Padding Your Logbook?

Guys, this is not "Big Brother" - it's responsible investigation into the death of a mentally unstable person.
 
SkyHog said:
Wow. That's weird that they'd go that far to determine the total hours he had.
Click to expand...
It was probably to look at his medical history to determine any issues that may be a factor in the accident. The padding was likely not something they expected nor looking for in particular.

The funny thing is, why would he pad hours for the 8500?

There was a lot more to the guy beyond padding hours for his medical. Look at all the odd items between losing his ticket then re-applying under a different name and with the same DPE making sign-offs with a two hour difference in the log.
 
One red flag after another... there seems to have been very little in this guy's FAA dossier and logbook that wasn't bogus. I think his history of deceit is relevant to the case, although it sure makes the FAA look pretty lax... why do they insist you sign that you are swearing that all info on your medical and other applications is true if nobody's checking them until you screw up?

He fits the profile of someone who would come to grief this way... how sad that three people trusted him.:nonod:
 
SCCutler said:
Guys, this is not "Big Brother" - it's responsible investigation into the death of a mentally unstable person.
Click to expand...

Or at least someone who is a clear example of what NOT to do.

Guy appeared to have more money than brains...
 
SCCutler said:
Guys, this is not "Big Brother" - it's responsible investigation into the death of a mentally unstable person.
Click to expand...
I agree. It seems as though they saw a discrepancy and then went down that road to understand why. The more they dug the more things they ran into that defied explanation. It was obvious that there was something up with this pilot. That is not being 'big brother' they were doing their job.
 
Yeah, seriously. I think the initial "Why did we end up with two sets of records?" question started most of the digging.

I'm just quite thankful that the vast majority of pilots are much more ethical than this guy.
 
wbarnhill said:
I'm just quite thankful that the vast majority of pilots are much more ethical than this guy.
Click to expand...

As am I. It's guys like this that make me realize where the statistics and bad reputations come from.
 
wbarnhill said:
I'm just quite thankful that the vast majority of pilots are much more ethical than this guy.
Click to expand...

And that's probably why there isn't an active verification program. The amount of fraud and the cost of the fraud don't justify more scrutiny. They did just make it clear that they are cross-checking to see that they aren't getting disability benefits for a condition that is unreported on your medical.

It would also not be too hard to have the computer systems flag 8710s and 8500s for changes that don't make sense, like 3000 hours added in a year.
 
This makes me wonder how the system works. Him reporting several thousand hours of flying time in a few years with 50 hours in the previous 6 months seems odd to me. Also odd is him reporting in his log book what appeared to be actual hours, when his behavior as described by others didn't seem indicative of someone with that kind of time.

Also makes me wonder if he got a fake driver's license (or other official looking ID) for his new name.

I am glad that the fraud is low enough that it doesn't cause a need for increased scrutiny. Hopefully it stays that way.
 
These kind of people are out there. When I was working as a CFI they would come in and talk to us about taking lessons. We would do what we could to run off the ones that shouldn't be flying their own airplane. The ones that would pay up and start lessons would usually drop out before even getting near a solo.
 
Note that it was entirely legal for him to get a flight review in a C-182 and then jump in a Moo-Two, get three to/ldgs, load pax, and go. Not smart, but legal. Maybe that rule needs revision. While that new SFAR on MU-2's may have in part been driven by this accident, you could substitute "Merlin" for MU-2 and things wouldn't have changed much. OTOH, no matter how tight you write the rules, some bozo will always find a new way to be stupid but legal.
 
While it is possible to get 3000 hours in a whole year, 3000 hours in a 6 month period is pretty much impossible.

Sad ending to a tale of insanity.

--Matt Rogers
 
Last edited:
The rogue said:
While it is possible to get 3000 hours in a whole year, 300 hours in a 6 month period is pretty much impossible.
Click to expand...
I think the reverse would be true. 3000 hours in a year is 250 hours/month (illegal in a commercial operation, and almost beyond human capacity, based on my experience flying 220 hours in two months in the summer of 1977), while 300 hours in 6 months is only 50 hours/month (a bit on the low side for airline pilots, who usually fly 65-85 hours/month).
 
Ron Levy said:
Note that it was entirely legal for him to get a flight review in a C-182 and then jump in a Moo-Two, get three to/ldgs, load pax, and go. Not smart, but legal. Maybe that rule needs revision. While that new SFAR on MU-2's may have in part been driven by this accident, you could substitute "Merlin" for MU-2 and things wouldn't have changed much. OTOH, no matter how tight you write the rules, some bozo will always find a new way to be stupid but legal.
Click to expand...

Hence the sad but frequent musings about Darwin being ahead of his time. Or as one of the red-neck comics likes to point out "you can't fix stupid."
 
Ron Levy said:
I think the reverse would be true. 3000 hours in a year is 250 hours/month (illegal in a commercial operation, and almost beyond human capacity, based on my experience flying 220 hours in two months in the summer of 1977), while 300 hours in 6 months is only 50 hours/month (a bit on the low side for airline pilots, who usually fly 65-85 hours/month).
Click to expand...


ooops....Typo corrected

I agree! 300 a month is very highly unlikely....I can't see a situation where you could afford to fly 10 hours a day, every day for almost a whole year. But hey, they make gold plated bathtubs that I can't see as realistic either.

--MR
 
Last edited:
The rogue said:
ooops....Typo corrected

I agree! 300 a month is very highly unlikely....I can't see a situation where you could afford to fly 10 hours a day, every day for almost a whole year. But hey, they make gold plated bathtubs that I can't see as realistic either.
Click to expand...
It's not the cost, it's the cumulative fatigue. BTDT, at the 110 hr/month level when I was much younger and stronger. At the end of those two months, I was whipped. I cannot imagine flying twice as much for six times as long -- you'd burn out long before the year was up. As for 3000 hours in six months, that's 500 hours flying per month and there's only 720 hours in a month -- it's humanly impossible to fly 17 hours a day for 30 straight days.
 
Last edited:
Ted DuPuis said:
I am glad that the fraud is low enough that it doesn't cause a need for increased scrutiny. Hopefully it stays that way.
Click to expand...

It wasn't the fraud that got them all killed. The fraud was only a sypmtom of what this guys real problem was the one that got them all killed.
 
AdamZ said:
It wasn't the fraud that got them all killed. The fraud was only a sypmtom of what this guys real problem was the one that got them all killed.
Click to expand...

I wasn't saying the fraud is what got them killed. My point is that I wouldn't want to see increased scrutiny, because that ends up being a greater hassle for those of us who abide by the rules (which is most of us).
 
I understood your postion, I agree with you. Not challanging you just adding a thought thats all.
 
AdamZ said:
I understood your postion, I agree with you. Not challanging you just adding a thought thats all.
Click to expand...

Ahh, ok. Makes sense. :)
 
Many years ago I was a Check Airman at the airline. We had a new hire class coming through, and one fellow from the Maryland area was there. His resume and application showed 3,000 hours of time, with over 1500 hours in a MU2 and a KingAir. He was having difficulty getting through systems and basic indoc, but did manage to barely make it through.

While at the simulator, his instructor began noticing he didn't have basic instrument skills. Every landing was a crash. At one point I was asked to come in and "witness" a sim session to back up the other instructor, and it was horrible to say the least. This pilot was sent back to the chief pilot's office for a review, and while there he finally admitted he had been padding his log books and had only sat in the right seat of a King Air a few times. He had no actual instrument experience (even though his log showed a considerable amount of time.) Needless to say this person was terminated and sent home. Also, our hiring process tightened up considerably after that.

Now here's the fun part. Several months after leaving that same pilot was hired by the FAA as a Safety Inspector. The last I heard he's still there and now holds a prominent position.
 
Rotor&Wing said:
Now here's the fun part. Several months after leaving that same pilot was hired by the FAA as a Safety Inspector. The last I heard he's still there and now holds a prominent position.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure if I should laugh or cry on that one. Either way, it scares the hell out of me.
 
KennyFlys said:
I'm not sure if I should laugh or cry on that one. Either way, it scares the hell out of me.
Click to expand...

The way I found out I was flying a trip and reading a magazine (can't remember which one) and his name came up in the article ( distinct name) and he was being quoted and it gave his position at the FAA and the FSDO he worked for. I gave the magazine to the CP, and a few days later he confirmed it was the same guy.

Stranger than fiction. :frown2:
 
" . . . gave his position at the FAA and the FSDO he worked for. I gave the magazine to the CP, and a few days later he confirmed it was the same guy."

I would like to know the FSDO . . . I would guess it is Miami. Don't ask me why, just a feelin'.

Some logbook history: Many years ago padded time was called "P-51 Time", not for the fighter, but for the common model of Parker pen!

Often I get resumes or an FAA FORM 8710-1 Certificate Application with PIC time shown as "1500 hours". I have to ask -- "exactly 1500 hours?" It looks bogus, and usually is. Geez, at least write "1502" and I have no questions!

I asked my aviation insurance broker about this and he said that on insurance applications the underwriters accept flight time as written in round numbers (1500) or "500 Plus" but when the accident occurs the first thing they ask for is the pilot logbooks. If it don't add up, then the pilot (insured) falsified his insurance application, and this may ("may" not always) lead to a denial of the claim! Wow.

I have all of my late father's logbooks (Fritz Compton). He logged over 30,000 hours of Eastern Air Lines flight time from the DC-2 (1939) to L-1011 (1975), along with his Piper J-2 / J-3 Cub and his glider time in MINUTES, and was very proud of his accuracy. I do the same and have learned to divide by 60 rather quickly. It's just a family tradition (my father also taught me much more important skills as an aviator.)

Do what you like in your logbook, but keep it accurate. The old-timers can see though it every time, especially during that first (uncoordinated) turn after takeoff!

Burt Compton, Master CFI, FAA DPE
Marfa Gliders Soaring Center, west Texas
www.flygliders.com
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top