Which time building idea is worse?

[eagle5]

You need 50 more hours in an R44 to qualify for a job.

 

Pay someone (ferry flight/photo work/etc..)?

 

Just write them in?

Edited November 18, 2014 by eagle5

[Fred0311]

Seriously? 61.59

Edited November 18, 2014 by Fred0311

[Flying Pig]

Were you intoxicated when you posted this?

[eagle5]

Obviously the FAA couldn't care less if a commercial pilot pays to work, but is against lying. I'm not asking the FAA. I'm asking my fellow pilots who they would despise more, a career pilot who bought his way in, or one who lied his way in?

[WolftalonID]

An honest dollar invested in ones self is never frowned upon....but a cheat is dangerous because they lie to themselves and put others in line to reap the consequences.

 

That you even placed them on the same scale of comparison is disheartening.

[Spike]

This just demonstrates a level ignorance of how this business, and the world works……

So you lie about your previous experience in order to get the job. Anytime thereafter, you are involved in an incident or accident which requires investigation. Since you lied, your employer and insurance provider are not liable and therefore off the hook. After that, all of the liability will fall on YOU both criminally and civilly. Depending on the level of damage, injury, or death, you can lose everything for the rest of your life… And, oh by the way, if the employer suspects you lied without an incident or accident you can be held liable for whatever they feel like pinning you on…. Your question is just f’n idiotic…..

In order to keep the integrity of what this site provides, please move on…….

Edited November 18, 2014 by Spike

[avbug]

Falsification of your logbook is a regulatory violation for which you'll be subject to revocation of your pilot certificates and privileges for one year. It could also carry with it civil penalties (not to exceed 10,000, I believe).

 

Buying your job? Seriously?

 

Your'e comparing committing a crime with what, exactly?

[Flying Pig]

Why would anyone "despise" a pilot who felt they had run out of options and decided to pay their own money to build time?

[Wally]

You need 50 more hours in an R44 to qualify for a job.

 

Pay someone (ferry flight/photo work/etc..)?

 

Just write them in?

The list of qualities required as a professional pilot starts with is being trustworthy. If you'll lie to get the job, you'll lie to keep the job. Can I get in an aircraft you flew last and trust that you wrote up discrepancies and exceedences? Can an employer trust you to abide by limitations? No to both.

 

What you might not have if you buy time outright is applicable work experience.

On the other hand, everybody buys their flight experience one way or another, as the saying goes "time is money".

[avbug]

I don't know that anyone would "despise" a pilot who felt they had run out of options and decided to pay their own money to build time," but that's not the option presented in the premise of the thread. There are two options. One is to falsify one's logbook and therefore commit an illegal act, and the other is to pay to work or to buy a job.

 

Both are reprehensible. In the purchase of a job, one pays to be employed. This isn't employment. It is filling a seat that an employee should fill, however, and reversing the role. Some employers do this, under the guise of "time building." Some do it by offering "inexpensive" flight time...come work for us; no pay, but at least you won't need to pay for the aircraft, and some do even worse; come fly our aircraft on revenue missions, and pay us a small amount. It will cost you less than rental.

 

Doesn't work. If a commercial company wants pilots to fly their revenue operations, they need to be paying someone to do the job. Those who prostitute themselves out by working for free or even paying to work lower the bar for everyone. The defecate in their own beds, where they must lay, and are often the first to scream bloody murder about industry wages, later on. They have themselves to thank.

 

There have been some well known operators in the past who did the pay-to-play program. It comes in differing forms, from outright payment for flight time with the employer, or buying the training (we will hire you, but only if you buy our training or pay for your own training), to wage deductions over time, to contract arrangements. Such things are more common in fixed wing aviation than rotor wing, but it still goes on.

 

Many moons ago I had an interview with Continental Express (the airline). I apparently hadn't done my research well enough before arriving, because I was caught unaware when they mentioned a training contract. They had a payroll deduction, I believe, at the time which covered training and was in the order of about thirteen thousand dollars (this is some time ago now). During the interview they asked if I had a problem with that. Yes, a big problem. Not a problem, they said. I had the flight experience that put me over the threshold; I was one of three (out of thirty or so there that day) that wouldn't be required to pay. I told them I didn't care; I wouldn't work for a company that had such a program. I walked out of the interview and caught a flight home.

 

I worked for an employer who proposed such a program. They proposed bringing in new hires who would pay a set amount to fly right seat in our Learjets or Gulfstreams for a given number of hours, as a "time building" program. They'd self-sponsor their way through the training at Flight Safety International. I told the chief pilot that if such a program was introduced, I'd quit. At the time I flew the Lear, and he made a proposition; how about I buy my Gulfstream type, and get a nice wage increase and go fly the Gulfstream. Absolutely not. I'm not buying a job. You want me, you use me, then don't expect me to come on board and buy a type rating or pay to be here. You made the mistake of hiring a professional, treat me like one or get someone else. I will not support such programs or work for operators that do.

 

When I did my ATP years ago, after the checkride, the examiner told me that I should pad my logbook with a thousand hours of time. It will get you ahead, he said. If you have a moral issue with it, just don't log a thousand hours of time later. Again, absolutely NOT.

 

It's illegal, it's unjustified, and the concept that one will do what one wants to get what one wants shows a great lack of character.

 

The way to get more flight time is to go fly.

 

If you feel that you need to build a thousand hours of flight time by paying for it (renting, owning, etc), then do what your budget will allow, if you wish. No one is stopping you. You need to be aware that such time is not as valued to an employer as a thousand hours spent working for an operator where you were hired competitively, where you were tested and tried and had to perform in revue, commercial conditions with paying passengers and an employer looking over your shoulder, and where you had to fly to a company standard. You can get away with all kinds of habits or flying in your own aircraft, but not necessarily so when working for someone else.

 

If you think that you need to add a thousand hours of time to your logbook by renting or owning, and that it's the only way, then you need to look closely at yourself and ask what it is about you that prevents you from starting a career, where nearly everyone else in the business gets along just fine without needing to buy all that flight time. Do you simply feel it gives you a leg up, a fast-start to a career?

 

There are no shortcuts. Whatever you may think you know at this early stage in the game is going to change with experience. I can tell you that I've had resumes come across my computer or desk over the years that included pay-to-play experience by those who thought that they were slingshotting their career into the fast track. Their resumes were in the deleted file or in the round file so quickly that the electrons were still whirring when they died, and fell into the trash fast enough that the stamp was still wet on the envelope. I've had people show up in person who were quite likable, but when I found that they'd bought their job previously, I politely passed.

 

A few years ago an individual (won't call him a gentleman) showed up with some decent experience and training on his resume, for his low hours. I was asked to interview him and evaluate him, as well as provide a checkride. I find that I know most of what I need to know about an applicant before we ever get to the aircraft; that comes out in conversation. The ease with which a candidate can discuss the job, the regulation, past experiences, and his or her fluency in aviation and related topics leaves a lot of subtle clues as to who he or she is, and I could see right away that this applicant wasn't the person depicted on the resume. I did some research. I found that the individual falsified experience and made claims that weren't true. I found that the employee claimed time in the aircraft to be used for the checkride, but didn't know it. He was finished anyway, but when I asked him to clean the plexiglass and he attempted t do it with paper towels, he was finished.

 

You can try to circumvent the system by falsifying, misrepresenting, etc, and you can try to "build" hours, but neither does for you what you might think. Two people fly an hour in the same type of aircraft, and one comes away with an hour of flight time, the other with an hour of experience. It is NOT the same. I'll consider the applicant who has had to prove himself, take checkrides, training, proficiency checks, and meet all the on-the-job requirements, over someone whose only qualification was the ability to pay, ever time.

 

You'll find this to be largely the standard industry-wide. Whether an interviewer or employer will tell you this or not, it's still the case. Take a proven, known quantity over someone who took no more thought than to buy their way in. The hours may look the same in a logbook, but they are not the same hour, don't carry the same weight, and don't hold the same leverage to an employer.

Edited November 18, 2014 by avbug

[Whistler]

Avbug, I understand your moral stance against time building and pay to play programs. You raise a lot of valid points. But I think you are representing your stance as being a little unfair... even if it isn't. I think you are absolutely correct that paid experience is infinitely more valuable than time gained by purchase. Fortunately I was able to achieve my 1000 PIC through a few years of employment and never had to purchase any flight time after attaining my CFII. However, I know people in the industry who had to take a spot with boatpix, or pay some powerling patrol guy to sit next to him for a few hours a day and do his job for him. A lot of them are great guys and great pilots... I feel like its unfair of you to throw their resumes away if they have paid for flight time... many of them don't realize that it actually hurts the industry even if it helps them personally meet some insurance minimums. A fresh CFII knows how to fly and they know how to teach basic maneuvers but they don't know ANYTHING about the industry. they know they need 1000 hours and that will be enough to get an interview for a turbine gig... beyond that they are clueless. I am not defending this industry practice by any means... but people make mistakes and occasionally do things that arent in their best interests. Besides that, paying for flight time might just plain make more sense for some individuals... say someones spouse has a great job making good money and he can afford to buy flight time and doesn't want to take a job out of state away from his family... why not buy some flight time to qualify for a job closer to home? I'm just saying I don't think the issue is as black and white as you think it is. That said, If i get one more post card from boatpix... I will scream.

[Wally]

Those in positions of responsibility have to do what they think best, especially in hiring pilots. I agree that requiring paying to play is reprehensible employer practice. I've seen the other side of that issue when I saw a pilot take his aircraft 135 ride, pass, immediately resign and take the qualification to the competition, who shortly folded. Karma, baby.

 

Never will argue against work experience as the most important, except in truth everybody everybody pays for their training and experience one way or the other. The cost of flight school as contracted for me was 5 years in the Vietnam-era US Army. So, I paid for that time.

I have since paid for training I felt I needed for CFI and an ATP with the prospect of using those ratings. (My employer claimed at the time of hire that they would provide the ATP, but I got tired of waiting.) How do those differ from somebody buying time? It's professional development without work experience, I'll admit that point, and I would prefer a cfi or atp with experience in the specific field was I making the hiring decision, but my perception of the individual would also influence the call. I know highly qualified jerks...

[apiaguy]

based on the responses... it seems very clear...

 

you should pad your logbook and never mention it again... then slam others who might think such a thing while ripping operators who want you to pay to fill a position.

[Flying Pig]

Avbug, Eagle5 used the term "despise" which is why I asked what anyone would "despise" a pilot who paid for time.

Edited November 18, 2014 by Flying Pig

[avbug]

based on the responses... it seems very clear...

 

you should pad your logbook and never mention it again... then slam others who might think such a thing while ripping operators who want you to pay to fill a position.

 

 

Who here padded their logs?

 

You think that some of us falsified our logbooks, and then hypocritically condemn others who do the same? I certainly didn't. It's illegal.

 

What are you attempting to say when you use the word "pad?"

 

Condemn operators who charge employees to work for them? Absolutely. It's inexcusable.

 

 

Avbug, Eagle5 used the term "despise" which is why I asked what anyone would "despise" a pilot who paid for time.

 

 

I don't see Eagle5's posts; I've had him or her on "ignore" for a long time, now. The original premise of the thread asks about paying for a job, and about falsifying the logbook.

 

Neither are acceptable. Why is better? Neither.

 

There is no justifiable excuse for falsifying the logbook.

 

There is no justifiable excuse for buying a job. If one pays to work, it's not really a job, and one isn't really an employee.

 

If instead the question is quite different and not addressed in the subject of the post or it's poll, if the question regards an employee who isn't qualified for the job and who lacks the requisite experience for hiring minimums or insurance requirements, then we're onto a different subject. If one wishes to apply for the job, one needs to obtain qualification first. That goes without saying. If one is going to be instructing in a particular make and model, for example, and needs a few more hours, then there are ways of obtaining those hours. Rental is among them. That's not at all the same thing as renting one's way to the ATP minimums, then hoping someone will hire based on no more qualification than one paid to rent.

 

It's also not the same thing as paying to work for an employer, and it's absolutely nothing like padding one's logbook by falsifying one's experience.

Edited November 18, 2014 by avbug

[avbug]

 

Never will argue against work experience as the most important, except in truth everybody everybody pays for their training and experience one way or the other. The cost of flight school as contracted for me was 5 years in the Vietnam-era US Army. So, I paid for that time.

 

 

Paid for may be an apt term, but a better one might be earned. Further, you were paid during that time. The original poster isn't talking about paying for a job as in paying one's dues. He or she is talking about buying a job, paying the employer (as opposed to getting paid). Very, very different than earning one's stripes in the A Shau valley.

 

 

However, I know people in the industry who had to take a spot with boatpix, or pay some powerling patrol guy to sit next to him for a few hours a day and do his job for him. A lot of them are great guys and great pilots... I feel like its unfair of you to throw their resumes away if they have paid for flight time... many of them don't realize that it actually hurts the industry even if it helps them personally meet some insurance minimums.

 

 

The old story of the dog with the bone. Walks on the little bridge over the stream, sees his reflection. The greedy puppy wants the bone that his reflection is holding, so he drops his own into the water, and thus loses all.

 

I'm not against paying for flying; one can go rent to one's heart's content. That is NOT the same as flying a revenue job for free, or paying to do it. Yes, it is every bit as black and white as I portray it. Those who defecate in their beds must eventually lay in it, but should understand that we all lay in that bed. Lowering the bar at their employer lowers the bar for all. As I said before, it's those same greedy kids that later whine the loudest about their jobs.

 

I've no use for someone that decided they'd try to springboard their career using an employer like boatpix. One can sprinkle sugar on feces, but that doesn't change what's underneath.

[eagle5]

Avbug, Eagle5 used the term "despise" which is why I asked what anyone would "despise" a pilot who paid for time.

Maybe despise was too harsh a word. From what I've read in other threads I've gotten the impression that some pilots look down upon those who buy their way in (not renting to build time, but paying to do commercial work). I just wondered if they thought worse of those who pad their books (since I've also read about pilots doing that, and admidting to it as if it were no big deal).

 

Thought it would be a good debate?

[Lindsey]

Maybe despise was too harsh a word. From what I've read in other threads I've gotten the impression that some pilots look down upon those who buy their way in (not renting to build time, but paying to do commercial work). I just wondered if they thought worse of those who pad their books (since I've also read about pilots doing that, and admidting to it as if it were no big deal).

 

Thought it would be a good debate?

 

Seems to me it'd be the same type of folks...just at different stages of desperation.

[eagle5]

...or with different sized wallets?

[Lindsey]

...or with different sized wallets?

 

Touché.

[Wally]

Padding your logbook is a lie and not just a white lie. Did that liar over-temp, over-torque, exceed any limitations and not mention it to keep the job they lied to get?

 

Renting to build flight time is not the same as flight experience on the job. How does that differ from scrounging time? I have wiggled the stick in a lot of aircraft that I would not pretend to be PIC qualified in, and some of it is loggable. Being the willing warm body in place and on the job makes the difference? How about if I was standing around and had the opportunity to co-crew? It all adds to the spectrum of my experience, which is what the logged experience is about.

 

Renting isn't the same as flying a job because you ultimately decide what you're going to do, the scenarios and rules aren't external. I see some offset in the possible dedicated effort in acquiring the experience. One of the best pilots I ever saw admitted to living "rough" and putting earnings into more flight experience.

 

The "paying to fly a revenue job" is shakier philosophically. Many of those jobs wouldn't exist without the supplemental revenue from the pilot. Losing that opportunity for flight experience means no profit, all bad. It does conflict with the view that our vocation should be viewed as a profession and we should be professionals.

[Nearly Retired]

I've been really busy and haven't really had time to noodle around on the various forums, but I just thought I'd pop in to say that I have nothing constructive to add to this thread. Imagine that!

 

Carry on. See yous soon, hopefully.

[eagle5]

..over-temp, over-torque, exceed any limitations and not mention it to keep the job...?

 

Can't help but wonder how many pilots have done that?

[Whistlerpilot]

It's a club with a large membership.

 

Over Torquers Anonymous

[rotormandan]

That's why they had so many idiot lights in the gulf. Too many pilots to trust them all. It was comforting since you never knew who flew your ship during your break.