Phony hours on resume
Moderators: sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako, lilfssister, North Shore, I WAS Birddog
I will play devil's advocate here.
Now, I am the first one to agree that all your paperwork should be correct, and in order. The paperpushers will make your live a living hell otherwise - it gives them great pleasure to exercise what little power and control they have in their lives.
Let's back up a little here. Why do people lie about their hours? Because people attribute entirely too much to them, that's why.
The implicit assumption here is that pilot skill and knowledge scales linearly with experience, and we all know that just ain't so.
Someone with 500 hours in the circuit in a buck-fifty will have roughly the same skill as someone with 5000 hours in the circuit with a buck-fifty - they merely have 500 hours, 10 times over.
Conclusion: pilot skill & knowledge is asymptotic with experience. Therefore experience is not always the best indicator of pilot performance. An example of this is the military, where pilots with very low hours (compared to civilian) have very great responsibilities. A military pilot flying airshows in an F-18 probably wouldn't have enough hours to get hired flying a 'ho, which is patently absurd.
Now, I am the first one to agree that all your paperwork should be correct, and in order. The paperpushers will make your live a living hell otherwise - it gives them great pleasure to exercise what little power and control they have in their lives.
Let's back up a little here. Why do people lie about their hours? Because people attribute entirely too much to them, that's why.
The implicit assumption here is that pilot skill and knowledge scales linearly with experience, and we all know that just ain't so.
Someone with 500 hours in the circuit in a buck-fifty will have roughly the same skill as someone with 5000 hours in the circuit with a buck-fifty - they merely have 500 hours, 10 times over.
Conclusion: pilot skill & knowledge is asymptotic with experience. Therefore experience is not always the best indicator of pilot performance. An example of this is the military, where pilots with very low hours (compared to civilian) have very great responsibilities. A military pilot flying airshows in an F-18 probably wouldn't have enough hours to get hired flying a 'ho, which is patently absurd.
I discussed this very problem with some of our training captains at work. Many of them have been at the training thing a long time and can usually tell where a person should be with regards to the experience they claim to have. The liars are usually discovered very early in the training process (ie line indoc) and handled accordingly.
Ironically, it's the guys that are truthful about their shortcomings that end up better off. That way, the training department can concentrate on these to make you a better pilot.
It does piss me off however that some less-than-credible pilots I have known in the past padded their log books, lied in interviews and then charmed their way through training. Never caught, these guys ended up way ahead of their peers in the career process. Too bad kharma isn't universal eh?
Ironically, it's the guys that are truthful about their shortcomings that end up better off. That way, the training department can concentrate on these to make you a better pilot.
It does piss me off however that some less-than-credible pilots I have known in the past padded their log books, lied in interviews and then charmed their way through training. Never caught, these guys ended up way ahead of their peers in the career process. Too bad kharma isn't universal eh?
Padding hours is definitely wrong...
Here's a question though.
Say I have 1990.6 hours total time. Is it wrong to put 2000 TT on a resume? What if that total time is 1970.6, 1950.6 etc.
My practice has always been to round up to the nearest 25 hr. for all the columns for simplicity sake. A friend recently told me that at Cathay that will get you fired. You have to represent to the hour - not 1 more - otherwise you are misrepresenting yourself...
Here's a question though.
Say I have 1990.6 hours total time. Is it wrong to put 2000 TT on a resume? What if that total time is 1970.6, 1950.6 etc.
My practice has always been to round up to the nearest 25 hr. for all the columns for simplicity sake. A friend recently told me that at Cathay that will get you fired. You have to represent to the hour - not 1 more - otherwise you are misrepresenting yourself...
If you are going to say you have 600 more hours than you do on a resume, then where are you going to add those hours to your log book to back up the claim if you haven't been padding all along anyway? Somebodys going to notice the smell of white-out when you walk in the door. Or you could add three 200hr flights I guess.
And to those others who already pad their books, do you pad the journey log as well in order to back up the falcification? If I were an operator I would be pretty pissed if my aircraft were prematurely being brought for maintenance after a specific hiring.
With those kind of hours being claimed, and if they were being carried over to the journey log, could it not be assumed that the hobbs would be showing far less time between inspections leading to suspicion by the operator?
Of course a sly pilot may suggest to the boss that hiring them has been a benifit because of the greatly decreased fuel costs per hours logged!
And to those others who already pad their books, do you pad the journey log as well in order to back up the falcification? If I were an operator I would be pretty pissed if my aircraft were prematurely being brought for maintenance after a specific hiring.
With those kind of hours being claimed, and if they were being carried over to the journey log, could it not be assumed that the hobbs would be showing far less time between inspections leading to suspicion by the operator?
Of course a sly pilot may suggest to the boss that hiring them has been a benifit because of the greatly decreased fuel costs per hours logged!
Finally, we come to the core of the matter. This perverse fascination with total hours a pilot has logged is simply bizarre.total hours has nothing to do with pilot skill
I mean, who really cares what you had to eat last week? If you tell me it was steak, but in fact it was spaghetti, should I really care?
Trade Secret: airplanes can't read. They don't know what kind of licence you have, or how many logbooks you're filled out in the past 5 decades.
There's an old saying that you're only as good as your last approach. If you have an ATPL, more type ratings than god, more hours than everyone else put together, but you crashed on your last approach, well, all that paper was good for shit, wasn't it?
I'm not saying that airshow flying is really hard, but I have NEVER had an airshow operator ask me how many total hours I have, or tell me, "We only hire airshow pilots with more than 10,000TT". When I'm negotiating with overseas airshow operators, I'm pretty sure they couldn't even care less if I had a pilot's licence.
What matters is HOW WELL YOU FLY. You give me one minute with a guy, and a couple of our Pitts with the wings overlapped, and I'll tell you how good his hands and feet are. It's really not hard to tell. If you're into the straight and level boring IFR stuff, ok, let's put you under the hood at night, and let's see you hand-fly an ILS with the gear and flaps up and
the power left at cruise setting, and we'll see how centered the needles are from 500AGL down to 100AGL.
All this endless fascination with paper, paper, paper.
There are two worlds: the paper world, and the real world. They are only loosely coupled sometimes.
Okay, Hedley...Hedley wrote:Finally, we come to the core of the matter. This perverse fascination with total hours a pilot has logged is simply bizarre.total hours has nothing to do with pilot skill
I mean, who really cares what you had to eat last week? If you tell me it was steak, but in fact it was spaghetti, should I really care?
Trade Secret: airplanes can't read. They don't know what kind of licence you have, or how many logbooks you're filled out in the past 5 decades.
There's an old saying that you're only as good as your last approach. If you have an ATPL, more type ratings than god, more hours than everyone else put together, but you crashed on your last approach, well, all that paper was good for shit, wasn't it?
....
There are two worlds: the paper world, and the real world. They are only loosely coupled sometimes.
So- how do you propose we quantify how much experience is enough for a particular level of pilot? There has to be different levels, or the system falls apart... so just decending into anarchy cannot be one of your choices. ICAO frowns on anarchy.
Hours
As you and many others here believe, hours in a logbook means nothing unless the experience is valuable. Thats why all the licences in Canada require not just hours in an aeroplane, but a specific amount of different types of flying. Before we decend into a meaningless argument about what kind of experience is better, we all have our opinions. The point is this: without that varied experience, and enough of it to learn how to make decisions, simply existing in an airplane ("hours") are worthless.
Our system is far from perfect. It is also much better than many of the other countries out there.
So Hedley-- how would you change it? What should be required for CPL/ATPL? How would you measure it? Can't just be a skill and knowlege test (written and flight)-- those are just snapshots.
Please? Let me know what you think.
-Guy
-
Cat Driver
- Top Poster
- Posts: 18921
- Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2004 8:31 pm
" When I'm negotiating with overseas airshow operators, I'm pretty sure they couldn't even care less if I had a pilot's licence. "
They made me show them mine Hedley, in fact I had to give them a photo copy of all my licenses to get my Airdisplay Authorization in Europe.....
...but the funny thing is they never ever asked me to show any proof that I had a valid medical for the past several years, must be that I'm such a honorable person huh?
Logged hours is a benchmark of your exposure to flying, not a measure of your skills level and therefore is used to determine your qualifications to hold licenses among other things.
Determining a persons ability to drive these devices is a little more involved than just looking at a log book...and I'm sure that is what you are driving at.
They made me show them mine Hedley, in fact I had to give them a photo copy of all my licenses to get my Airdisplay Authorization in Europe.....
...but the funny thing is they never ever asked me to show any proof that I had a valid medical for the past several years, must be that I'm such a honorable person huh?
Logged hours is a benchmark of your exposure to flying, not a measure of your skills level and therefore is used to determine your qualifications to hold licenses among other things.
Determining a persons ability to drive these devices is a little more involved than just looking at a log book...and I'm sure that is what you are driving at.
The hardest thing about flying is knowing when to say no
After over a half a century of flying no one ever died because of my decision not to fly.
After over a half a century of flying no one ever died because of my decision not to fly.
It was only a matter of time till someone found a way to bash flight instructors in this thread I suppose. Lets all say it again for the slow people in the class. A flight instructors life is not confined to the circuit!Hedley wrote:
Someone with 500 hours in the circuit in a buck-fifty will have roughly the same skill as someone with 5000 hours in the circuit with a buck-fifty - they merely have 500 hours, 10 times over.
Wahunga!
[quote="Hedley"]I will play devil's advocate here.
............ Conclusion: pilot skill & knowledge is asymptotic with experience. Therefore experience is not always the best indicator of pilot performance. An example of this is the military, where pilots with very low hours (compared to civilian) have very great responsibilities. A military pilot flying airshows in an F-18 probably wouldn't have enough hours to get hired flying a 'ho, which is patently absurd.[/quote]
As much as I hate to admit it you are pretty much spot on - typical example - working from memory - no log book in front of me - but it is a representative sample:
I did not fly demo - I preferred the static - more exposure to the "finer" people at the shows.
Portage 30 hours
Moose Jaw 200 hours
F-18 basic 80 hours
First tour 600 hours
Second tour and invite to fly demo 600 hours
Maybe a few added hours from some additional flights - but not enough to really matter - therefore:
Total time approximately - 1510 +/- hours to go to demo status - maximum in the area of 2000 hours.
And my mil time did not get me that "ho" spot. ;-]
Good thing though - have a better spot now.
Oh, one important item - those hours will NOT be padded. Log entries will equal entries in the maintenance log. Up and down times for the most part come from tower or ground.
............ Conclusion: pilot skill & knowledge is asymptotic with experience. Therefore experience is not always the best indicator of pilot performance. An example of this is the military, where pilots with very low hours (compared to civilian) have very great responsibilities. A military pilot flying airshows in an F-18 probably wouldn't have enough hours to get hired flying a 'ho, which is patently absurd.[/quote]
As much as I hate to admit it you are pretty much spot on - typical example - working from memory - no log book in front of me - but it is a representative sample:
I did not fly demo - I preferred the static - more exposure to the "finer" people at the shows.
Portage 30 hours
Moose Jaw 200 hours
F-18 basic 80 hours
First tour 600 hours
Second tour and invite to fly demo 600 hours
Maybe a few added hours from some additional flights - but not enough to really matter - therefore:
Total time approximately - 1510 +/- hours to go to demo status - maximum in the area of 2000 hours.
And my mil time did not get me that "ho" spot. ;-]
Good thing though - have a better spot now.
Oh, one important item - those hours will NOT be padded. Log entries will equal entries in the maintenance log. Up and down times for the most part come from tower or ground.
Hedley, what is your point? Why would you put someone under a "hood" at all, let alone shoot an ILS clean, at cruise settings? My hands and feet may be a little below par in a Pitts, in tight formation, but I can assure you, I can stick a Hawker 748 into Pang, at night, in the rain with a cross wind. And an F18 would probably scare the shit out of me! But I'd be game to give it a try! These are apples and oranges....but MY point is if a guy has X number of hours, he should not put Y number of hours on a resume. It's all about honesty. Even if he can fly rings around us, in the "real" world.
-
Cat Driver
- Top Poster
- Posts: 18921
- Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2004 8:31 pm
" A flight instructors life is not confined to the circuit! "
Being a flight instructor and passing on knowledge and skills to others is the higest plateau that a pilot can aspire to.
Cat
Being a flight instructor and passing on knowledge and skills to others is the higest plateau that a pilot can aspire to.
Cat
The hardest thing about flying is knowing when to say no
After over a half a century of flying no one ever died because of my decision not to fly.
After over a half a century of flying no one ever died because of my decision not to fly.
Spokes wrote:
FWIW I hold a current class 1 instructor and class 1 aerobatic instructor ratings. I am not ashamed of teaching other people about flying. I don't know why someone would be. Anyone that thinks I'm just a "piece of shit" instructor, well, grab a chute, sonny, climb into the front of my Pitts and let's see what you can teach me about formation outside loops and tumbles at low altitude. Because I'm "just an instructor", see.
Doc wrote:
TC guy wrote:
Bob Hoover comes to mind. You may be too young to remember him, but he had his FAA medical revoked in a most foul personal campaign against him. He didn't stop being a superb pilot, he simply went to Australia to avoid the paperpushers who were on a vendetta. A combined effort of F.Lee Bailey, USA Congressmen and US Senators prevailed upon the FAA to restore his medical.
Could Bob Hoover fly better after his medical was restored by the politicians? I doubt it.
P.S. Coug & Cat: yup.
My apologies, that was not my intent. My point was that if you do any one thing for long enough, after a while the value of additional experience at that one thing is nebulous.someone found a way to bash flight instructors
FWIW I hold a current class 1 instructor and class 1 aerobatic instructor ratings. I am not ashamed of teaching other people about flying. I don't know why someone would be. Anyone that thinks I'm just a "piece of shit" instructor, well, grab a chute, sonny, climb into the front of my Pitts and let's see what you can teach me about formation outside loops and tumbles at low altitude. Because I'm "just an instructor", see.
Doc wrote:
I think we're in violent agreement here, Doc. My point is that I am bemused and puzzled about the enormous emphasis on 1900 hours vs 2000 hours. I mean, who really gives a shit?MY point is if a guy has X number of hours, he should not put Y number of hours on a resume
Right! And that's what matters, as a pilot - your performance in an aircraft. Whether you have 5,000 or 10,000 or 20,000 hours, frankly I don't see what that has to do with anything, honestly.I can stick a Hawker 748 into Pang, at night, in the rain with a cross wind
TC guy wrote:
ummmmm ... does Transport care what ICAO thinks? It is my understanding that Transport has recently reneged as an ICAO signatory - it is no longer honouring licences and medicals issued by other ICAO signatories in Canadian airspace. I have been communicating with your bosses (Merlin Press, Louis Ranger) about this subject this week, but they are childishly avoiding me, which forces me to go to the new Minister of Transport and ICAO directly.ICAO frowns on anarchy
Don't get me wrong, I think licences and ratings are great. Everyone should collect a complete set, like baseball cards. But don't EVER confuse the paper world with the oh-so-unforgiving real world. There are people out there with ATPs that are frankly dangerously incompetent in the cockpit (would you like some names?) and there are other people out there without valid pilot licences and medicals who are superb pilots.Let me know what you think
Bob Hoover comes to mind. You may be too young to remember him, but he had his FAA medical revoked in a most foul personal campaign against him. He didn't stop being a superb pilot, he simply went to Australia to avoid the paperpushers who were on a vendetta. A combined effort of F.Lee Bailey, USA Congressmen and US Senators prevailed upon the FAA to restore his medical.
Could Bob Hoover fly better after his medical was restored by the politicians? I doubt it.
P.S. Coug & Cat: yup.
-
Cat Driver
- Top Poster
- Posts: 18921
- Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2004 8:31 pm
Hedley:
There are many, many pilots out there who earn their living flying in remote areas of the world where the only thing that keeps you alive is an ability to asses risk versus getting the job done with no one but yourself to communicate with.
The Saharah in Africa, the ITCZ and the enormous thunderstorms that can form in no time and the North Ataantic route over Greenland in unpressurized piston engine airplanes comes to mind.
That type of flying can not be reflected in entries in any log book.
There is a whole different world out there outside of Canada and there are very few support entities to fall back on so you are left with airmanship and experience to make your decisions on and stay alive.
Cat
There are many, many pilots out there who earn their living flying in remote areas of the world where the only thing that keeps you alive is an ability to asses risk versus getting the job done with no one but yourself to communicate with.
The Saharah in Africa, the ITCZ and the enormous thunderstorms that can form in no time and the North Ataantic route over Greenland in unpressurized piston engine airplanes comes to mind.
That type of flying can not be reflected in entries in any log book.
There is a whole different world out there outside of Canada and there are very few support entities to fall back on so you are left with airmanship and experience to make your decisions on and stay alive.
Cat
The hardest thing about flying is knowing when to say no
After over a half a century of flying no one ever died because of my decision not to fly.
After over a half a century of flying no one ever died because of my decision not to fly.
NO... It said "Is lying on a résumé fraud…" I do not believe placing it on a resume is fraud; but as TC guy said in a legal doc like a logbook then yes; as to if I think it is right, hell no…. However if the poll said “is lying about hrs ok” then you would have got a different answer.Wasn't Me wrote:The vote says 5 pilots think it's OK to Lie about log book entries that's 5 to many
Well, being a guy that has actually issued several foreign licence validation certificates in the last week, and has received no revised instructions on this subject... I would say there has been little change.Hedley wrote:ummmmm ... does Transport care what ICAO thinks? It is my understanding that Transport has recently reneged as an ICAO signatory - it is no longer honouring licences and medicals issued by other ICAO signatories in Canadian airspace. I have been communicating with your bosses (Merlin Press, Louis Ranger) about this subject this week, but they are childishly avoiding me, which forces me to go to the new Minister of Transport and ICAO directly.TC Guy wrote:ICAO frowns on anarchy
You and I are in complete agreement here, my friend. The standard can only be set... oversight is the issue. How this is done is a point of issue with Transport and industry. If we work together, I hope we can come to some sort of agreement that we can live with. I will do what I can.Hedley wrote:Don't get me wrong, I think licences and ratings are great. Everyone should collect a complete set, like baseball cards. But don't EVER confuse the paper world with the oh-so-unforgiving real world. There are people out there with ATPs that are frankly dangerously incompetent in the cockpit (would you like some names?) and there are other people out there without valid pilot licences and medicals who are superb pilots.TC Guy wrote:Let me know what you think
Hedley-- you have a lot of issues with the regulator, but you also have some good things to say. Makes people think. Makes me think.
-Guy
I sure wish that were the case in Canada, my friend.Cat Driver wrote:" A flight instructors life is not confined to the circuit! "
Being a flight instructor and passing on knowledge and skills to others is the higest plateau that a pilot can aspire to.
Cat
Having done the job for 20 years -- a career -- I would state that they (we?) do not get the respect that they should.
For the record... I agree with you.
-Guy
-
polythene_pam
- Rank 1
- Posts: 44
- Joined: Tue Apr 04, 2006 8:27 pm
I don't think hedley meant to bash instructors.
Another example could have easily been to point out that the 10 000 hour 747 captain who kicks back and reads the paper for 14 hours a flight, then monitrs as the copilot lands, isn't really learning much. He may even be less 'skilled' than the 4000 hour copilot beside him. And he probably would even have trouble hand flying that ils approach in a ho with a xwind during a blizzard. Trust me, I've seen 'em on their recurrency ifr training. The rust really shows sometimes. "I haven't hand flown a hold in years" is a common thing they say.
Another example could have easily been to point out that the 10 000 hour 747 captain who kicks back and reads the paper for 14 hours a flight, then monitrs as the copilot lands, isn't really learning much. He may even be less 'skilled' than the 4000 hour copilot beside him. And he probably would even have trouble hand flying that ils approach in a ho with a xwind during a blizzard. Trust me, I've seen 'em on their recurrency ifr training. The rust really shows sometimes. "I haven't hand flown a hold in years" is a common thing they say.
-
The Old Fogducker
- Rank (9)
- Posts: 1784
- Joined: Tue Mar 23, 2004 5:13 pm
For those who think passing off a fake resume isn't fraud, I urge you to look at the dictionary definition and do some thinking.
fraud ( P ) Pronunciation Key (frôd)
n.
A deception deliberately practiced in order to secure unfair or unlawful gain.
A piece of trickery; a trick.
One that defrauds; a cheat.
One who assumes a false pose; an impostor.
............ Sounds like if you sent me a padded resume, I'd be highly justified in calling you a fraud.
Fog
fraud ( P ) Pronunciation Key (frôd)
n.
A deception deliberately practiced in order to secure unfair or unlawful gain.
A piece of trickery; a trick.
One that defrauds; a cheat.
One who assumes a false pose; an impostor.
............ Sounds like if you sent me a padded resume, I'd be highly justified in calling you a fraud.
Fog
The Old Fogducker wrote: ............ Sounds like if you sent me a padded resume, I'd be highly justified in calling you a fraud.
You have 990 hrs, you faxed/workopolised a res that says 1000 and AC calls and says, "interview next week," hop into a rental borrow a plane, and bang off 10 hours, no big deal...
Secondly, we also had this discussion in regards to "IFR(mistaken for IMC)"
So if you put 500 hours of IFR time on your resume, are you lying? Not my fault the hirerer thought I was talking about IMC(which I wasn't).....
IMC, also we have people who log every minute of IFR as IMC(actual), we have people here who profess that they don't bother clocking every second, and probably round up for the actuals, are we going to be calling them liars and "fraudsters?"
Furthermore, we have the lads in the north who fly night-"VFR"/ifr but they don't see sh8t, so should they be logging it as actual, TC doesn't think so.
Saying you have 2000 when you have 1000 is fraud, but when it comes down to the nitty gritty, we're all probably commiting "fraud" in someone's eyes.
Wasn't cat jokingly talking about bouncing on the runway 6 times or on the water for doing the currency requirements? Is that 6 "up and downs" counting as "take offs and landings?" I'm sure we have people out there that say "yes," and do practice it.
Doesn't pro-ifr(or some school over in BC) charge you 0.4 hobbs "run up" regardless of how much time you do spend on the ground? I'm sure the guys being charged the 0.4 LOG 0.4....
And to close, log books have "air" and "flight" we log from the "first movement" should we be logging from the first movement, or possibly changing the rules to reflect how much "air" we really do? Again, in another thread people(most) were joking about taxiing the float planes around on the lake for hours and using it as a boat, do we log that, in theory we can, should we be doing that?
PS. In the states I think its possible to have 3 or atleast 2 PIC's on a flight, you tell me the logic behind that, so when you come with your logbook to canada, do companies accept your PIC time even though you had the observer(safety pilot) and the instructor in the back, PF, PNF issue, right, but all of them were PIC according to the FAA, some TC inspectors won't recognize your log time for an upgrade unless in the remarks you made a point of commenting PF in the remarks, but companies and most importantly their insurers say and agree to the PIC time even though you know you might have only done 1/2 the PIC time...
Last edited by cyyz on Sat May 20, 2006 10:44 am, edited 1 time in total.
In the 40's, the Parker pen company had a model called the P-51. The expression rose from that, that pilots exercising literary prowess in their logbooks were said to have "a lot of P-51 time".
Today, you hear "the guy has al lot of Parker pen time" which is correct in a sense but bastardizes the original quote.
It also shows that the practice of inflating logbook times is an age old problem and it is one that will continue in to the forseeable future. We all know who those guys are as it shows in their daily flying.
For all those in the habit of doing so, Parker re-released the P-51 a few years ago. Just in case you want your ficticous time to be "the real thing"!!!
Today, you hear "the guy has al lot of Parker pen time" which is correct in a sense but bastardizes the original quote.
It also shows that the practice of inflating logbook times is an age old problem and it is one that will continue in to the forseeable future. We all know who those guys are as it shows in their daily flying.
For all those in the habit of doing so, Parker re-released the P-51 a few years ago. Just in case you want your ficticous time to be "the real thing"!!!
-
bob sacamano
- Rank (9)
- Posts: 1680
- Joined: Wed Jan 05, 2005 6:26 am
- Location: I'm not in Kansas anymore
cyyz wrote:You have 990 hrs, you faxed/workopolised a res that says 2000 and AC calls and says, "interview next week," hop into a rental borrow a plane, and bang off 10 hours, no big deal...
You're still screwed having 1000 less.
990
+10
------
1,000
When padding the book, make sure to use the ol'calculator.
-
Mitch Cronin
- Rank 8
- Posts: 914
- Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2004 9:15 am
- Location: Right beside my dog again...
CYYZ... Consider:
You're the honcho at ABC Air... Your insurance company insists on 1500 hrs minimum, so you've advertised 2000 as a requirement... You have two guys to interview, one put 2000 hrs on his resume... The other guy put 1,846 hrs... In the first guy's log book - the one who claimed 2000 hrs - you find 1,985 hrs... when you're looking at the other guy's book, you see him looking you straight in the eyes as you read the totals, 1,846 hrs...
I don't know about you, but in my mind, right away the guy who told it straight has the edge (pending other qualifications, obviously). If the other guy hasn't fessed up to the difference before I looked, and explained in such a way as to make him appear to be an honest guy (maybe something like: "Since I was so close, I was advised to put 2000 hrs. on my resume, even though I've only actually got 1985"), he's gone.
You're the honcho at ABC Air... Your insurance company insists on 1500 hrs minimum, so you've advertised 2000 as a requirement... You have two guys to interview, one put 2000 hrs on his resume... The other guy put 1,846 hrs... In the first guy's log book - the one who claimed 2000 hrs - you find 1,985 hrs... when you're looking at the other guy's book, you see him looking you straight in the eyes as you read the totals, 1,846 hrs...
I don't know about you, but in my mind, right away the guy who told it straight has the edge (pending other qualifications, obviously). If the other guy hasn't fessed up to the difference before I looked, and explained in such a way as to make him appear to be an honest guy (maybe something like: "Since I was so close, I was advised to put 2000 hrs. on my resume, even though I've only actually got 1985"), he's gone.
