Checking logbook in interview

[liv'n_on_credit]

I was wondering if anyone knew what an interviewer usually looks for in a person's logbook during an interview? Maybe I'm worrying about this too much, but I just wanted some other opinions

Do they just look at types of aircraft, places and dates that you've flown, or do they get really into your logbook and see whether you broke any regs by going past currency(IFR/VFR)?

I always keep current, but I'm sure I'm not the only person who has accidentally went a couple days over their 90 days with 3 t.o./land, or 6 approaches within 6 months for IFR, or night currency.

Also, I've heard the term "logbook audit" before. Has anyone had one of these, and what is involved in one? Thanks.

 

[Hugh Jorgan]

Out of five airline interviews, only one interviewer spent more than about 1-2 minutes looking at my logbook. He only asked one question and that was regarding a person who I had noted was on my jumpseat one day. The only other question was from a Chief Pilot who had a question about how I calculated my PIC time. Question asked and answered and we moved on.

I think it depends on the company, but for the most part, I believe they are just checking to make sure you appear to be who you say you are and that your hours and experience are believable and match your application numbers. I also think they want to see that you have the brain cells to keep the logbook correctly.

Keep an honest, accurate, conservative logbook, as neat as you can, and it'll be a non-issue.

 

[350DRIVER]

They are looking for any red flags that would be quite obvious and stick out, any logged SIC time in an aircraft that does not require one. There are many other things that can/will be looked at but most interviewers are looking for a general idea of seeing what the applicant has flown the most in a given amount of time, making sure the applicant's times in logbook are the same as those numbers that were put down on resume and application.


This is a rather quick and painless process, most on the interview boards are not going to waste a lot of time going over your logs unless they see something that is obvious and incorrect then they will more than likely take a closer and more detailed look into your logs.

Do they just look at types of aircraft, places and dates that you've flown, or do they get really into your logbook and see whether you broke any regs by going past currency(IFR/VFR)?

Highly unlikely that they will discover that you broke a particular reg., more pilots are caught logging sic time in a airplane that does not require one versus the "current or not issue". Obviously you should make sure you are current so there are no worries or concerns about this. Red Flags and the obvious things that stick out are the most likely items to cause the applicant trouble during the interview. Who cares if you have flown in BFE Alaska versus flying up and down the east coast, the interviewers really could care less.


3 5 0

 

[TEXAN AVIATOR]

If you have logbooks pro or something similar, do you still bring the other logbooks? I'd assume you bring all because of endorsements etc. I'm trying to decide on using logbooks pro or not.

Fly safe,
TA

 

[millhouse21]

I agree. I've only had one airline interview but they just kind of thumbed through my logbook. they asked questions like "I see you have some time in aircraft x. Tell me about it..." Sort of stuff. They were probably looking for really outrageous stuff like if you logged 3000 hours in one year all inthe same aircraft. At least, that's what I'd look for. Who has time to figure out if you busted any currency rules? Also, my logbook doesn't really have enough info to determine whether I'd busted most currency rules except for the big ones like 1400 in a year (part 135).

 

[350DRIVER]

If you have logbooks pro or something similar, do you still bring the other logbooks? I'd assume you bring all because of endorsements etc. I'm trying to decide on using logbooks pro or not.

I would highly suggest bringing your original logbook(s) to the interview. Last thing they are going to want to do is thumb through loose pages. I have yet to meet one person who did this though so he!! maybe you will be the first.



3 5 0

 

[avbug]

Back when getting the signoff for the ATP still meant something it was because the FAA audited your logbooks. Take in the logs, an the FAA would review them. Depending on the inspector, some would go over them very thoroughly, others not so thoroughly. When I got the signoff, the inspector spent about an hour auditing my logs.

In interviews, the longest I've had the logs reviewed was about three hours. That was a government position, and the reviewers didn't spend it all on my log. However, I was told afterward that it was the most accurate of any submitted (they rejected several logs that contained discrepancies as little as .3, when crosschecking one time against the other, one page against the other, etc). They also said they spent more time looking at my logs because they liked the pictures.

 

[Vortilon]

Saw a guy years ago blow his interview because his logbooks were askew. (There were many other problems with this individual but this didn't help any). He was asked if he was instrument current. Simple question, right? He replied "yes." They asked him how he was current (6,6,6 rule at the time or ICC). He replied 666 rule... well he couldn't prove that in his logbook...as far as his log was concerned he was not instrument current...looked pretty stupid.

Who knows if he was current or not but you get the point.

Also, at the interview show up with the hours you had on your application (or more)...don't "forecast". Looks suspicious and you don't want gray areas.

Along with not logging SIC time in aircraft that don't require them, don't log PIC time in jets/turboprops requiring SIC when you were not acting/hired as a captain. Yeah yeah I know what the FARs say about type rated pilots being sole manipulator..blah blah blah....but most interviewers/chief pilots don't look kindly on folks that claim to have a lot of PIC time in airplanes when their work history clearly shows they were SICs. They are trying the get a feel for the amount of "In Command" experience you have, not the "Pilot" portion. Some people may think you are misrepresenting yourself...best to be conservative and not have to explain how its "legal" to log the time. There is only one PIC of an airplane at any given time, no matter what the lawyers may think.

 

[Rick1128]

The SIC issue applies more to Part 91 operations than 135 operations. If you have a form 8410 issued in that aircraft as an SIC, I personally would not have any concern about it. The interviewers are mostly looking for seat warmers. Many moons ago when I was a Captain for a Navajo commuter operator, we flew with SICs. They had 8410's in the aircraft. All of the ones I flew with went on to big and better operators and their flight time was never questioned.

Some of the items they are looking for is do the times make sense for the type of flying and the area you have been flying in. A night freight pilot in the Northeast will have a great deal more instrument time than a flight instructor from Arizona. With the same total time. There are some rules of thumb that are used to determine the average. They also look for things that appear to be out of place or unusual.

 

[generaltso]

Some people may think you are misrepresenting yourself...best to be conservative and not have to explain how its "legal" to log the time. There is only one PIC of an airplane at any given time, no matter what the lawyers may think.

Yeah but you can log PIC anytime you are the sole manip of the controls in an aircraft which you are rated... no matter what the interviewers may think.

Since when do interviewers have precedence over the FAA? I understand if that want TRUE PIC time, but they better specifically ask for that (like at Southwest).

In my logbook pro I have an additional column for TRUE PIC and one for regular PIC.

 

[Vortilon]

So you are going to show up for an interview some day with a column that says TRUE PIC? And the other would be what...FAKE PIC?

You aren't PIC unless you're the Captain. Sorry.

 

[English]

The 121 world takes a different view of PIC time than the part 135/91 world. At every part 135/91 interview I've had, the interviewer (usually the director of ops) insisted that I had more PIC turbine than I actually had. When I first started flying the CJ as captain, I had a mix of PIC and SIC time (8710 from EJM) in my logbook. At both interviews was told that in the "corporate" world, any time in type, if you are type-rated, is considered PIC time in their eyes. At a 121 interview, PIC means you were the captain.

Not my battle, just passing on the info and differing perspectives.

In terms of a logbook, I have both professional, handwritten logbooks and Logbook Pro. At every interview I've ever been to, I've never witnessed anyone pore through them. Most seemed to open the books to a select, random number of pages and that was it. I kept meticulous logbooks, maybe that's why.

 

[Hugh Jorgan]

So you are going to show up for an interview some day with a column that says TRUE PIC? And the other would be what...FAKE PIC?

You aren't PIC unless you're the Captain. Sorry.

Sort of. As I and many others have said in other threads, I have one column for "PART 1 PIC" and another for "PART 61 PIC". That about covers it.