Hours in CV

[BongleBear]

Just wondering what you've put in your CV concerning flying hours. I've put total then SEP, MEP, FNPT2 and PIC. Should I put IF and NAV hours flown in there aswell? Cheers for any advice, B. Bear.

[give me an axe]

wouldn't bother with the IF and NAV, those others are fine, and include you total time (TT) too.........

[Air of Despair]

Total time first, then multi and follow it up with single. I was advised that multi engine flying is veiwed as 'more valuable' by potential employers, therefore put it first in the list.

Same goes with the sim time, put any jet sim time you may have done first followed by FNPT2 and then single.

That is how i have done mine but i guess it is down to personal preference....just as long as it looks neat and easy to read. Haven't had any luck with mine yet but it will happen eventually!

Good Luck,

A of D

[scroggs]

Please do not include any simulator or FNPT2 time in your Total Time (TT). Your TT is only flying hours. Do break your TT down to Multi, Single and P1C time. Don't bother with IF or Nav hours, but have that information available when you are asked to interview.

Scroggs

[oapilot]

Sorry for being thick, Scroggs, but are you suggesting to still show (as opposed to including) FNPT2/Jet time on CV.
Just wondering as I always thought this was a no-no.
oap

[Pilot Pete]

Been done to death before on here. Show sim time if you must, but don't add it into your total time. No airline is interested in sim time. If you feel you have to add it in, ask yourself what are you trying to achieve?

PP

[Gazeem]

Ah but 100 hours of sim time is countable towards the 1500 hours total required for unfreezing an ATPL, therefore it may have relevance to an airline that promotes quickly!

[Megaton]

Yeah but presumably most of the sim time discussed here is probably MCC which doesn't count IIRC. And Gazeem which country are you in at the moment?

[Phileas Fogg]

The worst thing about a CV is when a reader of it falls asleep either reading it or establishing what flight experience you have.

If you include too much bull**** or try cosmetics to disguise your low experience then you're making the reader's life more difficult than is necessary and that ain't going to be in your favour.

Simply state your total time, itemise SEP & MEP but the reader won't be the least bit interested that you achieved a few hours in a sim whilst doing your MCC nor indeed any other sim.

Honesty is the best policy.

[Easy Glider]

Scroggs and Pilot Pete, you are absolutely wrong about sim time. If it has been flown in an approved full motion simulator such as a 757/767 then it is loggable towards an A.T.P.L. As such, there is no reason it can't be included on your C.V. Wouldn't you suggest 757 sim time is just ever so slightly more valuable than C152 V.F.R. circuit time? During my career, I have logged all my sim time in the appropriate P1/P2 column. Not counted but probably got near 150 hours sim time now including conversion courses and base checks etc. no one has ever queered it either.

[Phileas Fogg]

Easy Glider,
Regardless of what is accumalative towards an ATPL, airlines want to know your experience on the aeroplane.
If they set a minima of 100 hours on type, a pilot applies declaring 105 hours, they employ him only to subsequently learn that 85 of his 105 were in the simulator, well they're going to fire him and probably blacklist him from applying again.

Don't confuse licencing rules with what the airlines are looking for, when they ask for flight hours on type they mean exactly that. Line experience on type is what they're looking for.

Likewise, an airline's interpretation of P1 means command time and not P1 u/s. If they can't clearly establish your experience you're likely to go to the bottom of the pile.

Think about it, you're applying 'cosmetics' by including simulator time and more cosmetics by claiming P1 u/s as P1 time rather than P2. At the end of the day the application is so 'padded' it bears little ressemblance to the truth.

By all means itemise simulator hours seperately but don't include them in flight hours.

[Megaton]

Whether sim time is more or less valuable than flogging around in a C150 is irrelevant. When an airline declares a minimum amount of experience they mean in aircraft and not simulators! Furthermore, I don't think you'll find many insurance companies interested in how much box time you have. Sim time on cv's is padding.

[Easy Glider]

And exactly why would they fire him??? If he has logged his hours in his log book, handed over that log book for inspection at interview, it is up to the airline concerned to accept or reject that candidate. Bottom line, if its acceptable to the C.A.A. for a licence upgrade, it can go in your log book end of story. Have a think about it, simulater time is the best flying experience you will ever get. Slightly more valuable than "L Nav please." "Climb thrust Vnav." and "Centre in command." Wouldn't you agree???

As I said, I have always logged all my sim time and never had any complaints at interview when my log books were inspected.

Just to be clear, I am talking about C.A.A. approved full motion sims here and not Frascas or such like.

[Megaton]

Wasn't a chap (ex-RAF ATCer?) caught misrepresenting his time in the last year or so? He was fired.

[Easy Glider]

Ham Phisted..... Yes, he lied about having over 3000 hours which were purely ficticious..... What does that have to do with this topic?? you have lost me now

[Megaton]

About as relevant as sim time when they're interested in your total time!:p

[Phileas Fogg]

Easy,
This is not a personal argument, you are a pilot, I'm an employer.

I'm writing here what the industry standard is, I get applications all the time where guys have padded their hours, I don't have time to follow up and get the truth, I move on to the next guy who hasn't padded his hours.

Line flying is very valuable, simulator is not 'flying experience' as you like to refer to it. When the airlines ask for hours on type they're looking for line experience, a guy that is experienced in shifting passengers from A to B, after all, that's what they'll be employing you to do.

And, not all interviews are conducted in person, some are telephone interviews and further dependent on location, the airline may pay for your travel to attend an interview only to then learn that you have padded your hours, they're not going to be best pleased!

[Easy Glider]

Phileas Fogg. Interesting how you refer to me as a pilot and you the employer... Unfortunatly I have been roped into conducting interviews in the past, a job I hate I might add and would never carry out voluntarily. You talk about "industry standards," and "opinions," I am talking about legalities!!!! If the C.A.A. has decided by law that a certain type of experience is loggable then it is!!! It really is as simple as that.

[Phileas Fogg]

Easy Glider,
OK, you won't accept that when airlines ask for hours on the aircraft type they refer to a machine with 2 wings and without stilts and it seems your only argument for this is 'CAA legalities'.

I'm just saying what the industry standard is and when they ask for these hours on type you start quoting CAA legalities and ignore what the airline(s) may have specified as a minima.

We'll agree to differ but I hope other guys reading this may decide for themselves not to pad their hours.

[Easy Glider]

To agree to differ is ok by me. I still stand by what I said though. Out of my 6500 hours, I dare say, (and I have never counted them exactly,) approx 150 are full motion sim time. Those include conversion courses and base checks etc.

This is by far the most valuable experience I have. Flying the line is fine but practicing failures/ emergencies that hopefully you will never see for real is priceless.

It also strikes me that having read this thread again, the candidates you are refering to are probably after their first job in the industry where previous full flight sim experience is unlikely.

I am not for one minute suggesting that they should include non motion Frasca simulator time completed while training for their multi IR's

[Phileas Fogg]

Easy,
We are in the Wannabee's forum!

Of, course, when you get to 6,500 hours, or indeed much less, 150 hours is mere 'loose change' thus insignificant, indeed, many experienced pilots are approximate with their declared hours anyway.

I get application weekly, from low houred guys, they just have an A320 or B737 type-rating, claim perhaps 65 hours on type but show no employment record relating to where they achieved these hours.

If their rating included a JOC course then simulator time, fixed-base and full-motion would accumulate to approx 64 hours followed by 1 hour of base training, hence 65 hours.

Now 65 hours of line flying would be a real asset to these guys, we know they've done 40+ hours of sim as part of the rating so stop padding your application whilst stating the obvious.

Unfortunately, these guys spoil it for the rest. Some guys have perhaps paid for such line experience but as soon as I see an application with 65 hours I have a tendency to assume that they have just the base training on the aeroplane.

For such a reason simulator should be itemised seperately.

[haughtney1]

I have to agree with Phileas on this..although to be correct, we all have to abide by legalities..otherwise mayhem..dis-order...and coffee with water before the milk!(that last one is just unforgivable)
I think once again this falls into the realms of what the "real" world is like...rather than in comparison, to the drivel a lot of low houred students are told by the flight training organisations of this world...who perpetuate half truth's at any opportunity. Oh my gosh..I just took a swipe at flying schools.

And yes...an approximation of hours probably is a better indication of experience levels in many cases..I cant remember the last time I actually went through my monthy hours print-out to get that decimal place 100% accurate..im usually a little on the light side recording times...just because its easier.

cheers

H:eek:

[oapilot]

Phileas,

You raise some useful points for low hours guys (and yes PP is right, this has been done to death on a number of occasions), particularly in respect of window dressing, and some of the strange advice that gets given to students over CVs.

However, one thing you said does alarm me, and this is why I thought to query what and what not to include in the first place. You mention that as an employer, you would treat any low hours pilot with limited time on type as potentially having "padded" their hours with sim time. I understand your caution given the mad scramble to get ones CV to the top of the pile.

My CV shows 70 hours jet time, which was gained line flying in full time employment with an airline which sadly went bust before I could fly more. In addition I have 50-odd hours sim time gained through the company JOC and type training WHICH I DO NOT SHOW currently, as per my understanding of the industry standard requirement. The revelation that some employers may just discount this as mainly sim time is worrying so maybe this is a valid reason to include it under Petes' "if you're desperate" caveat.

Yes the hours in the scheme of things are trivia, but important to me as they make up over a quarter of my total time, and during my search for positives when things went pop at my last outfit I thought, "well at least you've got some commercial flying experience as well as a jet rating". Perhaps not quite the cause for optimism I had hoped for.....

oap

[Phileas Fogg]

Oapilot,
In your CV clearly state you have 70 hours and on which type of jet this is on, i.e. A390 - 70 hours.

Your CV should also include your employment history thus itemise you were an A390 First Officer for XYZ Airlines PLC from Month/Year until Month/Year.

It's the guys that do not state such an employment history that are suspect, they claim perhaps 70 hours on type but don't indicate where they achieved it.

Another pet hate is guys that state type B737/300-900. Yes, we know that is what is on the licence but airlines actually need to know whether the differences course has been completed for 3/4/5 series or NG series (as applicable) and what types the pilot is qualified to operate. Just because it's on the licence doesn't mean diddly squat!

[Pilot Pete]

The fact that the CAA allow some time in sims towards an ATPL issue means nothing. So what? Assuming you are going to put the fact that you have a full ATPL on your CV it means nothing to the airline that you got 100hrs in a sim for licence issue.........

Airlines that have application forms usually ask you to break your hours down into various categories (jet/ TP/ piston, multi/ single/ IFR/ cross country/ night etc etc ) and annoying it is to have to work it all out!, but nowhere have I ever seen a caveat to 'please include simulator time in your jet/TP/piston time.' Why not? Because they are not interested in sim time. Why do it any differently on a CV and take the risk of blagging more than you have?

By the time you have enough hours on aeroplanes sim time is irrelevant, so why advise someone with very few hours total time to include sim time? If you are going to be employed based on your type experience and flying hours and when they look in your logbook they find it is all in a sim, then I doubt they would offer you the job, let alone employ you and then sack you!

So getting to the point that most of the guys on here are looking for their first job, why would (jet) sim hours be that valuable to an employer? Where do the majority of Newbies get these sim hours from that they put on their CV? An MCC course or JOC or self funded type rating. So in the case of an MCC, it is not quite as 'valuable' as an initial type training course, bearing in mind that the MCC is an introduction to two crew operations and not a 'how to fly complex procedures and handle emergencies without an autopilot' exercise. The emphasis is on the two crew interaction, with the vast majority of the time being with the autopilot in. So I would again question the desirability of these hours in the eyes of an airline. Simple fact is MCC is a requirement (or exemption from), so they will look for 'MCC' on your CV (or 'exempt MCC') and that will do. JOC courses are a little better, but if you did that anything more than a couple of months back then the value is slipping and airlines have their own opinions on self funded type ratings with no line experience........

If you insist on adding your sim hours to your CV, put in a separate line showing them as sim hours, don't try pulling the wool over recruiters eyes, especially as a low houred applicant, as the danger of being seen to be 'claiming' more than you actually have far outweighs any potential benefit in my mind.......

PP

[scroggs]

This seems to have turned into a semantics argument between Phileas and Easy, which may be amusing but isn't very valuable.

As Pete says, and bearing in mind that this forum is for low-houred, as-yet-unemployed Wannabes, please accept that the vast majority of employers do not want to know about simulator time. It is the accepted practice to judge a pilot's experience by his hours in the air. You, individually, may feel that that is unreasonable, but there it is.

On your CV, as Pete has explained, please quote your flying hours only. If you feel that you are in a position where that doesn't tell the whole story, by all means mention separately (such as in your covering letter) why you feel that your simulator hours are abnormally important. However, unless you have done something exceptionally different to your peers, you will find that your chosen target employer will expect your simulator hours to be commensurate with your overall experience, and will not expect to be told about them. So, in general, don't do it!

Scroggs