Logbook Lies

[Dave Benjamin]

We are all guilty of adding the .5 to actual or total time.

Hardly. Don't try to rationalize lying by saying everyone else is doing it. Padding a logbook is fraud. If you're honest you have nothing to worry about. If I ever decided to apply somewhere else I'd have no worries about anything in my logbooks because I know the time was accurately recorded.

 

[ultrarunner]

FedEx is likely to take the closest look. In their application they ask for PIC time. As has been discussed and established, their requirement is Aircraft Commander.

In my interivew, they asked me to turn to the page in my log books that corresponded to my FIRST 135 PIC check. Naturally, this page was marked, and as I always did, the FSI sticker is affixed to that page. The interivewer looked at the PIC time at that page and at the PIC time on my last page in my last log book, then compared that to what I put on my application and everything matched up. He was actually impressed and made a few comments on how folks log time.

Somewhat related, he remarked that "...I know you've been flying jets and loging time correctly since you have 8000 hrs and only 500 actual..."

He went on to say that some folks come in here with lots of jet time and thousands of hrs of actual...and we know that's no right...

Interesting in what they look for.

 

[Turbosnake03]

dosen't a PRIA show all of your time with a certain company?? wouldn't this fact alone bust most of these people??

 

[ultrarunner]

dosen't a PRIA show all of your time with a certain company?? wouldn't this fact alone bust most of these people??

No, no flight hours, unless the employer specifically choose to included it on their own accord. Which is not likely.

A typical employer will simply fill out the PRIA form as presented and return it.

 

[trainer8]

dosen't a PRIA show all of your time with a certain company?? wouldn't this fact alone bust most of these people??

PRIA will show a training events by code, hour(s) involved in the training event and SAT or UNSAT or INC (Incomplete).

T8

 

[Tyro]

We are all guilty of adding the .5 to actual or total time.

Not True.

 

[HughBeamont]

I'd say we are all guilty of estimating how many clouds we flew through on the third day of last month, and of how many minutes of time we flew after one hour of civil twilight had passed. Get the important things (total, pic, etc) dead on and do the best job estimating you can at the other stuff.

 

[COOPERVANE]

PIC=A/C commander

I know 2 female pilots that logged PIC time in a lear 35 at the same time. They justified it under the 1 "PIC", 1 "sole manipulator" They are BOTH at SWA and even interviewed at the same time. No one there caught it or maybe didn't care.

I DO NOT agree with that practice and have argued till I was blue in the face with several pilots who I have met that did it.

I dont CARE if you have a type rating and you are flying the plane on this leg. Unless you signed for the A/C and the other guy is logging SIC you are not PIC!!

Also, met a guy once that logged EVERY hour of night flight as actual in the LEAR. Told me that it was "flight by reference to instruments" at night so he should log it that way. 3000 TT and he had 2000 Inst.

Honesty is dead. It's not your fathers country

 

[JumpCaptain]

I knew a guy once that flew a LR55 and logged everything over FL180 as actual instrument.

When he went to an airline interview with 2500TT and 2000 "actual Instrument", boy did they get a good chuckle out of that!

Sadly, I think he flies for a major now.

 

[ultrarunner]

I dont CARE if you have a type rating and you are flying the plane on this leg. Unless you signed for the A/C and the other guy is logging SIC you are not PIC!

That's all well and good if you come from a 121 or 135 background.

But no one "signs" for planes in the 91 world.

 

[Lear70]

That's all well and good if you come from a 121 or 135 background.

But no one "signs" for planes in the 91 world.

Sure they do.

When I was flying for Flexjet we operated ALL flights Part 91.

We then had a designated Captain who signed the logbook on every flight. Many of our SIC's would log PIC time on every leg they flew. I was guilty of that and, once I learned better, actually had to start another logbook and re-log all of my time at Flexjet to get the times right.

Bottom line: if you're flying an aircraft that requires two pilots, even Part 91, one of you should be logging PIC, the other SIC. If you're not, be prepared to answer some pretty tough questions on an interview. We're not trying to be jerks about it, just trying to save you some BIG problems.

Most PROFESSIONAL companies (FedEx, SWA) don't like Part 61.51 PIC time (sole manipulator of the controls) if you weren't, at that time, the designated Captain for whatever company you were working for. I'll cost you a job (and any future interviews there) some day if you're not careful.

 

[ultrarunner]

Sure they do.

When I was flying for Flexjet we operated ALL flights Part 91.

Share programs are the exception. I highly doubt the majority of smaller 91 companies, operating a single aircraft actually "designate" a captain.

I manage such a two-pilot department. And I don't.

 

[Lear70]

Share programs are the exception. I highly doubt the majority of smaller 91 companies, operating a single aircraft actually "designate" a captain.

I manage such a two-pilot department. And I don't.

That's highly interesting.

Almost every single corporate job posting I see on planejobs or climbto350 ALWAYS list whether they're hiring for a Captain position or First Officer / Copilot position.

If you're hired on as such, I would submit that you KNOW you're not the designated PIC.

Your operation, of course, is probably an exception where EVERYONE is hired as a Co-Captain or some such thing, which I find to compromise safety. SOMEONE has to be the final word in an emergency. In a perfect world, both pilots would agree on the safest course of action, but we all know that sometimes that doesn't happen. So who is the final say in your aircraft?

 

[ultrarunner]

Your operation, of course, is probably an exception where EVERYONE is hired as a Co-Captain or some such thing, which I find to compromise safety.

I disagee, and our safety record speaks for itself.

SOMEONE has to be the final word in an emergency....So who is the final say in your aircraft?

The PF

 

[JediNein]

We are all guilty of adding the .5 to actual or total time.

Ummm, no. The lax rules regarding pilots self-certifying their logbooks remain because pilots are not all guilty of forging entries. Most resent the accusation. If you commit fraud in your logbook, you are in a lonely and vile minority. There is no rationalization, no glorification, no sympathy, and no tolerance for that in aviation.

Whatever the reward, it becomes hollow when one knows it is not true.

Fly SAFE!
Jedi Nein

 

[JediNein]

.....

 

[Lear70]

Originally Posted by Lear70
SOMEONE has to be the final word in an emergency....So who is the final say in your aircraft?


The PF

So the most experienced person isn't making the decisions?

Brilliant.

 

[ultrarunner]

So the most experienced person isn't making the decisions?

Brilliant.

Uhhhh.....well, we have equal experience in corporate/charter, equal experience in airline flying, equal experience in Type....

Lets see.. I think he's behind me in total time by a few hrs. I'll terminate him tomorrow and hire a 500 hr wonder boy, so there is NO confusion and I can thump my chest and have a gear-puller that knows his place. How's that for 'one level of safety' there dickhead?!

Well, folks much smarter than me on this thread..guess I'll eject from it.

see ya!

 

[Lear70]

Uhhhh.....well, we have equal experience in corporate/charter, equal experience in airline flying, equal experience in Type....

Lets see.. I think he's behind me in total time by a few hrs. I'll terminate him tomorrow and hire a 500 hr wonder boy, so there is NO confusion and I can thump my chest and have a gear-puller that knows his place. How's that for 'one level of safety' there dickhead?!

Well, folks much smarter than me on this thread..guess I'll eject from it.

see ya!

Dickhead? I wasn't aware I had insulted you directly but I guess you'd like to start...?

You remind me of the kid on the playground that wants to yell the last insult and runs away so he has the last word. Yeah, that's mature. And you RUN a corporate flight department? There's that pesky safety issue again...

Your childish, sarcastic response is an action that I, IN NO WAY, suggested or even insinuated.

I was asking how making the PF the PIC on that leg but not on the next constitutes a safe environment?

If EVERYONE at your company has exactly the same experience, then perhaps your approach works. I would also, while conceding this point, would suggest that such a crew pairing IS NOT THE NORM IN THE AVIATION WORLD.

You're avoiding the question and attempting to sidestep the issue so again, for the MAJORITY of Corporate operators, how is it somehow OK for 61.51 PIC logging to be an acceptable practice if you are hired as an F/O and someone who was hired as or upgraded to Captain is in the same plane with you?

 

[ultrarunner]

Ok, sorry about the dickhead comment. But I take offense. I feel that I run a very safe flight department and hire the most experienced and best fitting persons I can.

I could have EASILY gone out and hired a gear-puller, NOT typed them, and then, as in your example, there would have been absolutely NO question as to who is the supreme commander. My ego isn't that big and I have no problem sitting next to someone as qualified as me if not more so.

So, you claim I'm not that bright for making the PF the decision maker. Well, I hired accordingly so they have that responsibility. And I sleep well and night knowing that.

But, I will concede that many companies love to hire SIC/FO only. I know these same companies love to give their Captain's titles...like SENIOR Captain, SENIOR INTERNATIONAL CAPTAIN, and all those other chest-thumping titles. IMO, this serves no purpose other than to make sure the FO's know their place. I'm not into that. And if folks claim that my dept. is less safe, well, then so be it.

thanks for listening.

 

[COOPERVANE]

I knew some 91 guys would chime in. "But, But, we have ALWAYS logged it that way and we haven'd had a crash yet!" you will say.

I applaud the fact that you havn't hired 500 hour "gear pullers" and your safety level has been enhanced because of that. Congratulations! your passengers' safety is important to you. It's a shame more flight departments don't practice this.

But I have seen part 91 ops that encourage their 500 hour wonders to log PIC if they have a type. Not a good practice

I don't have a problem with Co-captains, but ONE pilot should sit in the left seat and log PIC, the other in the right as SIC. Every leg. Switch if you want, but you BOTH CAN'T LEGALLY log PIC.

I can log every hour I have as 777 time if I want to. I'd just better be able to back it up. There is the problem

 

[hotwing]

Most large fortune 10 companies have captain - captain flight depts. They switch legs if they want and they are equal... Then there are those that are stuck in the 50s... See XOM, Chevron, etc...

 

[Corona]

Ummm, no. The lax rules regarding pilots self-certifying their logbooks remain because pilots are not all guilty of forging entries. Most resent the accusation. If you commit fraud in your logbook, you are in a lonely and vile minority. There is no rationalization, no glorification, no sympathy, and no tolerance for that in aviation.

Whatever the reward, it becomes hollow when one knows it is not true.

Fly SAFE!
Jedi Nein

What he said.

C

 

[Tyro]

Comments/arguments boil down into two fundamental schools of thought:

• What are the odds of getting caught/consequences (perhaps in a hypothetical),

• Who cares if you get caught or not, - you yourself will know, and that is punishment enough.

Wonder which would make a better doc. I reckon, hypothetically, a doctor could find an easy shortcut way through all that schooling and training, with crib-notes and test-answers and plagiarizing and such. Not sure I’d wanna go to one.

Could such a doc be trusted?

Yah I know, I know – big difference between pilots and docs. No comparison. Or logging a couple extra points vs. getting the med exam answers ahead of time.

Right?

 

[QXpeon]

I remember an inspector at RAL FSDO tell a class of CFI's about an ATP applicant that shows up with nearly 500 hrs of Seneca time.
Inspector knew this Seneca was a mud queen at Corona Airport, and knew it rarely flew.
He called the owner and asked how many hrs it had on it and then called in the pilot.
FAA revoked his certificates.
This can and does happen.

That guy was an idiot and he deserved it for being so damm careless. If you're going to do $hit like that do it right.

 

[Lear70]

That guy was an idiot and he deserved it for being so damm careless. If you're going to do $hit like that do it right.

Oh God... here we go.

 

[DeucesWild]

Originally Posted by Lear70

Incidentally, NO ONE has EVER validated my logbooks, and I've interviewed at:

Turboprop Part 135 operator - never opened them
Lear 135 operator - never opened them
Flexjet - never opened them
Express One (727's) - never opened them
United - looked at them for 30 seconds
Pinnacle - looked at them for 30 seconds as well
Southwest - looked at them for 30 seconds and verified three times they needed.
A couple 727 operators hiring direct-entry Captains and some corporate operators - never opened them

Southwest just looked for the specific times they needed, but when you have 6,000 hours and 5 previous flying jobs, it would be a lot more difficult to pick out errors than if you're a 1,500 hour pilot with one or two jobs instructing or flying cxld checks.

Oh, and p.s. 10% IFR and Night is about right for people who haven't flown Part 121 yet. Those times go up to 20% if you're based in the Northeast as a 121 operator. I have about 7,000 total, 1,200 IFR, 1,500 Night, but I flew a lot of night freight, too.

Maybe 30 seconds was all it took to validate your logbooks. Your IFR time is way too high for the amount of total time you have. Were you logging Actual Instrument time when you were the non-flying pilot? I fly for a major and have also been based in the northeast before and my IFR time is less than 10% of my total.

Did you get a job offer from United or Southwest? Maybe they had already decided they weren't going to offer you the job, and spending alot of time in your logbooks was a waste of their time.

 

[aerobaticspilot]

I know some feds who do some check outs who could pick out some false flight time with out even going into it to deep. You get caught lieing about your flight time you might wanna look for a differnt career. How can you feel good about yourself knowing the only way you got that job or certifacte by lieing.

 

[Sim Sweat]

I fly for a major and have also been based in the northeast before and my IFR time is less than 10% of my total.

Not to pick nits here, but keep in mind that there are, or were, 121 jobs especially in the northeast where you never got above 10,000. I flew for a regional and we spent a whole buttload of time in the goo ... the guys in other company aircraft types were always above it in the clear.

Mine shakes out to almost 20% too.

 

[DeucesWild]

Originally posted by Lear70

Incidentally, NO ONE has EVER validated my logbooks, and I've interviewed at:

Turboprop Part 135 operator - never opened them
Lear 135 operator - never opened them
Flexjet - never opened them
Express One (727's) - never opened them
United - looked at them for 30 seconds
Pinnacle - looked at them for 30 seconds as well
Southwest - looked at them for 30 seconds and verified three times they needed.
A couple 727 operators hiring direct-entry Captains and some corporate operators - never opened them

Southwest just looked for the specific times they needed, but when you have 6,000 hours and 5 previous flying jobs, it would be a lot more difficult to pick out errors than if you're a 1,500 hour pilot with one or two jobs instructing or flying cxld checks.

Oh, and p.s. 10% IFR and Night is about right for people who haven't flown Part 121 yet. Those times go up to 20% if you're based in the Northeast as a 121 operator. I have about 7,000 total, 1,200 IFR, 1,500 Night, but I flew a lot of night freight, too.

Part 121 flying is multiple crewmembers. Only the pilot flying (sole manipulator of the controls) can log Actual Instrument. Thus, Actual Instrument time can only be logged every other leg, while Total Time is obviously logged for both legs. Thus, the percentage of Actual Instument time logged in relation to TT should go DOWN when doing 121 flying.

You say you flew alot of night freight. Why didn't you log it???