabin, and request a ride report from ATC. I would check for alternative altitudes or routing that might provide smoother air. If passengers or crew are injured, I would assess the severity and consider diversion if medical attention is needed urgently.

Fuel Conservation and Routing Options — Before declaring any abnormal fuel state, exhaust the operational options available. Request optimum routing from ATC: direct routing to destination saves miles and fuel (on the NAT tracks, route flexibility is limited, but once past the Oceanic Exit Point, continental ATC may offer direct routing). Request a flight level change — stepping up to a higher altitude may improve specific range if the aircraft weight now permits it, or stepping down may place you below the strongest headwinds.

Reduce cost index to zero (maximum range cruise), which reduces Mach number and fuel flow at the cost of slightly longer flight time — in a fuel-critical situation, the fuel saved per mile exceeds the fuel cost of the extra time. Contact SAS operations via ACARS or SATCOM for updated wind forecasts — dispatch may have more recent data that shows conditions improving ahead. Reduce non-essential electrical loads: brief the cabin crew to minimise galley power consumption. Minimum Fuel and Diversion Decision — If conservation measures are insufficient and the projected fuel at destination approaches minimum fuel reserves, you must declare 'MINIMUM FUEL' to ATC — this is an informational declaration that alerts ATC to prioritise your routing and sequencing but does not constitute an emergency. If the situation deteriorates further toward fuel emergency territory (projected landing fuel below final reserve), declare 'MAYDAY FUEL' — this triggers full priority handling.

Simultaneously evaluate diversion options: from the North Atlantic, realistic alternates include Keflavík (BIKF) in Iceland, Shannon (EINN) or Prestwick (EGPK) if still over the eastern Atlantic, and Canadian Atlantic airports (Gander CYQX, Goose Bay CYYR, Halifax CYHZ) if past mid-ocean. The diversion decision must be made early enough to reach the alternate with legal reserves — waiting until the last possible moment reduces options. Chicago ORD alternates include other major US airports (Detroit, Indianapolis, Milwaukee) if the issue is late-stage fuel shortage.

CRM and Documentation — This scenario tests joint decision-making under pressure. The captain holds the final authority on fuel decisions, but as the FO your role is to provide comprehensive analysis, present options clearly, and make a recommendation: 'Based on current fuel state and trend, I recommend we divert to [alternate] to maintain safe fuel margins.' At SAS, the collaborative cockpit culture means this recommendation should be delivered assertively and received openly. Document all fuel calculations, wind assessments, ATC interactions, and crew decisions in the flight log — this record protects the crew if the decision is later questioned. Brief the cabin crew on potential outcomes (diversion, extended flight time, reduced service) so they can manage passenger expectations. The SAS Pilot Profile competency 'Problem solving and decision making' is directly tested by this scenario: structured analysis, clear communication, timely action, and sound judgment under uncertainty.

Localiser Intercept and Establishment — In the SAS simulator assessment, the ILS approach follows the go-around from the VOR-DME approach and is typically the final assessed element as PF. You will be vectored by the assessor (acting as ATC) onto an intercept heading for the localiser. In raw data flying (no flight director, autothrottle ON), intercept the localiser using the raw CDI needle on the PFD or HSI — fly the heading until the CDI begins to move toward centre, then smoothly turn to track the inbound course, adjusting for any crosswind component with a wind correction angle. Call 'localiser alive' when the needle begins moving and 'localiser captured' when established. Verify the ILS ident and frequency. As the glideslope needle begins to descend from its full-up position, call 'glideslope alive.' Before glideslope intercept, you should be in approach configuration: gear down, flaps as required for the approach speed (typically flap 3 or full on the A320neo), speed reducing to VAPP. Complete the landing checklist. The transition from vectoring to established on both localiser and glideslope is a high-workload period — prioritise being configured and stable before glideslope capture.

Tracking the Glideslope in Raw Data — Once established on both localiser and glideslope, your primary task is maintaining both needles centred using raw instrument data. The scan pattern should be a selective radial scan anchored on the attitude indicator: attitude → localiser CDI → attitude → glideslope → attitude → airspeed → altitude. Small, timely corrections are essential — the glideslope becomes more sensitive as you descend (half-scale deflection represents less distance at lower altitude), so corrections needed early are small but corrections needed late become large. In raw data without a flight director, you manage pitch attitude directly to track the glideslope: a typical stabilised descent on a 3° glideslope produces approximately 700–750 ft/min descent rate at typical approach speeds, but the required rate varies with groundspeed (headwind reduces it, tailwind increases it). Monitor the VSI to confirm your descent rate matches the expected profile. Trim accurately — in the A320neo in Normal Law, the aircraft auto-trims, but verify the aircraft is trimmed to reduce the need for sustained pitch input that can lead to fatigue and over-control.

Decision Height and Landing — As you approach the Decision Height (DH), the PM (the paired candidate acting as PM, or the assessor) should make standard callouts: 'one thousand above,' 'five hundred above,' 'one hundred above,' 'minimums.' At DH, your decision is binary: if adequate visual references are established (runway environment, approach lights, threshold), call 'landing' and transition from instruments to visual references for the landing. If no visual reference: call 'go-around' and execute the missed approach. For the sim assessment, the expectation is a landing — the scenario typically provides visual conditions at DH. During the visual transition, maintain the instrument scan alongside the external visual picture — do not abandon instruments entirely, as the visual segment is short and the glideslope guidance remains valid to the threshold. Aim for a smooth, positive touchdown: the A320neo autobrake is typically armed to LOW or MED, ground spoilers deploy automatically on weight-on-wheels, and reverse thrust is commanded after touchdown.

Assessment Criteria and Common Errors — The assessors evaluate the ILS approach for the same Pilot Profile competencies as the entire session: scan discipline, smooth control, accurate tracking, appropriate communication, and — critically — whether you have incorporated the feedback given after the earlier VOR-DME approach. If the assessor noted altitude maintenance issues during the VOR-DME, they will specifically watch whether your glideslope tracking is improved. Common ILS errors in raw data: localiser overcorrection (chasing the needle with large heading changes instead of small, steady corrections), glideslope drift during configuration changes (extending flaps or gear changes the pitch trim requirement, causing a momentary glideslope deviation if not anticipated), speed instability (especially if autothrust response is delayed), and fixation on one parameter at the expense of others. The ILS is generally considered easier than the VOR-DME because you have both lateral and vertical guidance, but the reduced altitude and proximity to landing increase the consequence of errors. The 'positive learning trend' criterion means visible improvement from the VOR-DME approach is specifically what the assessors are looking for.

I Would Mentor Actively While Maintaining Safety — If assigned a new SAS cadet FO in February for a Norwegian domestic sector, I would brief them thoroughly on the specific challenges: Arctic weather, icy runways, contaminated surfaces, short daylight. I would let them fly while providing clear guidance, and debrief constructively after each sector. I would set clear boundaries: "If at any point I need to take control for safety, I will — that's not a reflection on you, it's crew resource management."

Modelling Good CRM Behaviour — New pilots learn cockpit culture by observing experienced colleagues. At SAS, this means modelling the Scandinavian flat-hierarchy approach: invite the cadet's questions openly ('what questions do you have about the Bergen approach?'), share your assessment of threats rather than presenting decisions as fait accompli ('I am thinking we should request de-icing at Bergen even though it is not mandatory — here is why'), and actively demonstrate the monitoring behaviours you expect them to develop. SAS's CRM heritage, dating to Jan Carlzon's 1980s reforms, is passed down through exactly these line-flying interactions — Training Captains and experienced FOs create the cockpit culture one flight at a time. Use SAS Flight 751 as a teaching moment: 'This is why we always check de-icing holdover times and conduct tactile wing inspections — let me show you how I verify the surfaces.' Making the airline's history tangible on a cold February morning at Arlanda is more powerful than any classroom lecture.

Workload and Pace Management — A cadet operating in Scandinavian winter for the first time will process information more slowly and may not anticipate threats that you handle automatically. Adjust your pace without compromising safety: allow extra time for approach briefings, offer to handle radio communications on the busiest sectors while the cadet focuses on flying fundamentals, and build in moments for teaching during low-workload phases (cruise, taxi). If the cadet makes an error — a late configuration selection, an imprecise approach, a missed callout — correct it calmly and constructively: 'On the next approach, let us aim to have the gear down by 2,000 feet — that gives us margin for the final configuration.' Lower your go-around threshold: if the cadet's approach at Bergen is trending toward instability, call the go-around earlier than you would with an experienced captain, and frame it positively: 'Good experience — let us set up again and I will talk you through the visual segment.'

Constructive Feedback and Development — After each sector, provide focused feedback: one specific positive observation ('your radio work at Bergen was clear and professional') and one specific area for development ('on the next approach, try to start your descent earlier to avoid being high on the glidepath — I will prompt you at the right point'). At SAS, recurrent training through CAE every six months includes regular feedback opportunities, and the airline's culture expects that learning is continuous — not just during formal training events but on every line flight. The SAS Pilot Profile competency 'Self-awareness and willingness to learn' applies to both the cadet (demonstrating openness to feedback) and to you (demonstrating awareness of your responsibility to develop junior colleagues). If significant issues arise — consistent procedural non-compliance, situational awareness gaps that create safety concerns — document them for the training department, not as punishment but as information that supports the cadet's structured development.

I Would Assess My Fitness Honestly Before Accepting — If crewing calls on my day off asking me to cover a flight, I would first consider: am I adequately rested? Have I consumed alcohol within the bottle-to-throttle window? Am I mentally prepared to operate safely? If yes to all, I would accept — being available helps the operation. If I have any concern about my fitness, I would decline. I would not accept out of obligation and then operate while impaired.

Regulatory and Company Framework — Under EASA ORO.FTL (Subpart Q), crew members have a legal obligation to present fit for duty, and SAS's own fatigue management procedures reinforce this. The SAS collective bargaining agreement, negotiated with the SAS Pilot Group (covering approximately 95% of pilots through DPF, NF, SNF, and SPF), protects pilots who decline voluntary overtime on fatigue grounds — there is no penalty, no black mark, and no career consequence. Minimum rest periods are legally defined, and even if the timing technically meets the minimum, the regulation also requires that the pilot self-assess their actual fitness, not just calculate hours since last duty. A pilot who accepts a flight knowing they are fatigued violates both the regulation and professional ethics. SAS's safety culture, with its 7/7 AirlineRatings score, depends on pilots making exactly this kind of honest decision.

If You Accept — Conditions and Monitoring — If your self-assessment concludes that you will be adequately rested — perhaps the late night was moderate and you can sleep immediately to achieve sufficient rest — you can accept the flight with appropriate conditions. Ensure you go to bed immediately to maximise sleep opportunity. Set multiple alarms. Pre-plan your commute time. On the day, re-evaluate your fitness honestly before leaving home: if you wake feeling unfit despite your plan, call crewing and report fatigued before commuting to the airport.

It is always better to cancel early than to arrive at the aircraft and then declare unfit — early notification gives crewing time to find a replacement. During the flight, monitor yourself for fatigue signs: difficulty concentrating, slower reaction times, reduced motivation for thorough procedures, irritability. If fatigue develops during the duty, report it to the captain and consider whether continuing is safe.

Cultural and Professional Integrity — This scenario tests your integrity when no one is watching. Scandinavian professional culture values honesty and self-responsibility — the Swedish concept of 'lagom' (just the right amount) means not overextending yourself to appear willing, and Denmark's low uncertainty avoidance (UAI 23) means there is cultural comfort with saying 'no' when the situation warrants it. The SAS Pilot Profile competency 'Self-awareness and willingness to learn' extends to self-awareness of your own physiological state. A fatigued pilot is a dangerous pilot — the degradation in cognitive performance after sleep restriction is well-documented: attention, decision-making, reaction time, and monitoring all deteriorate. The panel wants to hear that your default is honest self-assessment followed by a clear decision — not people-pleasing, not guilt-driven acceptance, and not cavalier overconfidence in your ability to perform on inadequate rest.