Questionable Twin Time

[88_MALIBU]

I have 50 hours of multi engine AirCam time flying in and out of sandbars in the river valley where I live. I am wondering if I will get flack for this at an interview? It is an N-Number aircraft, but was homebuilt by an airline pilot. It is not all of my twin time, but a portion of it. I have several hours in a Seminole and Travel Aire as well. Should I bring a Airworthiness Certificate in case I am questioned about its validity? It does require a pilots license to fly..

 

[labbats]

Make sure and stress it was a homebuilt made by an airline pilot. That should make all the difference.

 

[labbats]

I did it because it sounded funny. Apparently it didn't come off so well. Apologies. If it has an N-number, I don't see why you'd have any problems.

 

[BoeingBoy]

Most people, including your interviewer, will not know what an AirCam is...I would get a photo of the airplane and maybe as a backup something from the FAA saying that it is not an ultralight...I saw the website and it looks an awful lot like an ultralight. Also, know the specs/numbers of this airplane. A non-IFR twin is a rarity and will definitely raise some eyebrows...but as long as you have other conventional twin time you'll probably be ok.

Good luck!

 

[TIGV]

Your logbook is your diary, you can log anything you like in the TOTAL TIME column, provided this time is not applied as valid time toward a certificate or rating, doesn't matter if it's a bottle rocket powered donkey with your kids fairy wings tied to it.
Where things get sticky, as mentioned above, and inferred in your post, is when ' unusual ' time is used to meet a requirement of some sort, I don't think you will have any problems at all as long as you can explain, if questioned, how this aircraft is certified, it's systems etc etc to lend some credence to the fact that you actually DID fly this aero-contraption at some point.

 

[Lead Sled]

Most people, including your interviewer, will not know what an AirCam is...

I disagree. Who has ever seen one and not thought that it would be a hoot to fly? Frankly, who has ever seen an issue of just about any general aviation magazine will be familiar with it. My guess is that you'll probably be the hit of the party so to speak.

'Sled

 

[Vik]

http://www.leza-aircam.com/AirCam Photos.htm

Well, its multi-engine from what I can tell. If people can build single engine planes and log them as single engine, why can't you build a multi engine plane and log it as multi?

I don't see the problem except .. it doesn't look like its IFR equipped or legal, and they might ask you at the interview, what kind of experience did you get flying it? Did you shoot approaches single engine, did you fly in actual, under the hood, ???

They cannot tell you that it doesn't count towards multi engine time though.

 

[Vik]

Ok, i just checked the specs on the plane and my car goes faster than this thing flies.

The airlines want you to fly faster equipment so that you will learn to think ahead of the airplane. This thing flies slower than a Cessna 152.

"Cruise Speed (50 to 100 mph)"

Anyway, bottom line, its multi time, and they can't deny you employment by saying it isn't. They might deny you employment on the quality of that time.

 

[350DRIVER]

I second the comments of BoeingBoy, chances are the folks on the interview board will not have heard of this contraption with two engines attached to it. I would not be overly concerned and I do not think this will be a "make you or break you" factor during the interview. Know the systems (which surely are limited), speeds, and be able to justify this time in your logbook. It has two engines so I do not see any problems with you logging it. It obviously isn't the purdiest thang I ever saw but in reality you are not trying to win a beauty contest.

 

[OrphicSeth]

Oh snap!

I'm with Lead Sled on this one! If I was an interviewer and I saw a picture of that thing and you mention the word "sand bar" and "river", that's it. Everything goes out the window, you take me for a ride down your river, and the job is yours.

Of course that's just me.

 

[Lead Sled]

If I was an interviewer and I saw a picture of that thing and you mention the word "sand bar" and "river", that's it. Everything goes out the window, you take me for a ride down your river, and the job is yours.

When it comes to what interviewers look for it simply depends upon the preferences of those doing the hiring. From the corporate side of things, I like to look for guys that have been "around the block". When I'm interviewing, I don't necessarily place a lot of stock in previous turbine time. What I personally look for guys with good solid single-pilot IFR time in light-twins. Those guys usually have it pretty much together after a 1000 hours or so. Transitioning them into a jet is no big deal.

When it comes to the airlines, it depends upon who's on the hiring board. Basically everyone at that level is qualified and pretty much a clone of everyone else. In my case, the fact that I had learned to fly and had a bunch of time in tail draggers and also had a glider rating set me apart from the crowd - go figure? (The chief pilot was a soaring enthuiast and he told me once that he could always spot guys with taildrager time when they flew a B727.) My advise for you guys wanting to break into the business is to concentrate on the "total package", not just the licenses, ratings, and flight time.

Personally, I don't think the AirCam time will hurt him at all.

'Sled

 

[88_MALIBU]

Thanks alot guys, I sure was sweating it out, I have been flying the Seminole lately trying to get my ratio up. I am hoping what I lack in high performance twin time I make up for in pressuirzed single engine Malibu time. I have around 106 hours of actual in that airplane.

 

[Ty Webb]

Thanks alot guys, I sure was sweating it out, I have been flying the Seminole lately trying to get my ratio up. I am hoping what I lack in high performance twin time I make up for in pressuirzed single engine Malibu time. I have around 106 hours of actual in that airplane.

Although, as pilots, we tend to focus on experience, don't forget that the interviewer is trying to learn something about you as a person, how you well you adapt to standadization, and how you handle conflict, and stress.

If he/she says, "we don't count that as multi time" I wouldn't argue, I would say, "Well, that's too bad, because it sure was a lot of fun to fly it" [smile] "I hope the rest of my multi time will meet your requirements, since I would really like to work here" or something else equally diplomatic.

I wouldn't get into a technical argument of whether or not it meets THEIR requirements, unless he asks you specific questions about it.

 

[TimsKeeper]

All they want to know is whether you want to look up the female stewardess' dress or the male stewardess' dress. All else is irrelevant.

 

[A Squared]

Your logbook is your diary, you can log anything you like in the TOTAL TIME column, provided this time is not applied as valid time toward a certificate or rating,

No, not true at all. the idea that you can put anything you want in your logbook, as long as you don't put it on an 8710 or use it to meet some other regulatory requirement is nothing more than wishful thinking. Actually it is a lot more than wishful thinking, it is factually incorrect advise which could cause some pretty serious legal problems. Pilots have attempted to use this defense against logbook falsification enforcement. The FAA, and more importantly, the NTSB say it desn't matter.

 

[TIGV]

If you think keeping a factual tally and insisting just because you have a signature per page that your flight time must be correct you need to board the next saturn mission.

I ensure that all the hours I use toward anything legal can be backed by some form of alternate documentation and a counter-signature or other form of company, flightschool or Instructor/IP evidence.

You honestly don't remember putting anything at all in the remarks section during your Private training or hour building that stood out as having been particularly impressive or awe inspiring and may or may not have had anything directly to do with your flying?

I love seeing some of the Pseudo-intellectualism on this site, actually makes me sick to my stomach that I have to explain something so simple in painful detail, perhaps I should not have assumed that it's:
Patently Logical to ALWAYS back up that flight time you will need to prove to someone.

" I took a ride in a homebuilt with half a V-Dub engine, **CENSORED****CENSORED****CENSORED****CENSORED** thing was made by Two by fours and it's method of control still somewhat of a mystery, or I suspect, as the wind blew through the manically grinning old man's hair that some form witchery was afoot to keep us aloft "

I'd best not have this entry in my logbook at all huh A-Squared, happened many many moons ago before I got my Commercial, I still grin when I read it but hey let me eradicate that little gem, something that keeps the subjects memory alive, for alas he is no more ( Old age took him ) before the jackbooted hordes tramp right out of A squared's mind and nuke what's left of the tattered future of my career.

Dude, loosen up a little, enjoy your flying, most of all enjoy the heck out most of the flying folk you meet and yah why not know what's legal and what's not, for us Proffesionals it's required ya know.

 

[cougar6903]

Looks like a cool plane. I'd trade a few of my hours in the seminole for a few hours in one.

 

[A Squared]

TIGV,

You've read much into my post which really isn't there. I didn't say anything about what you can or cannot put in the remarks section, I have and still do write things not directly related to the actual facts of the flight in my own logbook. You'll notice though that I didn't say you couldn't in my preious post. The idea that you can't write personal observations in your logbook is absurd and certainly not waht I said. You're arguing points which were never made. I assume that you're doing this because you are unable to address the actual point. Yes, you can write irrelevancies in your logbook, you can fill out a line with the news that on that date you had your first son, your dog died or you divorced your wife of 25 years. However, if you start putting in flight time which you are not legally entitled to log, and you enter numbers in the flight time columns, you are in fact falsifying your flight time, and the FAA may violate you for it.

Here's a NTSB decision in which some pilots put bogus time in thier logbooks, when caught, they tried to beat the violation by claiming that it wasn't falsification because they didn't use it to qualify for a rating or to meet some other requirement.
http://www.ntsb.gov/alj/O_n_O/docs/aviation/4260.PDF

They lost. here's what the NTSB had to say about it:

​

In essence, the respondents are contending that it is permissible for an airman to knowingly fabricate a logbook entry as long as the entry is not one that he is using at that time to obtain a higher rating or to stay current. We disagree, and have said as much before. See Administrator v. Turner, NTSB Order No. EA-3748 at 3, n.5 (1992) (The regulation prohibiting logbook falsifications applies to entries "that are or may be 'used' to show compliance with 'any requirement for the issuance, or exercise of the privileges, [of] any certificate or rating,' not just ... those entries that are needed to demonstrate compliance"). Administrator v. Cassis, 4 NTSB 555, 557 (1982), aff'd, 737 F.2d 545 (6th Cir. 1984).8

​

I think that pretty shows pretty clearly the position of the FAA and the NTSB is exactly as I've described. Like I said, write whatever "dear diary" type entries you want, but if you put numbers in flight time columns, you're required to make truthful entries.

"....and yah why not know what's legal and what's not, for us Proffesionals it's required ya know."

yeah, my feelings exactly, know what's legal and what is not, and putting bogus time in your logbook is not.

 

[TIGV]

...Sigh...

 

[Flyin Tony]

In effect, all is included except paint & intruments Price at [size=+4]$82,560.00 [/size]
Airframe Kit only [size=+3]$58,648.00[/size]

I just Shat myself