Logbook Scam ??
Thread Starter
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 ?
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 ?
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Uplinker,
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?
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?
Guest
Posts: n/a
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?
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?
Join Date: Oct 1998
Location: West Wales
Posts: 187
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
DIRECTOR
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: U.K.
Posts: 664
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Join Date: Sep 1998
Location: The Desert
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
null
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.
null
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: all 4 engs
Posts: 55
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
guvnor,
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.
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.
Guest
Posts: n/a
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.
Your question:
Answer:
No ... because nobody is inclined to think it has any relevance whatsoever to the subject of this thread.
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.
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.
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Anywhere that pays
Posts: 117
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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!
As for 'hands on', Guv........... heck, I just cannot print that - the pprune red pen would be on me!
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 ]
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 ]
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Strood, Kent
Posts: 731
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Guvnor,
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:-
Nuff said.
[ 26 July 2001: Message edited by: beaver eager ]
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 ]
Guest
Posts: n/a
Oh, for goodness sake people ... how many times do I have to say that my comments were tongue-in-cheek?
Still, the ferocity of the responses seems to indicate that I seem to have hit a bit of a nerve with some people!
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?
[ 26 July 2001: Message edited by: The Guvnor ]
Still, the ferocity of the responses seems to indicate that I seem to have hit a bit of a nerve with some people!
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?
[ 26 July 2001: Message edited by: The Guvnor ]
Guest
Posts: n/a
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:
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.
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.
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.
Postscript: I note that, during my reply preparation, you removed the aforementioned question and inserted this in its place:
Thank you for that further mindless drivel. I now rest my case.
[ 26 July 2001: Message edited by: tilii ]
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
[ 26 July 2001: Message edited by: tilii ]
Guest
Posts: n/a
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!
[Edited for spelling - thank you Tilii]
[ 27 July 2001: Message edited by: The Guvnor ]
If I have the hide of a rhino ... yours must be made of Kevlar!
[Edited for spelling - thank you Tilii
][ 27 July 2001: Message edited by: The Guvnor ]
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: ME
Posts: 5,502
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?????????
Thanks.
Mutt
Thanks.
Mutt
Guest
Posts: n/a
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
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:
followed by:
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.
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"?
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 ]
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).
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."
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."
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."
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."
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"?
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 ]
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: tropical jewel
Posts: 40
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.