Airtours pilot suspended for Parker Pen Logbook
Guest
Posts: n/a
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).]
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).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
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
Must dash (now there's a pun), have a few more hours in the African bush to log.
------------------
Another day in paradise
Guest
Posts: n/a
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.
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.
Guest
Posts: n/a
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.
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.
Guest
Posts: n/a
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.
Smoothie....
PS NN, I thought I had a sense of humour until I read your comments.
Guest
Posts: n/a
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.
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.
Guest
Posts: n/a
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!!
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!!
Guest
Posts: n/a
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.
Probably not on the same scale I know, but amounts to the same thing at the end of the day.
Guest
Posts: n/a
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.
Guest
Posts: n/a
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.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Fokker-
No it wasn't a crude attempt to wind you up, it was a very clever one!
You said:
>> 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. <<
But later you said:
>> Sure, military (RN, anyway) logbooks are/were signed by the Senior Pilot every month, the CO every 3 months and the Captain annually. <<
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:
>> my logbooks have NEVER been checked by anyone, much less the CAA. <<
But they have, see your quote just above.
And finally:
>> I repeat, the CAA has never examined any of my logbooks... ...They declined such examination as unnecessary. <<
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!
No it wasn't a crude attempt to wind you up, it was a very clever one!
You said:
>> 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. <<
But later you said:
>> Sure, military (RN, anyway) logbooks are/were signed by the Senior Pilot every month, the CO every 3 months and the Captain annually. <<
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:
>> my logbooks have NEVER been checked by anyone, much less the CAA. <<
But they have, see your quote just above.
And finally:
>> I repeat, the CAA has never examined any of my logbooks... ...They declined such examination as unnecessary. <<
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!
Guest
Posts: n/a
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!
Guest
Posts: n/a
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.
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.
Guest
Posts: n/a
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.
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.
Guest
Posts: n/a
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).]
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).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
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 ?
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 ?
Guest
Posts: n/a
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
The Arse
