View Full Version : Logbook Scam ??

22nd Jul 2001, 19:44
Here, I've just been told by an ex BA captain that they even log hours spent in their bunks as P1 while the second crew are in control in the cockpit. Same source said that on some trips, he logged more hours asleep than in command !!

Can this be allowed :confused:

22nd Jul 2001, 20:07
Even worse, I heard some American airline crews get paid for hours they don't even fly with trip and duty rigs!

There outta be a law...

22nd Jul 2001, 20:25
What ever happened to the Airtours pilot who 'allegedly' had a Parker Pen Log Book?.

22nd Jul 2001, 20:38
Does the CAA know about this, and does it mean that my positioning flights as a passenger can also be logged ?

22nd Jul 2001, 22:19
The "Captain [P.1]" is still the aircraft commander, as defined by the ANO, even though he is not present on the flight deck.

22nd Jul 2001, 22:20
There is nothing unusual about this. The commander is always the commander. In his seat or not. In my company when the commander leaves the cockpit he "appoints" a PIC. Usually the FO scheduled to fly 1st. FO. He could technically appoint the 2 FO, had he more experience on the type. But this never happens, because we are all checked out as LHS commanders.
Who cares if he logs he hours or not. After 4-5000 hours it is uninteresting to count.
The case where a younger pilot logs hours he has not flown, to get a job THAT is criminal.

22nd Jul 2001, 22:28
By the time your a Captain on an aircraft with bunks it doesn't really matter what you log.
Hours logged as relief crew are a different matter and with regrd to ATPL issue are factored by most authorities :p

23rd Jul 2001, 15:01
So there you are it's not a scam, sorry to disappoint you. Whether your awake or asleep the commander is still the commander of the aircraft. Possibly this link could now be closed.

23rd Jul 2001, 17:04
20,000 hours??!!
Most pilots only DREAM of reaching that!

23rd Jul 2001, 17:36
Especially if you're an ex-mil, ex-fast jet jockey. Somehow 3000hrs whizzing around at 250ft and below at 480 knots should count for more! :mad:

23rd Jul 2001, 17:51

3000hrs at 250ft and 480kts - You're still alive - and complaining?! :D

Only teasing, honest ;)


Underdog :cool:

[ 23 July 2001: Message edited by: Underdog ]

[ 23 July 2001: Message edited by: Underdog ]

23rd Jul 2001, 18:14
Do the Captains have a special column in their Logbooks where they can log there "bunk" time solo or dual..
as long as wifey doesnt get to do the summeries..

23rd Jul 2001, 19:27
DExter.....20000 hours is not a dream of mine. I'd rather retire with 12000 behind me, while getting the same salary are the above mentioned 20000 guy. That 8000 hours doing something else! Although I love to fly there is a limit

The Guvnor
23rd Jul 2001, 20:19
It would be interesting to see how much people fly 'hands on' (ie in full control of an aircraft) rather than as 'systems monitors'.

Given the swapping of take/offs and landings between P1 and P2, I'd suspect that the reality is something like an average of 20 minutes per sector - no wonder management has a thing about flight crew productivity! :D :D :D

23rd Jul 2001, 20:30
Guv - thats a touch out of order isn't it?

23rd Jul 2001, 21:22
The Guvnor

Not all management has a "thing about flight crew productivity", dear chap, though it is clear from your own current thread about Iberia that YOU do. But there again, you are not a manager and you are not a pilot, so your opinion is quite superfluous, is it not?

Why don't you wake up and smell the coffee, Guv? We pilots are simply not going to take this kind of B.S. from the likes of you. ;) :rolleyes:

Kaptin M
23rd Jul 2001, 21:24
Kinda like management "managing", eh Guv!

23rd Jul 2001, 22:08
This thread raises an interesting discussion ref the difference between:
1. In command
2. In charge/control/responsible for.
They are very different and, for the non-cogniscienti may I point out the difference.
1 means that one is irrevocably responsible for everything which happens within ones sphere of command. e.g. ship master, airline captain, military theatre commander.
2 means that one is looking after a delegated area under a commander.
For instance, when I was a Merchant Navy officer I was in charge of the ship to the extent delegated by the captain. Now that I am an airline captain, I am in command of the aircraft to the far greater extent that my MN captain was in command of his ship.
Seems a very simple concept to me but I am quite, how shall I say, surprised by the number of people who cannot grasp it.

24th Jul 2001, 03:29
So when/if The Guvnor actually gets his L-1011's into operation, I suppose use of the autopilot will be 'verboten' to keep the pilots productive.
For Christs' sake....give me a &^%$*$ break.

25th Jul 2001, 00:50
Please correct me if I am wrong, but on obtaining my command I was informed....
"The designated commander of a flight is legally liable to the extent of his worldwide wealth, so to avoid confusion he is also liable even when asleep in the bunk,or if visiting the toilet,or doing a walkround outside the aircraft prior to departure.
So have your assets in trust,never sleep or use the toilet, and never do a walkround!!

25th Jul 2001, 03:17
Hmmm...OK, so imagine the scene...

Captain has been in his/her bunk for several hours and is well into REM sleep in boobo-bye-byes land. Suddenly the 'plane flies through the mount Etna ash cloud and all four engines flame out (it has happened).

So he/she is woken, struggles to put trousers and shoes back on and tries to wake up. Gets to cockpit and, wiping the sleep from their eyes, takes control of the situation....yeah right.

OR; somebody decides to invade the cockpit with either a suicide bid, or a desire to 'have a go', locking the cockpit door behind them....

Of course I'm jealous, but really; is it right that hours should be claimed while asleep outside the cockpit ? :confused:

25th Jul 2001, 03:55

Captain of the Nairobi 747 WAS asleep in his bunk, and the Captain of the BA classic that flew through the volcanic ash losing all four engines in the process was downstairs in first class talking to the punters - by the time he returned the Fo & FE had already got one started.

Do you honestly think that someone who has reaches a such a position in their career would try to "scam" their logbook - to what end?

The Guvnor
25th Jul 2001, 12:04
Couple of points - I'm always amazed by people like Tilii who apparently can't read basic English. I showed my post to a couple of friends (one in the industry and one outside it) and strangely, both read it the way that it was intendeded.

Let me clarify: 1) it was tongue-in-cheek; and 2) it's a statement of fact. Of course, as has been said elsewhere, the commander of the aircraft remains fully responsible - no matter where or what he's doing.

Now, would anyone like to answer my question about the average amount of 'hands-on' time each pilot has during the flight when s/he's flying the aircraft with no input from the AP?

25th Jul 2001, 12:31
When I was a lad there was a programme on television about airline pilots, their work and lifestyle. I am perhaps betraying my age when I say that this was when the top fleet in BOAC (yes!) was the B707. In a memorable quote a senior captain defined airline flying as "..twenty percent flying the aircraft, twenty percent in reserve for emergencies and sixty percent taking decisions". In my view, this essentially remains the case. For guvnor to imply that hands on the controls is relevant to anything beggars belief and reinforces my view that intelligent input to this forum is inversely proportional to the number of postings.

The Guvnor
25th Jul 2001, 12:44
Pirate which bit of 'tongue in cheek' don't you understand?? :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

25th Jul 2001, 12:45
If I am trapped in this metal tube for 15hours then I reckon I am giving enough to my employer.Having once had to fly a B707 across the Pond without an Autopilot I can inform the GUVNOR that I did not feel a better pilot at the end of the ordeal.

25th Jul 2001, 12:53
Well said Pirate,thats pretty much how I would describe the job as it is today as well.
Decision making remains the single most important factor about command,and from what I regularly see with pilots on renewals in the sim and those doing command training,the ones who make full use of the electric tools and gizmos,whilst "managing" the situation fare well.Apart from demonstrating mandatory "handflying" skills,there is little hands on the controls "productivity"
To suggest pilots whilst not physically handling is not productive is folly,and be it a 1hr sector or a 15 hr sector,the commander or his designate,remains exactly that. :rolleyes: null

25th Jul 2001, 15:07
after all this time you still don't change.you keep on being the same idiot.

as far as forging logbooks goes, i think you're the number 1 suspect.if not, and pls proof me wrong,i think you never ever flown a heavy jet yourself.pls give us some tail numbers of all the 707's and 8's you have flown over the years.maybe we can all have a laugh here.
:eek: :eek: :D :D :eek: :eek:

25th Jul 2001, 23:01
Come on now Guvnor.
You've claimed 4,000 hours in command of 4-engine jets, specifically B707 and DC8. So come, enlighten us as to some of your glorious logbook entries :D :D :D

25th Jul 2001, 23:56
The Guvnor

That you "showed [your] post to a couple of friends" ought to give you a clue as to how it might then be interpreted, irrespective of how "it was intendeded [sic]" to read by you.

'Tongue-in-cheek' is not quite the same as 'foot in mouth', dear chap, and you manage to thrust your tootsie into your cakehole so frequently that it is a wonder you are able to type the drivel you post on this site. As to "statement[s] of fact", I seriously doubt whether you are able to distinguish between fact and pure fiction. :eek:

Your question: Now, would anyone like to answer my question about the average amount of 'hands-on' time each pilot has during the flight when s/he's flying the aircraft with no input from the AP?


No ... because nobody is inclined to think it has any relevance whatsoever to the subject of this thread. :mad:

26th Jul 2001, 00:30
I have a sneaking suspicion that the 'hours' 'the guv' claims were also spent asleep - jus' dreamin'?

As for 'hands on', Guv........... heck, I just cannot print that - the pprune red pen would be on me!

Ignition Override
26th Jul 2001, 10:43
There are two types of people: those who have flown airplanes for a living and those who have not (whether envious or not).

Among those who have flown for a living, many acknowledge the direct responsibility involved, but some do not, when it is to their advantage.

Unless independently wealthy or with a lucrative second business, those who "fly the line", whether moving people/cargo or instructing, are married to their careers, with few exceptions. This is the truth-anything else is a gross distortion.

Many just enjoy teasing and provocation (often out of envy, jealousy, regrets due to career changes, or fear of flying).

[ 26 July 2001: Message edited by: Ignition Override ]

beaver eager
26th Jul 2001, 22:14

I notice in the margin it has you down as a delinquent PPRuNer. Did Danny invent this description just for you?

I remember once (when I was new to PPRuNe) complementing you you on the eloquence of your posts. You have certainly gone downhill since then and seem to slide further down with every passing week.

You obviously have some education as your spelling and grammar is above the average standard on this bulletin board... But where do you get your jaundiced view of Pilots from?

Perhaps you'd be better off trying to start your own website for Management Wannabees?

On second thoughts, you probably just need to get out more....

(edited to add...) And as for tounge-in-cheek, I remember being taught at school that:- If you've nothing good to say, It's often better to say nothing at all. If you cry wolf too often, people stop listening to you.

Nuff said.

[ 26 July 2001: Message edited by: beaver eager ]

The Guvnor
26th Jul 2001, 22:40
Oh, for goodness sake people ... how many times do I have to say that my comments were tongue-in-cheek? :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Still, the ferocity of the responses seems to indicate that I seem to have hit a bit of a nerve with some people! :D :D :D

So far, no one has actually seriously attempted to deny that the amount of 'hands-on' time is minimal - which is because it's undeniable. As we all know, pilots earn their money for the 0.0001% of time when they are in seriously deep kak and it's their skill (or lack of it) that gets their aircraft and its occupants down in one piece. I don't think anyone would deny that either.

So where's the problem, exactly? ;) :p

[ 26 July 2001: Message edited by: The Guvnor ]

26th Jul 2001, 23:12
The Guvnor

For goodness sake, Guvnor, you simply will never learn will you?

It is surely abundantly clear to you, is it not, that precious few on this site accept that your comments were tongue-in-cheek? And the ferocity of the responses indicates not that you have hit 'a bit of a nerve' but that the vast majority of us have taken considerable offence at your demeaning remarks about our beloved profession.

I tried to give you what you specifically asked of me on your 'Iberia' thread and you elected to completely disregard it (hence its subsequent removal). Now you ask virtually the same question again: [C]an anyone come up with an overwhelmingly good reason as to why the Iberia resolution could not also be applied to UK carriers? Since it is undeniably true that I must surely be included in the description "anyone", and I gave you more than one reason that I held to be good in reply, your repeating the question here can only mean that you seek to continue as the wearisome mischief-maker you apparently are.

I sincerely hope, then, that not "anyone" else responds to you.

And, for the benefit of your sole supporter, Best Western, it is probably accurate to say that a large proportion of what you post on this site is these days quite obviously no less offensive to me as it is to others. Personal hatred plays no part in my responses for I neither know you personally nor hate you. :confused:

Just as Beaver Eager has so eloquently put it above, there was a time when I too had more than a little respect for many of your posts. But you seem to have completely lost your capacity for logical reason and developed in its place a hide thicker than the proverbial rhinoceros. :p

Perhaps you ought to consider going away for a while and taking a rest from PPRuNe until the lesser mortals among us are able to catch up, if not with your remarkable intellect then, at least with your phenomenal number of posts. ;) :D :D ;)

Postscript: I note that, during my reply preparation, you removed the aforementioned question and inserted this in its place: So far, no one has actually seriously attempted to deny that the amount of 'hands-on' time is minimal - which is because it's undeniable. As we all know, pilots earn their money for the 0.0001% of time when they are in seriously deep kak and it's their skill (or lack of it) that gets their aircraft and its occupants down in one piece. I don't think anyone would deny that either. Thank you for that further mindless drivel. I now rest my case. :rolleyes:

[ 26 July 2001: Message edited by: tilii ]

26th Jul 2001, 23:26
:D Thank goodness you guys know each other! Otherwise we'd all be in deep KAK! :D

The Guvnor
26th Jul 2001, 23:47
Er, no, Tilii dear heart, I think the Iberia thread was padlocked because of your rather juvenile vituperative post!

If I have the hide of a rhino ... yours must be made of Kevlar! :D :D :D

[Edited for spelling - thank you Tilii :rolleyes:]

[ 27 July 2001: Message edited by: The Guvnor ]

27th Jul 2001, 00:10
I totally accept the idea that the Captain is the bearer of all responsibility regardless of his physical position, but can anyone explain to me how ALL 4 members of our dual crews are logging the complete flight time?????????


Mutt :)

27th Jul 2001, 00:37
The Guvnor

Please do read my post above, dear chap. I did not refer to our moderators' closure of your Iberia post. I said that I tried to give you what you specifically asked of me on your 'Iberia' thread and you elected to completely disregard it (hence its subsequent removal). And in that I was referring to my personal removal from the thread of my own reply. So much, then, for 'rather juvenile vituperative post[s]'.

Now, let us get the facts straight about why the thread in its entirety was closed. Apart from the fact that you were coming under fire for your lunacy, I would suggest that the time and content of my last post by comparison with Best Western's might shed some light on the true reason for its closure.
First: tilii
Addicted PPRuNer
posted 25 July 2001 19:41
"And for that input, Guvnor, please now refer to the 'Logbook Scam' thread where it is abundantly clear what others think of your input on this website."

followed by: Best Western
Addicted PPRuNer
posted 26 July 2001 15:52
"Is it just me or does anyone else wonder why everythingthat [sic] the Guvnor posts is so offensive to tilii?
Please take personal hatred elsewhere."
Best Western's post, then, came after mine by more than 20 hours and was followed by closure of the thread. Once again, Guvnor, you twist the facts to suit your convoluted purpose. :rolleyes:

By the way, for one who claims to have owned and operated airlines in Africa, I must say I find it rather curious that you cannot spell 'rhinoceros'. Or is there an alternative thick-skinned beast known as a "rhio"? :eek: :eek: :eek:

Speaking for myself, I do hope this thread now goes precisely the same way as that of your now defunct 'Iberia' thread.

[ 26 July 2001: Message edited by: tilii ]

27th Jul 2001, 01:51
At the risk of stating the obvious, once you get past 6,000 hours or so, the only reason you keep a logbook is because you have to be able to prove recency/currency.

You don't get paid in relation to your logbook hours, so who cares?

Once you have the necessary licence and endorsement, hours are irrelevant.

27th Jul 2001, 02:11
I agree if I was flying a wide body I probably would just throw away my logbook. At that point who really cares.

Aaron G. Stryngge
27th Jul 2001, 02:17
Guv, a few questions for you:-

1) Is it your contention that pilots are being "less productive" when flying with the autopilot engaged?

2) Do you feel that for the duration of a Cat II/III approach that the pilots should cease logging their flying time?

3) Do you consider that the skills of handflying are superior to the skills of using the automatics?

4) If any of the above are the case, do you feel that pilots when flying with autopilot engaged are earning their salary less than when hand flying?

5) How many hours have you logged "systems monitoring" whilst flying coupled approaches down to minima and appreciating the ability, training and expertise it takes, and the subsequent fatigue?

Please stop winding people up. I accept that some of your comments on Page 1 of this thread may have been intended "tongue in cheek". I am sure that, even with your jaundiced view of pilots' worth, you will appreciate that this is not the way they were taken by the vast majority. It is therefore incumbent on you to apologise.

27th Jul 2001, 02:42
I've tried to ignore the 'Guv' and failed at times (as here) because it is so hard to resist. The poor chap thrives on our input.

Why don't we all make a mental note to ignore any post from this poor chap and then move on (hopefully) with intelligent input to any said thread.

Guvnor I hereby dismiss you from my thoughts.

By the time the Guv gets ops up from PIK most 1011's will be very warm, they will be in the smelt for new A320's.


27th Jul 2001, 03:34
we better close this one.we all know what happens when guv get's corned; threatening danny with a lawsuit,etc,etc.

but before we do, dear old guv, let's find out how much time you had hands on in your +4000 hrs on DC-8 and 707.pls give me some tail numbers you flew, to see how real you are, judging from all the rest of your crap i doubt you even ever had a jumpseat on any of these planes.


27th Jul 2001, 12:00
While I am largely in agreement with most of the most recent posts above, I think I am most with our colleague 'exeng' in that it is clearly best if we in the future "ignore any post from this poor chap".


I would only add that it seems more likely that the said 1011s would be in the smelt for the Boeing Sonic Cruiser, don't you think?

I too hereby dismiss The Guvnor from my thoughts. Sad chap. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

The Guvnor
27th Jul 2001, 12:23
Aaron B Strynge - answers to your questions as follows:

1) No of course not - but refer back to the original post and my reply. Also take this in context with a recent thread where I said that today's pilots are systems monitors - hotly denied by some.

2) Nope.

3) Nope.

4) Not at all... I refer you to answer 1.

Blowawayjet - well, we can kick off with DC8-55 5N-AUS for starters... :D :rolleyes: :D

27th Jul 2001, 14:00
Oh, for goodness' sake! :rolleyes:
Moderators, where are you? :confused:
Press the button on this thread lest we all are driven over the edge. :mad:

27th Jul 2001, 16:51
I too have some doubts about guvnor. Having had some involvement with the setting up of two airlines - both successful and still with us - I can only too well recall the commitment involved, it being of the 24 hours a day, seven days a week sort. Certainly, nobody would have had the luxury of time to post interminable waffle on the internet.

To use your own risible response line, guvnor "...what part of Walter Mitty don't you understand?"

27th Jul 2001, 17:10
Govnor, I see you're doing as well here as you did on the Cabin Crew forum.

Whats the matter, don't you want to play with me any more? Didn't you think we pilots read the CC forum?

Never mind. I was getting bored with kicking your butt anyway :D :D :D

Sorry to get off topic guy's, but Guvnor runs when he loses. (Evidently not far enough)

Case closed.

Edit for key error

[ 27 July 2001: Message edited by: max_cont ]

Bomber Harris
27th Jul 2001, 18:22
I have just wasted 15 minutes of my life reading this dribble from start to finish. I cannot even remember what the original posting was!! The sun is shining, what am doing at this stupid computer? I'm off to the pub....where some of you need to be....getting a life.

stator vane
27th Jul 2001, 19:01
i will mention the G-subject just one more time.

if we all agreed to simply ignore the guv's replies and kept to it, it would make more sense, than all this name calling.

might be the best thing to do.

personally i do find his responses interesting to read at times, and in the long run may be educational and necessary in understanding the other side of the coin. but some others of you do confuse me at your calling him names all the time and yet still giving him the honor of continually replying to his statements.

if i personally felt that way about anyone or his statement, i would not waste my time responding to him in that manner over and over and over again.

just my viewpoint.

my mother taught me, if i can't say anything good, don't say anything at all. sometimes i do that, sometimes i don't.

but to keep harping on the Guv is a waste of your time and ours.

disagreeing is something else.

and calling names like that is childish.

enough said about that.

28th Jul 2001, 14:53
Quite agreed, but ...

Just answer us about your flight experience Guvnor. How much of your much vaunted "over 4000 hours in command of 4 engine jets" was actual hands-on?

And I'm not asking here as to where you got your PPL, or your CPL, or how you build up your hours, or your ALTP, or your B707 type rating, or your DC8 type rating, or your ... :eek: :confused: :eek: