PDA

View Full Version : Airtours pilot suspended for Parker Pen Logbook


Chutney
27th Mar 2001, 16:53
Just been announced on local North West TV news that an Airtours pilot has been suspended pending an investigation by the CAA into irregularities with the number of hours logged in his/her logbook.

Airtours claimed that the pilot was not unsafe but had been suspended from duty while the investigation was taking place. The CAA became involved after an allegation was made that the pilot had claimed experience that had never been flown.

Any other members of the Parker bin Pen tribe had better start worrying as it is about time the CAA actually had a crackdown on this sort of attitude.

Thesaurus
27th Mar 2001, 17:03
http://www.manchestereveningnews.com/news/content.cfm?story=02full.html

Not good.

The Nr Fairy
27th Mar 2001, 17:08
Thesaurus:

Not good if proven correct. I'm with you on that one.

Dunhovrin
27th Mar 2001, 17:12
Is Parker bin Pen like Sharp Pencilling?

Chutney
27th Mar 2001, 17:17
Dunhovrin, for a fuller explanation go to the pprune home page at http://www.pprune.org and from the list on the left choose Humour and then from the index page choose The Caravan which is a potted history about the formation of a famous middle eastern airline.

Shanwick Shanwick
27th Mar 2001, 17:38
And Loss Of Licence should promptly follow if proven guilty!

Raw Data
27th Mar 2001, 18:36
I hope David Learmount has been misquoted. "Terrifying"? Hardly... the guy has passed all the exams and flight checks, so he is obviously competent.

Doesn't excuse the practice of claiming more hours than you have flown, of course. Chap deserves all he gets, if guilty...

HugMonster
27th Mar 2001, 18:47
Not sure about that, RD. I think I could paint you a scenario which would be fairly terrifying where a pilot has passed all exams and checks, but hasn't anything like the experience required for a command on a modern jet.

ANyway, did I read the article correctly? This guy is aged only 30, is ex-mil, yet feels he has the need to hurry up his career sufficiently to get a command that he allegedly resorts to lying and fraud? What is he on? Calm down - you'll get there. Now you'll never be trusted if you're proved to be a liar and a cheat.

OldFogey
27th Mar 2001, 18:49
It looks to me as two parties are worthy of comment here:-

Firstly did the regulators check his log books in detail or were the figures taken at face value? What else can they do when a guy presents himself at the front desk with apparently totally legal details of his flying career? More than likely they are totally blameless.

What is strange is that it has only just come to light. How did it actually surface?
Was the guy told to bring all his log books in for a "routine check"? Can't ever remember that happening where I work!

Sledge
27th Mar 2001, 19:01
Apparantly,whilst on a command course dude claimed to have flown on ... squadron.However the chap he was telling the story to also flew on ... squadron and didn't recognise him.OOps time for a sharp exit!

OldAg84
27th Mar 2001, 19:11
Folks, please humor a non-aviator. Assuming an individual would complete his log book in a believable fashion- how would he be checked upon, cross refrenced and caught? I am assuming that either the number of hours added piqued somebody's interest- but how?

GROUNDSTAR
27th Mar 2001, 20:36
Call me old fashioned, but whatever happened to integrity?

ShotOne
27th Mar 2001, 20:58
A very reasonable question, OldAg54. It is the easist thing in the world to falsify the flying hours in a logbook -but very difficult indeed to get away with it for a sustained period. Aviation is an extremely small world and if the hours claimed in a logbook don't look right then people start asking questions and checking up. This is taken very seriously by airlines and the authorities. It is very rare but does happen.

If a pilot is shown to have made false claims, it is not just a matter of ending his flying career but a prosecution by the CAA and prison sentence.

Scallywag
27th Mar 2001, 21:00
"Fast Jet Pilot" my arse. He was an Air Traffic Controller, allegedly.

Before I'm harangued by that admirable breed of men and women, I should have thought people would respect him more for spending his own money and persevering in getting his licences, thus achieving success in 2 careers.

Nevertheless, he won't be missed.....especially by the cabin crew !!

Bored Cheese
27th Mar 2001, 21:02
I hereby unpublish my previous vitriol.
The problem is that we all find these kind of allegations immensely frustrating. This is a forum for your opinions, the truth I am afraid can only be found through investigation of the facts.

I blew off a bit of steam on this forum and was quite rightly critised for this. This is freedom of speech. Sorry if a few egos were chafed.

What evidence do we have that journalists feed off this site. The only negative journalism I have ever seen about flight crews was the BA Boozy night stop docu-soap.

[This message has been edited by Bored Cheese (edited 28 March 2001).]

JP Justice
27th Mar 2001, 22:08
I am not a lawyer, but I have seen cases of (non-aviation) CVs which have been padded. What seems like a bit of gamesmanship to some people becomes 'obtaining a pecuniary advantage by deception' once the law gets involved. That is a form of theft and is no help to the next CV. It is treated seriously by the Courts. If there are safety implications, such as there must be in aviation, then the consequences might be very serious indeed.

Toledo
27th Mar 2001, 23:16
I gained many of my hours in America and they are all genuine and verifiable.

How come a military pilot is alleged to have falsified records and you twist things to have a slanderous pop at self-improvers?


[This message has been edited by PPRuNe Towers (edited 27 March 2001).]

homer j
28th Mar 2001, 00:46
I'm with you Toledo, and Scallywag sounds like he has a good grasp of the situation.

Hard working, determined pilots, from all backgrounds, will be shaking their heads in disbelief tonight, not only about this sad situation (if proven), but at Bored Cheese's ignorant posting.

[This message has been edited by homer j (edited 27 March 2001).]

javelin
28th Mar 2001, 00:58
Hey Scallywag, how are those shiny appendages man !

BoBus
28th Mar 2001, 01:14
Our company had a case of 'Bic Airways'a few years ago, he to was a 'Officer and a Gentleman' I think he was padding the hours for command. He was invited to leave. Now all log books are scrutinised before joining and certainly before command assesment.

6000PIC
28th Mar 2001, 01:28
This kind of individual tarnishes the pride & reputation of our industry and deserves nothing but swift justice and to be shown " the door."
While most of us log our hours one hour at a time, year in and year out, it disturbs me that there`s probably others who will never be caught. Good riddance.

LondonGoodEvening
28th Mar 2001, 01:29
Excuse me how many hours has the said offender under investigation said to have had suspect? Whats his total time and where did he get it?
http://www.pprune.org/ubb/NonCGI/cool.gif
Ted

BEagle
28th Mar 2001, 02:21
Indeed, Phyllis - sorry, BoBus. An ex-FJ pilot in Sir Dickie's employ was understood to have falsified his total hours when competing for command. It seems that he just couldn't understand the seniority concept - as a pilot with such an illustrious background he obviously thought himself superior to the hoi-polloi. Fortunately, other ex-mil people realised that his hours couldn't possibly be genuine and the truth was out.

[This message has been edited by BEagle (edited 27 March 2001).]

Raw Data
28th Mar 2001, 02:32
Hugmonster- maybe, but only maybe. The company had assessed him as fit for command on the basis of his flying in that company, the conduct of his checks and the recommendation of his peers. All his flying at that company is verifiable, and I assume that all his civil commercial flying (the only sort that really counts in the real world) was done with them. He is probably as safe as the most under-performing (but experienced) captain in the company.

Nevertheless, before he could have been issued with a professional licence, his logbooks would have been scrutinised by the CAA. Surprised it wasn't picked up then (unless of course the Parker Pen hours are whilst with his present employer).

avoman
28th Mar 2001, 03:38
Mmm, Raw Data, but it is a matter of integrity isn't it? A person without that is not worth having on the flightdeck however successful they may have been so far. There are others with that integrity who deserve that opportunity and reward.

EGCC4284
28th Mar 2001, 04:06
Very sad to hear this,
Could of happened to any airline.

Tarred with the same brush springs
to mind. Very sad.

------------------
A BIT EXTRA FOR MUM.

Raw Data
28th Mar 2001, 04:52
avoman- absolutely. I'm not defending him, I was only pointing out that Mr Learmounts use of the word "terrifying" (if that is what he said) is a little over the top. No way I would want someone who cheats in their logbook on my flight deck either.

iaev2500
28th Mar 2001, 08:17
Lets keep this in perspective guys. I work for said company and at the end of the day you have to take the licence and what you see in the logbook. I got my command after two years with this company. They checked my licence and applied for a reference from the previous company I worked for, they didn't grill me about the hours in my logbook because they expect pilots to have a certain amount of integrity.

ShotOne
28th Mar 2001, 09:11
Rather a nasty and unprofessional post, bored cheese, particularly on a site regularly scoured by journalists looking for an easy soundbite.

If you have evidence that an individual has falsified records then you have a responsibility to take it to the authorities. I know many pilots who worked extremely hard building their flying hours in the USA and elsewhere. A single telephone call to the flying school concerned would verify any abuse along the lines of your post.

What makes you single out USA hour builders in this way, particularly since this case involves a UK military pilot? Sounds like you have your own agenda.

InFinRetirement
28th Mar 2001, 12:50
Raw Data makes a vaild point about where he is supposed to have falsified his hours. Flying clubs, have a requirement to keep flying records of individuals for 3 years only. When applying for a CPL the CAA, it seems, generally accept the hours shown in the log book as fact.

If he was military his log books would have been thoroughly checked periodically.

That leaves his company. Seems absurd that he would want to do such a daft thing on his own doorstep, but if he did it at least shows the company do check flying records. That's a plus on their next OSAP (do they still do those??!).

But the real signal is that anyone with Parker Pen time in the log books might want to review their position. Mr Parker's pens can be used for anything, but the CAA will throw the book at this guy if they find him with case to answer, and he can kiss his @r** and his licence goodbye I'll wager. Bloody idiot!

Blended-winglets
28th Mar 2001, 14:16
Surely when you apply for ATPL issue with your "bonified" 1500 hours in hand, the CAA must check that these hours are correct. Surely they must check against tech log entires with the certain companies or do they really the hours in the log book as correct? Am I just been ignorant?

Night Rider
28th Mar 2001, 15:05
If this person did "make-up" hours in their logbook their licence should be revoked and they should NEVER FLY AGAIN!!!!!! Its as simple as that in my opinion!

burnercan
28th Mar 2001, 16:20
Wonder how many kiwi agpilots in australia are in the same boat ??????

Dr. Feelgood
28th Mar 2001, 16:41
Mmmmm,

I'm wondering......
Did this guy really make up some flights in his logbook, or has he added the wrong figures concerning his total time? There IS a big difference in this. To "invent" fictional flights and enter them in your logbook is totally unacceptable. On the other hand; adding hours to make up a total with hours that shouldn't be added is a different thing. The hours HAVE been flown, but wrongly incorporated in a total time. I myself have trouble sometimes with giving an overview of my flight time. For example: am I allowed to include full flight simulator time in my total hours? I do, although I clearly specify the difference between FS and actual FLIGHT hours.

Maybe I have missed the point, but the above posts haven't given me a clear answer to my question yet.


Regards, :)

The Doctor.

Andu
28th Mar 2001, 19:10
Pleeeeze, can we have a new 'Caravan' chronicle?

As this thread illustrates, the Parker bin Pen tribe are still out there and need the p-eye-ss taken out of them as effectively (and amusingly) as was done in 'The Caravan'. For anyone who hasn't read it, have a look on the Humour page. It's a giggle - and I think we've all worked for a 'Yasser Whateverusay' at sometime in our careers.

DeeTee
28th Mar 2001, 19:31
Parker pen logbooks? I know of a chap who flew out of a South based flying school and when he sent his logbook off to get his licence the CAA did a random check on his hours (apparently it's something they do). Anyway, it seems he had claimed far more hours in his logbook than the aircraft he used had flown. Anyway CAA approached aforementioned aviator and questioned his integrity, he produced the receipts for all the flying he had done at the school. It appeared the school was in the habit of not logging the hours flown in the tech logs to 'prolong aircraft life between checks'. After due scrutiny by CAA seems aircrafts engine was so far beyond its approved life that it should have been scrapped.

Two lessons.
1. Its not just certain aviators that are generous with the old ink.
2. If you're hours building...keep the receipts. :)

Cmdr Data
28th Mar 2001, 21:46
Scallywag, yeah! I agree with you. Apparently, he had 4000+ hrs in his log book, allegedly flew Tornado aircraft in the RAF and is in his mid 20`s. Now most guys I know who are Ex-RAF fast jet drivers average some 250hrs a year, so this dude must have had one welded to his backside for his relatively short RAF career.

Flying Lawyer
28th Mar 2001, 23:12
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size="2">"......... suspended pending an investigation by the CAA into irregularities with the number of hours logged in his/her logbook ..........."</font>

Good to see that some posters, albeit the minority, put an if he's guilty into their posts.

f/spninx
29th Mar 2001, 00:37
A Oz pilot at easyjet who has since left was actually sacked from a previous company for parker pen time. But that would never stop easyjet employing OZ,NZ,SA pilots eventhough over 25 have since left the company to to go home etc.

Genghis McCann
29th Mar 2001, 03:05
when I was in the RAF I came across a Tornado pilot who was concerned that he was not getting enough night hours to unfreeze his ATPL prior to leaving the Service. He ensured that he always flew late afternoon and then transposed the figures so that on a 2 hour flight with 30 minutes night he would end up with 30 minutes day instead. An 'honest' mistake if it was ever discovered but the problem was every flight had the same mistake! Ultimately he obtained a licence that he was not entitled to have. I fear that many other such 'irregularities' occur that are not noticed.

[This message has been edited by Genghis McCann (edited 29 March 2001).]

Brad737
29th Mar 2001, 05:25
IF PROVEN, his lack of integrity should disqualify him from future employment as professional pilot. If I found out that my doctor, attorney, accountant, or any number of other professionals that I may find use for had demonstated a lack of professional integrity(oh hell, a lack of personal integrity too) he'd be gone. I wish it worked that well with our politicians.

stator vane
29th Mar 2001, 09:17
where is the integrity in the very governments that rule over us?
why nail him so hard when more than half the government people are KNOWN LIARS?
if he can fly, just tell him not to do it again.

PocaHostie
29th Mar 2001, 09:50
I'm kinda pissed off at this.....!!
I also work for the company in question.

This (allegedley) was not a simple case of "padding" a few hours.
The individual in question had stated on his employment application and log book that he was an RAF pilot with substantial time (2000hrs+)on fast jets........it turns out he was in fact an RAF ATCO.

Lordy,,,,Lordy.!!!.How many more are there out there......???

smooth approach
29th Mar 2001, 09:59
As an RAF aviator, can I just say that the person in question (name on the military forum) was most definitely NOT a pilot in the military.

Anyway, if he had been, it would have been extremely difficult to falsify (ie increase the number of hours logged) his log book. Most of us have to present our log books to our ssupervisors on an extremely regular basis for checking. However, it may be somewhat easier to use some poetic licence regarding night/IFR approaches etc.

Regardless, if the accusatuons are proven, this guy does not deserve to hold any sort of professional aviators licence; this sort of behaviour brings shame upon the whole profession.

Smoothie

Inspector Gadget
29th Mar 2001, 13:01
Whats the big deal about hours? Surely as long as you've passed all your exams it dos'nt really matter if you've spent 10,000 hours or 20,000 hours of your life staring out of the front window at blue sky.

Jeffrey Archers Friend
29th Mar 2001, 13:28
Smooth approach; - you wrote "As an RAF aviator, can I just say that the person in question,was most definitely NOT a pilot in the military.
Anyway, if he had been, it would have been extremely difficult to falsify his log book.
Well I'm afraid RAF pilots are not , as you assume and hope, above this scandalous behaviour.

BoBus wrote about another who was caught - and he WAS ex Tornado!

fokker
29th Mar 2001, 13:37
What-ho R.D.! How're your five APU's?

Actually, unless the system has changed in the last 7-or-so years, military hours are never scrutinised by ANYBODY, prior to the issue of a commercial licence. An assessment form is submitted in the usual way with the 'military experience' part countersigned by somebody senior, usually your CO. And that's it. My PPL was issued in Sept.1976, military time of 2400 hours, ATPL(A) issued May 1996; my logbooks have NEVER been checked by anyone, much less the CAA.

BTW, every minute in them is accurate; indeed, mil. hours are significantly under-recorded since they are 'T/O to touchdown' and not 'chock to chock'. How many of your 'hours' are actually drinking coffee at the hold for 09R at LHR?

Anyone who gains an advantage in this way (I came across several who thought they were better than the system) is beneath contempt and deserves everything coming to them.(Including, one hopes, losing their licence)


You haven't seen me, right?

F.

;)



[This message has been edited by fokker (edited 29 March 2001).]

aerostude
29th Mar 2001, 14:42
Gadget

Me thinks you are a wind up, either that or you are slightly retarded. If you have to ask pointless questions about the importance of hours in flying then try a different forum.

Raw Data
29th Mar 2001, 15:00
Fokker- Hmmm well if you say so, however others here have said that the military scrutinise your hours regularly. That being the case, not surprising that a military document is seen as enough- the CAA merely trust the checking of the military folk.

&gt;&gt; military hours are never scrutinised by ANYBODY &lt;&lt;

How can that be, as others have said that military hours are scrutinised regularly?

Hmmmm...

osbo
30th Mar 2001, 01:44
RAF logbooks are scrutinised MONTHLY - unless it's changed since '95.

PS and in my recollection nothing ever changed - same sh*t different day!

Agaricus bisporus
30th Mar 2001, 03:22
Interesting topic.

I have to say I am surprised that anyone is surprised that this happens - I fear this problem is far more widespread than is generally recognised.

A lot of posts have expressed surprise that logbooks are not "checked".

Leaving the military aside (Id have thought they could be relied on to crosscheck) there is no way the CAA can have the time to verify hours by calling up flying clubs, private owners (to say what, and against what records?) or even companies. There is simply no time for that. They struggle merely to add up the hours you have submitted on the application form, I very much doubt they even add up the hours in the logbook to see if they tally, so back-checking, forget it!

In 15 yrs of commercial aviation I have never had my hours crosschecked to my knowledge (and I would have been told in most cases), no employer has ever crosschecked with a previous one and the CAA have always believed what I have told them. In many cases they simply could not crosscheck if thay wanted to. How can the CAA tell if I hired a private cat C150 for hours bilding in the States? Just not possible I think.

This is a business of trust, and so far thank God we are still trusted to be honest. If these maggots continue to rot up the system that may change to the detriment of us all. I hope they get caught and treated in the only appropriate way for one who has betrayed a professional trust.

As usual the barrel is threatened by a very few rotten apples. They need to be removed, and we should rejoice when they are.

COWPAT
30th Mar 2001, 03:35
Well Said, Couldn't have put it better!

6000PIC
30th Mar 2001, 03:51
...More than that, post the persons name, what he did, how he did it, where, when & why. This is unacceptable.

Greek God
30th Mar 2001, 13:40
Military (RAF) Logbooks are checked and signed monthly by the individual, their Flight Commander and Sqn Commander. They are further checked and signed by the Base Commander every 3 Months. In addition the individual has an annual assessment requiring submission of annual hours and has a further assessment every posting (+/- 3yrs). The annual and posting assessments are sent to Innsworth and kept on file. I'm not saying it doesnt happen but it is extremely difficult to falsify to a major degree while in the Service. What happens outside is another story.

A and C
30th Mar 2001, 13:46
If and i stress IF the guy has cooked his log book to get a quick command ahead of other more honest people this is fraud of the worst kind and just the same as breaking into your bank account as even a 6 month delay in a command is worth a lot of money.

If the guy is guilty then he should be treated like a common criminal.

flt_lt_w_mitty
30th Mar 2001, 14:34
6000pic (genuine, I trust!?)
Like many others here, you do not bother to read the thread before you post!

Danny is struggling to keep up with the server loads on these forums and superfluous postings do not help him.
I hope you read your NOTAMS more thoroughly!

Try item 2 page 1

Walt

[This message has been edited by flt_lt_w_mitty (edited 30 March 2001).]

GJB
30th Mar 2001, 14:47
I am just wandering, with reagrds to this Tornado "pilot" (aka ATCO), how on earth did he even become a pilot with the airline?

This irregularoty should have been identified at the application stage by checking with his referees?

Raw Data
30th Mar 2001, 15:27
Well it appears that our friend Fokker is as much a fraud as the Parker Pen culprit, claiming as he does to have military experience, but apparently not having had his logbook checked. Something wrong with that picture...

Walt- lighten up. 6000pics' post was no more superfluous than your much longer one. I'm sure the server can cope with a couple of lines (especially the nice shiny new one).

YouNeverStopLearning
30th Mar 2001, 20:01
This event isn't so surprising.

There are at least 2 Captains, to my knowledge, working in BA RIGHT NOW, having graduated from a UK FTO with approx. 250 hours, "disappeared" off to the USA for 3 months and reappeared in the UK with just over 1000 hrs each. They didn’t do much flying.
They then went through smaller carriers to medium to BA. Their names are allegedly well known around the bars at Biggin Hill Airport. I do not know their names.

Another group of four unemployed pilots went to the USA and flew around in a 4 seater for 200 hours each, but each one put 800 hours their own log book as P1.

This occurred about 6 years ago.

The sad fact about all this is that:

1. These are only the ones we now hear about and like an iceberg there are MANY others around;

2. Some people know who they are but will not shop them;

3. The CAA are just as culpable because they pay lip service to checking - remember that it wasn’t too long ago that they insisted on seeing passports before written exams but this was after many horses had bolted.

If you know someone like this, shop them.

[This message has been edited by YouNeverStopLearning (edited 30 March 2001).]

Luftwaffle
30th Mar 2001, 21:20
For Gadget and anyone else who wonders what the fuss is about hours, a point of view:

I have only logged about six hundred hours (and I've flown all that I've logged!) but it's dawned on me during the process that the idea behind hours building is NOT that you get incrementally better with every hour you fly. It's that every so often, when you are flying, something HAPPENS. Then either it kills you, it scares you off flying, or you learn something very important. That collection of lessons learned is the experience the employer is looking for when he asks for hours.

If you're very, very careful, you will likely have fewer such experiences, but what carrier wouldn't be interested in a pilot who had been consistently very, very careful for five thousand hours?

It discourages me to think that the only thing that might separate me from the hypothetical person who got the twin job I hoped for is that his morals didn't prevent him from writing in sufficient Seminole time to meet the employer's insurance minima. And, viciously, if a pilot like him damages the aircraft, the insurance minima will rise again, making it even harder for an honest pilot to get the job.

I don't think the practice is widespread here. It's too easy for one chief pilot to call another and find out that the outfit where you logged your 'hours' never even checked you out on the aircraft, because you were a useless slug on the dock.

White Knight
30th Mar 2001, 21:31
The guy needs his P45 issuing, and his licence pulling. There's no room in this business for w****rs like that.........

As for the post about "what does experience matter" or something along those lines, get real. Experience counts for everything in this job. Wake up boy !!

Agaricus bisporus
30th Mar 2001, 23:16
YouNeverStopLearning, I think you are being a bit harsh to the CAA re checking. They don't pay lip service to it, I reckon they dont do it at all, because they cant.

If you claimed to have hired an aeroplane in the USA just how could the CAA check even if they wanted to? The FBO there would hardly be interested in wasting time looking up in archives to see how many hours Joe Blow flew in 1987, and how could they say that they had found all the hours he might have flown, their figures could never be guaranteed without a judicial style inquiry. If I asked you how many hours you had flown in G-ABCD just how long would it take you to pull those figures out of your logbook? Ages probably. If the CAA did this on a regular basis, or even very occasionally, the staff at flying clubs would have to spend their entire lives trawling thru ancient auth sheets and aircraft logs and doing no real work. Co-operation with the CAA would very soon cease altogether. We all know that this simply does not happen (checking, not co-operation)

One pilot I know is widely recognised as having falsified hundreds of P1 jet transport hours in one non UK company, and yet more hours in another Asian company that he/she never even worked for at all, yet no effort appears to have been made by the employer to check these apparently easily verifiable allegations. It was easier to put the bastard on near permanent gardening leave rather than face allegations of "harrassment".

Equally, I know pilots who have flown 160 hrs per month in G- reg private cat aircraft on public transport charters which were known to the CAA. No action was taken on either count. How did their logbooks reflect those hours? Here is an event easily verified, yet nothing was done. What chance do we have?

And again, I know a company that flew a fleet of aircraft(perhaps still does) ALL of which had no-go defects that pilots were forbidden (by order of the boss) to report in the tech log. Again, the CAA knew, but did not act. It was too much trouble. If the CAA is happy to turn a blind eye to a fleet of non-airworthy public transport aircraft what chance is there for dealing with a few parker pen hours?

I say again, this all comes down to trust, and when we get crooks in a trusting system they either flourish, or the trusting system has to be dismantled and replaced with sonething far less attractive, and ultimately far less worthy of trust. Sadly I see that day being not far off, but even worse I fear members of the public will have to die before this situation is addressed.

Yes, shopping them might work, but at the expense of some wrongly accused, and no doubt some maliciously accused too. Even so, how do you imagine the CAA would be able to spare the time and effort to verify these claims. Sadly, I fear they could not without increasing the cost of licence issue tenfold. Do you think that would be acceptable?

I do not have a solution to this pronlem, but if I found one of these creeps myself Id be tempted to a vigorous application of rule .303


GRRRRR! http://www.pprune.org/ubb/NonCGI/frown.gif

[This message has been edited by Agaricus bisporus (edited 30 March 2001).]

Cmdr Data
31st Mar 2001, 00:46
So, Inspector Gadget, With reference to your post on the 29th March, so you agree with this sort of thing? Maybe your log book should be investigated for irregularities.

normal_nigel
31st Mar 2001, 01:00
Oh dear

Lies from a former member of the Royal Arse Force. Told you they were a dodgy lot who should'nt be allowed in civil aviation.

NN

MCT
31st Mar 2001, 01:10
When I first started aviating, (Cessna 180 on floats) The Bush operator paid me 5 cents a mile... Fine, now if you flew a hundred mile trip and at the 95 mile mark you were unable to complete the mission due to weather you flew back to base. No pay,,, No hours in the journey log, No hours on the engine, but you could log the 2 hours you flew in your own log book, but there is no record.... Sure your breaking the air regs, Yes, you could go to the authorities. You want the job or not?????? Some plilots are known to use the parker pen. Some operators don't know what a pencil is... Maybe we could start a thread about dishonest operators. A number of us have flown for chief pilots who love to state pilots are a dime a dozen... When you are a fifty hour wonder, unfortunately, you have to say, "Yes Sir"

Kiltie
31st Mar 2001, 01:55
Isn't there a famous story of the guy who went to the States to hour-build, rented a Cherokee, flew it to a deserted strip, tied the tail tie-down to a tree and sat reading the paper with the engine at cruise RPM all afternoon to build hours; recorded on the HOBBS meter of course but got nowhere near the sky? The story is he couldn't be ars*d flying as he felt there was no experience-benefit plodding round the CAVOK skies all day!

upwiththebirds
31st Mar 2001, 03:52
Just shows what a load of c**p all the hours requirements laid down by airlines/insurers are. I'm sure this guy is far from unique if it's true. Don't expect that any airline is without suspects. I got sick of hearing "you're just short on hours" while another nameless individual jumped the queue having completed his creative writing course in the african bush. Who says crime doesn't pay! He got the left seat salary for an extra 12 months!
flt_lt_w_mitty.....ironic that your post admonishing 6000pic wasted more data handling capacity than his original post!!
Normal_Nigel... keep up the good work!! They'll decorate you for it one day!

BEagle
31st Mar 2001, 10:53
normal_nigel, whilst I concede that the fraud allegedly perpetrated by this utter @r$e is totally unacceptable, you must remember one salient point - he was NEVER a RAF pilot!!
I haven't seen many PPRuNe threads critical of BA's people-tube drivers on the Mil Aircrew forum, so your generalising is somewhat inappropriate and offensive; I do hope that it doesn't represent the views of your company colleagues - I've certainly never encountered such animosity when I've come across BA flight crew.

smooth approach
31st Mar 2001, 11:42
Nigel, I think you know nothing about military aviation.

Smoothie...........

Teevasis
31st Mar 2001, 11:48
Everything that has been said on this thread has a lot of merit. But let's not forget that a man is innocent until proven guilty. No professional pilot or law abiding individual can condone the practice though.

However, let's not focus on the 'biro brigade' too much. What about the pilots thoughout the industry who never passed an examination in the first place to get their license.

A few years ago ('80s)certainly in the UK it was well known that an individual could pay a 'professional exam sitter' to undetake the written exams. The CAA later caught onto this and introduced a requriement to produce a passport or photo ID when attending.

There must be quite a few pilots out there who are 'technically' unlicensed. There are long term F/O's who have never obtained an ATPL for fear of being detected by comparison of signature and other means. Some of these characters reside in UK charter companies. They live in fear of a mandatory type change for which, under the rules now, they require an ATPL.



[This message has been edited by Teevasis (edited 31 March 2001).]

flt_lt_w_mitty
31st Mar 2001, 11:50
........mmmm, not just military aviation!

Walt (and due far more respect!)

extra
31st Mar 2001, 12:17
Personally I use a Mont Blanc. I feel that the quality is far better than the Parker, it flies well, slips in and out of places with ease and looks great on the ramp !

normal_nigel
31st Mar 2001, 12:29
BEagle. can you read or didn't they teach you that at the Arse Force nursery? I never said he was a pilot, just a member of the arse force. Oh and by the way, next time your at the doctors ask him about the new personality and sense of humour transplants available now on the NHS.

Bandits 10 oclock tally ho etc etc

NN

[This message has been edited by normal_nigel (edited 31 March 2001).]

goldcup
31st Mar 2001, 13:03
NN-

Well done, old chap! Excellent banter! Royal Arse Force: it took me a little bit of time to get your joke, but when I did- oh, how I laughed!! Just in case any of my military pilot brethern read it and don't understand, what he's done is transpose the "Air" from "Royal Air Force" with "Arse" thereby making it rude. Can you see? Can you?

Give this man his own TV show- what a joker!!

WeeWillyWinky
31st Mar 2001, 13:15
For those unaware Abnormal Nigel specialises in pointless, often offensive and always unamusing posts. Sadly he flys for BA.

Rumour has it that he finds it clever. Hopefully when he matures he will change.

[This message has been edited by WeeWillyWinky (edited 31 March 2001).]

Teevasis
31st Mar 2001, 13:20
Settle down children !!!! no need to be offensive and churlish - stick to the subject at hand.

flt_lt_w_mitty
31st Mar 2001, 13:29
How's this, then Teevasis?

To think I went to all the trouble to forge my birth certificate so I could fly my Spitfire in defence of Blighty so that the Nigel seed could continue breeding freely!

Ah well, we all make mistakes.

Walt (younger than you think, and OUTSTANDING 757 charter captain)

fokker
31st Mar 2001, 14:06
Raw Data,

I assume that your belligerent tone is a crude attempt at a wind-up, since you are quite familiar with my identity.

If you look a little more carefully, you will notice the phrase 'prior to the issue of a commercial licence'.

Sure, military (RN, anyway) logbooks are/were signed by the Senior Pilot every month, the CO every 3 months and the Captain annually. To the best of my knowledge, they were simply signed and never cross referenced to the authorisation sheets or F700.

I repeat, the CAA has never examined any of my logbooks. The only opportunity they ever had was when I turned up in person for the issue of my ATPL and had the then current volume to hand. They declined such examination as unnecessary.

;)

You haven't seen me, right?

[This message has been edited by fokker (edited 31 March 2001).]

justapplhere
31st Mar 2001, 14:55
Ex F27 pilot in OZ got his right wack few years back. Not only bogus 737 endorsement via forged endorsements on Bermudan licence, but lots of dream time hours on log books as well.

Mowgli
31st Mar 2001, 15:17
I work for said company, and my log books were checked during the interview - extensively, that's why I am amazed that this fraud was not picked up. However, whilst it would be wrong to speculate, if he "created" years of flying, it would be hard to detect by an airline or the CAA. That's why integrety has to be assumed, and why IMHO anyone caught falsifying their hours should be seen to receive a suitably harsh punishment. Could the CAA not do a random check/investigation? Some have noted that they may already do this.

N Nigel, whilst not wishing to go "off thread", your comments have incurred my displeasure, so maybe I also (along with B Eagle et al) need medical help in terms of my sense of humour and personalty.

I would welcome your guidance here because I am from an unfortunate background, but in my new career I'm trying to adjust so that I can get along well with anyone I fly with so that a harmonious environment commensurate with a safe and professional flight can be created. However, I will try to see the funny side of changing "Air" for "Arse", despite my feeling that it is disrespectful to a few good men who 60 years ago risked and often lost their lives so that you can now enjoy the freedom to denigrate their Service.

BEagle
1st Apr 2001, 00:52
Another fraud-preventer for military aircrew is that their logbooks remain the property of HMG, not the individual. They are checked every month by Flt Cdrs, 3-monthly by the Sqn Cdr and annual periodic summaries are also required; these carry a written assessment of ability.

Whereas a civil personal logbook only needs to be kept for 2 years after the last entry and no periodic checks or summaries are ever required. So it is far more difficult to check the validity of any civil log book which contains any hours 'carried forward' as the owner could quite legally have slung the old one away after 2 years or fed it to the dog. Not so with a military logbook!

Perhaps we should offer our sympathies to NN's colleagues for having to fly cooped up with him for any length of time - how ever did he get past the 'would you watch a film about otters' selection for BA? No doubt the cabin staff reserve their 'special coffee' for him....??


[This message has been edited by BEagle (edited 31 March 2001).]

212man
1st Apr 2001, 04:05
I think given the choice, I'd probably rather have the chronographically challenged commander (or not now)Biro taking me on holiday than the _________(insert appropriate comment) Normal Nigel the Hamster.

Must dash (now there's a pun), have a few more hours in the African bush to log.

------------------
Another day in paradise

EGCC4284
1st Apr 2001, 04:23
Currently halfway through my self improver route with 125 hours and just started my ATPL's distance course.

My CV will read:

Hours: 200 genuine.

Funding: Totally by myself whilst keeping home, 2 cars, wife, daughter and working full time 6/7 days per week.

Head: Same size as before I gained frozen ATPL and not up my own backside.

Feet: Both of them firmly on the ground.

Experience: Very little but chances are its the same as, or even more, than the guys just out of Oxford.

Veiws on ex RAF pilots: Brave, you wouldn't get me flying into a war zone, and they are not all tossers. There are a few pilots who have never been in the airforce and are tossers.

Interview: I know I would be the luckiest guy in the world to get one, let alone a job.

My point is that this thread has turned into a slanging match. This unfortunately goes to show that there are pilots flying along side others who jump to the conclusion that a co-pilot is a tosspot just because he's ex RAF.

That shows me that there are a few narrow minded guys out there that don't realise they themselves are tossers.

My message to the training captains is this:

When you receive a CV detailing low hours please do not just throw it into the bin.



------------------
A BIT EXTRA FOR MUM.

BEagle
1st Apr 2001, 14:09
Some company chief pilots DO appreciate the quality of ex-RAF aircrew. I wrote an unsolicted testimonial recently for an ex-RAF air engineer who had funded all his own pilot training and who was hoping to join a BA franchise; I later received a very pleasant letter from the CP confirming my assessment. He declared that he would be happy to employ such people anytime! 2 other ex-RAF air engineers had also been employed by him as pilots and all are doing very well.
Yes, there are people around to whom I would not entrust command of a wheelbarrow, let alone a bicycle. Fraudulent log book forgers are despicable - I'm sure that even Norm 'El Niggle' would at least agree with that.

smooth approach
1st Apr 2001, 17:30
Back to the original point; if said individual, regardless of background, has used significant poetic licence with his log book etc then he deserves to suffer the full weight of the law. Professional aviators cannot condone such behaviour.

Smoothie....

PS NN, I thought I had a sense of humour until I read your comments.

normal_nigel
1st Apr 2001, 19:49
Gives you all something to moan about doesn't it? Oh and wee willy glad to see I can still wind you up at the drop of a hat.
Keep shining those shoes boys, and by the way, you'll get 3 stripes eventually to satisfy the egos.

NN

bumpthrust
2nd Apr 2001, 01:53
Nige - I showed this one to my wife as well and she thinks you're an even bigger a*se

Both she & I served HMQ and would sadly but willingly have defended the likes of you (whether you liked it or not) from her foes

I guess that is the difference between us

Now I have to share the same seniority list with you - another cross to bear. Ah well, we had words for those like you.

hedgehopper
2nd Apr 2001, 02:47
Good thred(!), shame it's lost direction.

A few years back a "kiwi" flying for an air taxi outfit in the U.K. claimed all his flying on C-310 & C-414 for the company was on C-500 series aircraft however one phone call at random settled his application!

Keep it real.. After all who wants to get airbourne with a colleague, only to find in a court of law, after the incident, that they are not properly qualified!!

zbalata
2nd Apr 2001, 03:03
I am working for another UK airline where certain individuals are falsifying sector times and increasing hours in order to accelerate their commands. Will those hours ever be questioned, or will they end up in command without the experience they claim to have ??
Probably not on the same scale I know, but amounts to the same thing at the end of the day.

White Knight
2nd Apr 2001, 13:28
Upwiththebirds; go ahead and slag off those who have done the African Bush for a living, however the only person that I personally knew who had parker pen time in their logbooks was a 737 skipper at Air Zim - and he was known to be a right tw*t anyway.

kishna
2nd Apr 2001, 13:32
Hedgehopper, as far as I am aware, the said Kiwi in question went on to much bigger and better things, from his 310 & 404 days, and escaped any prosecution. Hopefully this latest gent (and I use the term extremely loosely) will have to book thrown at him.

Raw Data
2nd Apr 2001, 17:04
Fokker-

No it wasn't a crude attempt to wind you up, it was a very clever one! ;)

You said:

&gt;&gt; military hours are never scrutinised by ANYBODY, prior to the issue of a commercial licence. An assessment form is submitted in the usual way with the 'military experience' part countersigned by somebody senior, usually your CO. And that's it. &lt;&lt;

But later you said:

&gt;&gt; Sure, military (RN, anyway) logbooks are/were signed by the Senior Pilot every month, the CO every 3 months and the Captain annually. &lt;&lt;

Well, are they or aren't they? Make your mind up! If you mean that your superiors just signed your logbook without any checking whatsoever, I suggest you are not crediting them with much integrity.

And then you said:

&gt;&gt; my logbooks have NEVER been checked by anyone, much less the CAA. &lt;&lt;

But they have, see your quote just above.

And finally:

&gt;&gt; I repeat, the CAA has never examined any of my logbooks... ...They declined such examination as unnecessary. &lt;&lt;

Because they had a form from the military certifying your hours, right? They simply delegated the checking to HM forces, and choose to trust the figures they received from your CO.

I might have once deduced who you are, but must confess to having forgotten. Ah well, old age I guess. If you really want to argue the point, I shall trawl through past posting to establish who you are. Or not.

Moving on to the original topic, it seems that the real question here is twofold: first, do we want people of such low character that they forge logbooks, in command of passenger aircraft; and second, is experience the most reliable indicator of skill and competence?

Taking the latter first, many would (quite rightly) point to the inexperience of your average military pilot during WWII. Despite their inexperience, many managed to survive. A lot of this has to do with age and selection, of course. I would have to say that a lot of F/Os that I fly with are very sharp indeed, despite their low hours.

However, with a lack of experience comes the risk that they won't have seen much and may not be able to handle all that can be thrown at them. A couple of years ago, I was training an F27 F/O for command. He had thousands of GA hours, but few on airline aircraft. The chap was competent enough, however the only winter he had seen was a very mild one, and so he was going into command with virtually no experience of bad weather in an aircraft that was distinctly marginal in bad conditions. To me, that is far more dangerous than a relatively low-houred, but airline-experienced, new captain.

Personally, I reckon no-one should get a command until they have seen at least three european winters!

On the subject of character, it is very good indicator of how a pilot will tend to conduct all their affairs. If a pilot will falsify his hours, he is also likely to falsify other documents. This is not the standard we expect in our colleagues, is it?

I remember several years ago, being "enticed" by an agency to go on the Haj. Just turn up, he said, tell them you have a DC10 rating and fly. He was prepared to supply the books for my study. The idea was that you fly the -10 for a year or two on the Haj, then go back to civilisation and use the experience to get the type rating put on a licence of convenience, and then get a recognition on a UK licence. Not sure if it would work under JAR-FCL, but it did a few years ago- I know guys who went out there with 200 hours and a few sim sessions, and came back with heavy type ratings.

I wouldn't trust any of them with my family!

shotinthefoot
3rd Apr 2001, 04:13
I have no desire to deride the value of Betty Windor's flying club members, as everyone in their own small way, has a contribution to civil aviation. However, perhaps the time has come to realise that a civil airline does not run like the RAF, i.e. "Senior Officer" status and respect is not compatable with good CRM in the civil environment. If one wishes to continue the the Officer status, then stay in the Services and leave Civil Aviation to those who treat their colleagues as equals and not their lackies!

Zeitgebers
3rd Apr 2001, 16:27
In an effort to return to the original thread :
When I was a spotty sprog, I always got the Skipper to sign my logbook in the remarks column for that flight and enter his licence number. Proof for the CAA and any future employer, if required.
I do not remember any F/O asking me to do this for the last 6 or 7 years. If this was a requirement it would help to stamp out these individuals for whom there is no place in this profession.

Deadleg
3rd Apr 2001, 17:10
So Raw Data, how many tropical wet seasons do you think are necessary before command?

gaunty
3rd Apr 2001, 19:19
Deadleg
Bit sharp on our friend Raw Data there old fruit.

RD would undoubtedly say the same number.

Where I come from it's almost possible to fly for some years and not see any more ice than could make a decent G & T. ILS to the minima, yeah right, hang about for a cuppla minutes and she'll be jake.
Thats one of the reasons we have a fairly good safety record.
Then go fly in real weather and get deiced twice and a third time on the runway before you launch?

The point being, you don't know what you don't know.

All other things being equal the only way to get exposed is to get exposed, over more than a few years.

In general terms, in the early stages of a pilots career, annual hours are generally lowish. Therefore it would be safe to assume that it would take more than 3 years to accumulate 2000 hrs. Legally anyway.

Is it therefore safe to assume that over that period of time one has seen more than just a bit of weather and is therefore a little bit more educated.

I suspect so.

Raw Data
3rd Apr 2001, 19:20
If you are operating in tropical conditions, two or three should do it. If you operate in extreme cold, same applies. If you operate in extreme heat, same applies. If you operate in mountains, same applies. If you operate in deserts, same applies.

Now did you you have a valid point to make, or are you just being intentionally silly?

(Oops- sorry gaunty, wasn't aimed at you, intended for the slighty obtuse deadleg)

[edited to remove possible offence]

[This message has been edited by Raw Data (edited 03 April 2001).]

SID the STAR
3rd Apr 2001, 23:53
I have lots of hours,and i used a mont blanc. i promise............

zog
4th Apr 2001, 00:07
This is really sad, I know the guy. Good guy, good pilot, I find it hard to believe.

I know of one ex-BRAL captain who did the self improver route in the USA and sharp pencilled many extra hours into his log book. Is this just the tip of an iceberg ?

normal_nigel
4th Apr 2001, 23:20
ooh bumpthrust your wife didn't really call me an arse did she? I'll never sleep now. Oh and we may share the same seniority list but I'm sure I'll be nice and senior to you. Oh well, never mind, the cabin crew will stop laughing at you when you get more than 2 stripes.

The Arse

Orangewing
5th Apr 2001, 01:36
Zeitgebers, I also used to ask Captains who I flew with to sign my logbook for authentication purposes. I was however told this was no longer necessary because if the CAA wanted to check my hours they simply went to the company for verification; certainly resolves any ambiguity,methinks!
Normal (????) Nige - GET A LIFE!!!!

Zeitgebers
5th Apr 2001, 01:53
It was just a thought - bugga everyone including the CAA - it's there in writing for all to see if the P1 has signed it. Log book certainly looks a bit more 'bulletproof' with signatures and licence numbers. If I was doing it all over again now I would still get the monacles.
Oh well, call me old fashoined........

Deadleg
5th Apr 2001, 02:08
All right boys, ease up, I know where you are coming from: I've flown DHC8 in the tropics & now for some time in the UK. My unobtuse point, poorly made I'll admit, is that you can't make general assumptions on what is necessary as some have considerable experience already.

basil fawlty
5th Apr 2001, 02:29
Back to the original subject of this thread-

I met this guy several times a few years back, and can say now that i am not the least bit surprised about the allegations that have come to light. As i recall he told me that he flew briefly in the RAF, but was grounded due to a trivial medical condition, and was subsequently moved to ATC. Ok, i can believe that, but there were two points that seemed very "odd" at the time;
1. For someone with "several hundred" hours of flight time logged his ability as a pilot did not seem comensurate with his experience.

2. I was amazed to hear six months later that not only had he obtained an ATPL, but had got a position flying for Airtours!!

my question is this;
Were these "phantom" hours in his logbook signed off as correct by an authorized person? If so, (and the allegations are proven correct) then that person should have his ticket pulled as well. I thought that logbook sign offs are supposed to be the line of defence against fraudulent entries?

Raw Data
5th Apr 2001, 03:41
Zeitgebers- getting your logbook signed by P1 is far more open to abuse than getting the company to certify your hours. Anyone can put an indecipherable signature and a number in your logbook. Verifying all those signatures later could be very difficult.

Of course, if you have annoyed your employer by, say, leaving without paying a bond, they might be somewhat uncoperative.

I remember a PPRuNe thread a year or so ago about a BRAL captain (I think) who was charging 1.00 per signature...

LargeJet
5th Apr 2001, 13:11
What a nice fellow- I hope his captain's charged him a good whack to get the same said signatures!

Normal_Nigel - please, please, please stop being a complete arse. If you can't post anything sensible go and play on the M25 in rush hour

Agaricus bisporus
6th Apr 2001, 12:59
Following on from my earlier post on this thread I say again, just how do you expect companies to "check" someones hours? My idea of the word "check" is to verify accuracy, or ensure correctness.

No employer I have ever worked for (quite a few) has ever had a system that could collate an individuals hours from those of his colleagues. Collective monthly stats, yes, but individual ones? Granteed, some companies will be able to do this, but would they be willing to go to the trouble for a competitor hiring their ex, or perhaps current employee? I doubt it. Certainly dam few flying clubs could pull this sort of data on individuals from the auth sheets, and none would have the time.

When discussing "checking" logbook hours stop and think for a moment how many letters, e-mails and faxes you would have to make to check on the average CPL. Three or four flying clubs, perhaps a couple of training establishments and then a couple more employers. It would take the Police weeks to do that and then only for a murder investigation or similar, so it would take a committed employer half that time, still weeks. And he's hiring how many this mpnth??? Forget it. It can't ever happen.

Military hours are much easier. Grading, 15hrs. BFT, 65hrs. AFT, 45hrs. Operational training etc. Squadron flying, x hrs per annum. Anyone who claims 400hrs a year on a Tornado squadron will immediately stick out as an exception.

The best anyone can do is to thumb thru the logbook and see if it "looks" right - accountants have a nose for smelling out dud accounts this way, maybe check with a coule of phone calls, "How many hours would Bloggs have flown with yo, do you think"? "Oh, we do about 450 per year." Thats only a very broad gross error check though, no way a "check" on hours.

How do you verify hours from Air Europe, Dan or Debonair? You can't.

Ditto Bungle Bungle Scenic Tours, Air Prairie Commuter or Safari Tours etc. Say someone claims 900hrs with a big company, company, Air Madagascar, just how hard do you think it will be to get hours out of them? I don't think so.

So the bottom line is that "checking" hours is, for practical purposes, impossible. Check the addition (military logbooks make this easy with monthly, quarterly and annual summaries)and check the "feel" of the logbook, but beyond that there's little more you can do except call the ex chief pilot and ask if Bloggs was a good bloke. And poor Bloggs is stuffed if the CP has taken a dislike to him, no matter how good or honest he is.

As I said before, it all comes down to trust, and if you abandon that the alternatives don't look half so attractive.