EMS article on logbook ethics

[aussiecop]

It's the principal rule of writing...CHECK YOUR SOURCES AND VERIFY! but in this case I bet his "sources" all came from his mind. It's people like this that make it hard for legitimate writers to actually get comment from industry sources for fear of being misquoted or even involved in an article that puts a bad light on the industry or their particular operation. I know from writing myself that trying to get comment from medical providers of service is heavily vetted, probably for that reason. Please realize that all writers aren't douche nozzles like this guy....

[pilot#476398]

From all the articles I've read over the years about a pilot shortage I'd say that "principle rule of writting" is not common practice!

 

Hmmm, it does make me wonder though? If this lame-ass connection between hours and age is a common belief, then since I'm 42 I should be able to walk into an operation have them take one look at my salt and pepper hair and assume that I have over 2000 hours tt, and thus interview and possibly hire me without even looking at my logbook?

 

Papillon here I come!

[aussiecop]

haha, don't we all wish it was that simple!

[Rotorhead84]

http://exclusive.multibriefs.com/content/beware-the-dark-side-the-ethical-dilemma-facing-hems/medical-allied-healthcare

 

Not to rehash our fudging logbooks thread again, but I found this over on JH. Interesting. A pilot with 1500 hrs RW and 2000TT under 40 is a red flag? Im in that category, actually pushing 3000TT and I look around and feel like I am way behind the power curve. Good for me then I guess? Interesting perspective from people who hire pilots and sort though their applications.

 

When faced with an applicant under 40 years old claiming to have attained over 1,500 rotary PIC hours, one should listen to Yoda: "If you choose the quick and easy path, you will become an agent of evil."

 

A recent case provides an example. A company instructor pilot (remains anonymous) revealed, "How can someone achieve so many flight hours and experience and be under 40? It's almost too good to be true."

 

Just about every CFI I know who has moved on to their first job outside of instructing was well over 1000hrs and are still in their 20s.

 

 

I agree. I am at "red flag" numbers and I have only been flying 4 years. At my current pace I'll be approaching 8-9,000hrs by age 40

Edited March 18, 2014 by Rotorhead84

[aussiecop]

Clearly then, according to this guy, you are the worse of the worst log book fudger then Rotorhead, you should be ashamed of yourself, now go buy a new log book and round that down to 1400 hours and don't log any further time until your 40.... :blink:

[Flying Pig]

Bad news guys. This problem is more widespread than I thought. I just talked to an ex army pilot who now flies a Huey doing fire. Dudes in his mid 30s with about 2000hrs. I just shook my head and told him he disgusts me and then I spit on his boots.

Edited March 19, 2014 by Flying Pig

[Velocity173]

Bad news guys. This problem is more widespread than I thought. I just talked to an ex army pilot who now flies a Huey doing fire. Dudes in his mid 30s with about 2000hrs. I just shook my head and told him he disgusts me and then I spit on his boots.

Not only did he lie about his 2,000 hrs, he lied about his age. Gotta be at least 45 to get that kind of time. Probably even told them he had previous Huey time from the Army. Everyone knows the Army's never had Hueys.

[Darren Hughes]

Silly article, I'm 33 and have been flying for just over 6 years and have just over 2800 hours. I've only flown 300 hours in the last 2.5 years in EMS, with a little offshore work. So by the time I had around 4 years in I had about 2500 hours, between school, instructing, and NYC tours. I racked up 960 hours in just over one year flying for Liberty Helicopters. It's not hard to rack up hours once you get the ball rolling.

 

I have friends who started flying before they were 20, and are sitting with 6000+ hours now and they haven't even hit 30 years old yet. And then I've also had students who only started flying in their late 30s. Red flags should be raised if someone's flying skill, or knowledge of an aircraft they claim to know is not what their logbook says it should be.

 

Age and logbook hours can vary greatly, so my advice to employers is to not even try to correlate the two, and spend their energy looking at the indivudual's back story closely, while corralating with the logbook, resume, and references. The problem is, employers don't always feel they have time to spend doing that kind of detective work.

[Velocity173]

All joking aside, I think the author's main reference is Army Aviators. I don't think he's suspect of civilian pilots applying for EMS because it's a given that most fly more than the military. I believe what he is getting at is 1) logging heavy, 2) adding extra time because of the FAR definition of flight time and the Army's & 3) PIC time in their civ logs being higher than their 759 because of the FAAs definition of logging PIC and the Army's.

 

Really the difference shouldn't be that much and like I said, if someone has done a couple of deployments during the past decade, they could easily have the 2,000 hrs that they claim.

Edited March 19, 2014 by Velocity173

[Rotorhead84]

Red flags should be raised if someone's flying skill, or knowledge of an aircraft they claim to know is not what their logbook says it should be.

 

 

 

I once listened in on some old timers talking about pencil whipping log books.

 

The consensus was that your log book can say whatever you want it to say as long as your skills don't prove otherwise and nobody will ever know the difference. Thought that was interesting.

 

Also there apparently was lots of pencil whipping going on back in the day from what I heard. LOL.

[aeroscout]

 

I once listened in on some old timers talking about pencil whipping log books.

 

The consensus was that your log book can say whatever you want it to say as long as your skills don't prove otherwise and nobody will ever know the difference. Thought that was interesting.

 

Also there apparently was lots of pencil whipping going on back in the day from what I heard. LOL.

Pencil whipping can work both ways. Sometimes you log less than you fly...to be legal.

[Rotorhead84]

Pencil whipping can work both ways. Sometimes you log less than you fly...to be legal.

 

 

Sure, but this conversation was about adding time you didn't have to get a job.

[Darren Hughes]

Pencil whipping can work both ways. Sometimes you log less than you fly...to be legal.

 

 

 

 

Sure, but this conversation was about adding time you didn't have to get a job.

 

I get that people lie on their resumes in many other industries to put themselves in a better position to get a job. Some people say they have five years experience instead of their actual three years to get that management position they've been gunning for. That's the same as a pilot adding 500 hours to their logbook for an aircraft they already have 1000 hours in, in order to bring themselves up to the 1500 hours required in that aircraft to qualify for an interview. In reality, they'll probably not be found out, but if they do, the ramifications for such dishonesty can be much steeper in this industry than it is in others. If someone is found out by a potential employer adding two years experience to their resume, they probably won't hire them, and that's as far as it will probably go. But, in this small aviation industry, if you get the name of being a pencil whipper, well that's a whole different kettle of fish.

 

There is supposed to be a certain amount of honor in our chosen career, although it's hard to see it sometimes. But just look at one of the requirements to get your ATP, "Be of good moral character". There's not too many other careers that have that written down as one of their requirements.

[HighCountry]

"There is supposed to be a certain amount of honor in our chosen career, although it's hard to see it sometimes. But just look at one of the requirements to get your ATP, "Be of good moral character". There's not too many other careers that have that written down as one of their requirements."

 

I've always believed that it is not possible to legislate morality. If it were, our jails would be empty. This is a perfect example of an idiotic government band-aid. Makes them feel like they did something. Honor, honesty, integrity are things that must be developed within a culture. It has to start from the bottom individual and work its way up, not ordered from the top down. Making a rule and thinking the problem is fixed is pure govt naïveté.

[aeroscout]

I love it how employers enact the golden rule. He who has the gold makes the rules.

Prospective employers in the industry demand total honesty, while not offering it in return.

[Spike]

I love it how employers enact the golden rule. He who has the gold makes the rules.

Prospective employers in the industry demand total honesty, while not offering it in return.

 

I'll 2nd that......... X10........

[Goldy]

Ok, so the article certainly had some inaccuracies. But don't let that reduce the seriousness of the underlying problem. The facts are there that some pilots cheat. Plain and simple. I've been around since 86, so I have known a few, some that are still flying.

 

God I'm just glad to be an old fart...

Edited May 2, 2014 by Goldy

[Darren Hughes]

"There is supposed to be a certain amount of honor in our chosen career, although it's hard to see it sometimes. But just look at one of the requirements to get your ATP, "Be of good moral character". There's not too many other careers that have that written down as one of their requirements."

 

I've always believed that it is not possible to legislate morality. If it were, our jails would be empty. This is a perfect example of an idiotic government band-aid. Makes them feel like they did something. Honor, honesty, integrity are things that must be developed within a culture. It has to start from the bottom individual and work its way up, not ordered from the top down. Making a rule and thinking the problem is fixed is pure govt naïveté.

I reckon it's just one more way for them to revoke an ATP. You know, if someone goes down for a felony, or fails a drug test, if the Feds get wind of it, that's their clause that they can use to do the revoking.

[aeroscout]

I reckon it's just one more way for them to revoke an ATP. You know, if someone goes down for a felony, or fails a drug test, if the Feds get wind of it, that's their clause that they can use to do the revoking.

Most likely it's a career ender too.