Is this getting more prevalent? It seems to me I'm seeing more and more pilots showing up with thousands of hours experience, often on type, who also have no idea how the airplane works or how to fly it. I'm talking guys who are in the 3000-5000 hour range who can't keep their wings level in cloud, or someone with 2000 hours of King Air time (both seats, supposedly) who doesn't know how to manipulate the controls to raise the gear after takeoff.
I assume there either must be a lot of forgery these days, or this is what's left of the pilot pool.
Falsified Personal Logbooks
-
digits
Depends. Did they fly other types in between? I am often flabbergasted by how much you forget from flying other airplane types once you fly a new one. Even if you have a few hundred hours on type.
Throw in some subtle variations of the same type and I can understand it might get confusing (eg different engines, different electric systems).
The gear lever operation should be pretty universal though ::)
Throw in some subtle variations of the same type and I can understand it might get confusing (eg different engines, different electric systems).
The gear lever operation should be pretty universal though ::)
-
Colonel
- Posts: 3450
- Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2015 10:31 am
Some pilots struggle with transitioning to new types, but ...
If someone has difficulty flying something that they supposedly
have thousands of hours on, either
1) they are a really, really slow learner and permanently poor pilot, or
2) they have faked their logbook
Either way, I would not be interested in them.
Someone with a thousand hours on type ought to be
pretty knowledgeable and smooth and precise. Because
they're as good as they're ever going to be.
If someone has difficulty flying something that they supposedly
have thousands of hours on, either
1) they are a really, really slow learner and permanently poor pilot, or
2) they have faked their logbook
Either way, I would not be interested in them.
Someone with a thousand hours on type ought to be
pretty knowledgeable and smooth and precise. Because
they're as good as they're ever going to be.
-
Chuck Ellsworth
When I was interviewing pilots for a flying position I never looked at their personal logs.
First I talked to them abut their flying experience, then I flew with them.
Falsifying a personal log book is stupidity beyond belief.
Don't they realize that if someone demands proof they have to be able to tell you what aircraft logs the time can be found in.
First I talked to them abut their flying experience, then I flew with them.
Falsifying a personal log book is stupidity beyond belief.
Don't they realize that if someone demands proof they have to be able to tell you what aircraft logs the time can be found in.
-
Q400 Driver
- Posts: 2
- Joined: Thu Oct 12, 2017 2:59 am
With most of my experience being in tail draggers, I can typically identify a fibber on the taxi out if they have lied about their tail wheel time.
I don't think falsified logs are more or less prevalent then the past. I do think that they just haven't experience many different type changes. Most jumping into "bigger" machines are coming off of a 172 -- that is the time we live in now. Kind of a one trick pony if you will. I think flying numerous types helps tremendously but their are the odd types that take a little bit for some to grasp. Most GA, trike airplanes, should be a no brainer and a relatively easy transition if they have some TT under their belt.
Also 2-4k of VFR does not equate to keeping the wings level when hand bombing in IMC.
There are some transferable skill sets, but certainly not all. It make take a bit to get a handle on flying IFR if they have been a day VFR driver their entire career. A pipeline guy jumping into a King Air or better will be no super star.
I don't think falsified logs are more or less prevalent then the past. I do think that they just haven't experience many different type changes. Most jumping into "bigger" machines are coming off of a 172 -- that is the time we live in now. Kind of a one trick pony if you will. I think flying numerous types helps tremendously but their are the odd types that take a little bit for some to grasp. Most GA, trike airplanes, should be a no brainer and a relatively easy transition if they have some TT under their belt.
Also 2-4k of VFR does not equate to keeping the wings level when hand bombing in IMC.
There are some transferable skill sets, but certainly not all. It make take a bit to get a handle on flying IFR if they have been a day VFR driver their entire career. A pipeline guy jumping into a King Air or better will be no super star.
-
Chuck Ellsworth
Flying different types of airplanes basically requires the ability to comfortably fly a given type and then become comfortable in another type and have the ability to think about the one you are presently flying.
I was chief pilot for a company in the mid sixties that operated a real weird mix of machines.
We had two helicopters we used for training, aerial application and traffic patrol twice a day in Detroit Michigan.
We also did night IFR auto parts flying with two DH Doves and a Beech 18.
The single engine machines were a 172, a Fleet Canuck, a Piper Colt and Beech debonair.
I flew the helicopters five days a week and filled in on what ever was needed the rest of the time.
I never ever had any problems getting into any of them at any time.
The same with my personal transportation, I had a car and a motor cycle and they posed no problem to inter change.
Of course in today's world of the " one trick pony " mentality it is very unlikely to find a company that operates that way.
I was chief pilot for a company in the mid sixties that operated a real weird mix of machines.
We had two helicopters we used for training, aerial application and traffic patrol twice a day in Detroit Michigan.
We also did night IFR auto parts flying with two DH Doves and a Beech 18.
The single engine machines were a 172, a Fleet Canuck, a Piper Colt and Beech debonair.
I flew the helicopters five days a week and filled in on what ever was needed the rest of the time.
I never ever had any problems getting into any of them at any time.
The same with my personal transportation, I had a car and a motor cycle and they posed no problem to inter change.
Of course in today's world of the " one trick pony " mentality it is very unlikely to find a company that operates that way.
-
ScudRunner-d95
- Posts: 1349
- Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 5:08 pm
[quote author=Q400 Driver link=topic=7419.msg20333#msg20333 date=1509843852]
With most of my experience being in tail draggers, I can typically identify a fibber on the taxi out if they have lied about their tail wheel time.
I don't think falsified logs are more or less prevalent then the past. I do think that they just haven't experience many different type changes. Most jumping into "bigger" machines are coming off of a 172 -- that is the time we live in now. Kind of a one trick pony if you will. I think flying numerous types helps tremendously but their are the odd types that take a little bit for some to grasp. Most GA, trike airplanes, should be a no brainer and a relatively easy transition if they have some TT under their belt.
Also 2-4k of VFR does not equate to keeping the wings level when hand bombing in IMC.
There are some transferable skill sets, but certainly not all. It make take a bit to get a handle on flying IFR if they have been a day VFR driver their entire career. A pipeline guy jumping into a King Air or better will be no super star.
[/quote]
Totally agree,
With most of my experience being in tail draggers, I can typically identify a fibber on the taxi out if they have lied about their tail wheel time.
I don't think falsified logs are more or less prevalent then the past. I do think that they just haven't experience many different type changes. Most jumping into "bigger" machines are coming off of a 172 -- that is the time we live in now. Kind of a one trick pony if you will. I think flying numerous types helps tremendously but their are the odd types that take a little bit for some to grasp. Most GA, trike airplanes, should be a no brainer and a relatively easy transition if they have some TT under their belt.
Also 2-4k of VFR does not equate to keeping the wings level when hand bombing in IMC.
There are some transferable skill sets, but certainly not all. It make take a bit to get a handle on flying IFR if they have been a day VFR driver their entire career. A pipeline guy jumping into a King Air or better will be no super star.
[/quote]
Totally agree,
-
Liquid Charlie
- Posts: 524
- Joined: Sun Aug 23, 2015 1:34 pm
Looking back and aviation was smaller then. I only ever produced a log book once to get a job and it wasn't my first job. That was about the time I quit logging time. >:D That was circa 1974 and back in those days we logged air time, not flight time.
-
Nark1
I used to interview pilot candiadates for a regional airline.
Looking through logbooks, I'd look for a few things:
1) is the total time within the all park of their application and resume?
2) any interesting time logged? I.e. Any king air time if they had less than 1-1200 hours. (Down here you can't log SIC time on a single pilot aircraft. Also, it's pretty damn rare to be a PIC with 1000TT.
3) checkrides failures, as endorsed in the back of the logbook.
I had maybe 3 minutes for each logbook, if we were interviewing 15 candidates that day.
My job was to determine/asses if they could pass our training program, HR's job was to see if they'd be a problem child down the road.
Prior to that, I was hired to fly freight in a clapped out -99. My interview didn't involve logbooks. That should have been a sign...
For a small business, logbooks are integral, as it's the quickest way to determine "experience and skill." (I'm not saying that's accurate). You have to use judgement and experience. A 20,000 airline pilot is probably pretty good at falling within the lines, SOP's and working with a crew greater than 2.
A 20,000 hour bush rat is probably really good at making it work, dynamically. For example, location B doesn't have an approach, you can't go from A-B VFR, so you fly A-C IFR and scudrun to B, VFR. Did it all the time in Alaska.
Looking through logbooks, I'd look for a few things:
1) is the total time within the all park of their application and resume?
2) any interesting time logged? I.e. Any king air time if they had less than 1-1200 hours. (Down here you can't log SIC time on a single pilot aircraft. Also, it's pretty damn rare to be a PIC with 1000TT.
3) checkrides failures, as endorsed in the back of the logbook.
I had maybe 3 minutes for each logbook, if we were interviewing 15 candidates that day.
My job was to determine/asses if they could pass our training program, HR's job was to see if they'd be a problem child down the road.
Prior to that, I was hired to fly freight in a clapped out -99. My interview didn't involve logbooks. That should have been a sign...
For a small business, logbooks are integral, as it's the quickest way to determine "experience and skill." (I'm not saying that's accurate). You have to use judgement and experience. A 20,000 airline pilot is probably pretty good at falling within the lines, SOP's and working with a crew greater than 2.
A 20,000 hour bush rat is probably really good at making it work, dynamically. For example, location B doesn't have an approach, you can't go from A-B VFR, so you fly A-C IFR and scudrun to B, VFR. Did it all the time in Alaska.