Padding Logbook Results In One Year Licence Suspension

[The Old Fogducker]

I liked Mulroney, but the party didn't get enough time to undo the socialist BS put in place by decades of Liberal Party rule. Libs being who they are though, are just a reflection of the true colours of the Canadian populace (east of Winnipeg anyway) and have allowed the voters to give themselves all manner of unwarranted social programs.

Its Trudeau that should have been sent to prison. The only ethical thing he ever did was to send the troops into the streets of Montreal to nail the FLQ's ass to the wall. As someone who huddled behind a couch to protect myself from flying glass in my apartment during the bombings, I applaud him for that.

Otherwise, he should have rotted in solitary while writing his memoirs in crap on a roll of toilet paper.

The Old Fogducker

[_dwj_]

There must be more to the story since padding your logbook is not a violation. Now using that time to support a false application for a higher licence would be.

If he already has the licence, and he's padding for a job, how does anyone figure it's any or TC's business.

He was convicted under 7.3 (1)(C) of the Aeronautics Act, which states:

No person shall make or cause to be made any false entry in a record required under this Part to be kept with intent to mislead or willfully omit to make any entry in any such record

So they CAN get you for making false entries even if you are not applying for a license (that offence is covered separately, under 7.3 (1)(A) of the act), as long as they can prove you did it with intent to mislead. I'm guessing that if you have 600 false entries, it is pretty obvious you are doing that to mislead, unless somehow you just didn't know how to fill in your logbook correctly

[Hedley]

If he got caught when he was applying for his ATPL, he's dead meat.

false entry in a record required under this Part to be kept

However. If someone had their logbook seized AFTER
he had their ATPL, an expensive lawyer could have gotten
him off on the legal technicality that not every flight must
be logged by a pilot - just enough to prove recency,
currency, etc.

For example: if you have your ATPL, you're probably
not going to be applying for a higher licence anytime
soon. Let's say you own a single-seat aircraft that you
fly privately VFR. Legally, all you have to log is one flight
ever 5 years. Any other entries in your personal logbook
are not required and hence are exempt from the
above part of the Act.

This is a bit mind-bending - a Tribunal member, for example
would be completely incapable of comprehending the
above because of their total lack of legal education or
experience - but a competent, professional lawyer
or judge would understand the difference.

I'm not saying it's right - that's just what the law is.

[Shiny Side Up]

In that case though the person making the entries would be making less entries in their log book. There is no purpose to making less entries in your log book by way of deception. There is a purpose to making more. To use your example above, if the pilot made his entry every five years and didn't do the flight to artificially be current, then he's still be in the wrong.

Long story short, the technicality you quote would only be relevant to someone who had an inaccurate logbook with less entries than they have flown, in the case of the offender above, he has more entries than he's flown.

[Hedley]

Lawyers earn more than pilots, right?

[Four1oh]

Huh. And here I thought a pilot's logbook was a legal document, regardless of a pilot's state of career/licence level.

[Shiny Side Up]

Lawyers earn more than pilots, right?

So then reasonably the point is moot - no pilot who is in a state where they need to pad a log book can reasonably afford a lawyer high priced enough to defend himself.

[Hornblower]

... the technicality you quote would only be relevant to someone who had an inaccurate logbook with less entries than they have flown, in the case of the offender above, he has more entries than he's flown.

No, you’ve misread the section. That section refers to entries required to be made. There is no requirement to enter anything in your personal log other than that required to show “experience acquired in respect of the issuance of the …licence and recency” For example for a private you need to keep a record of the 45 hrs of various kinds of training for the float rating, the 7 hours, etc. Anything else you put in there is not required by law, therefore is not subject to the rule. So falsification of any other entry is not a violation. Entering whatever else you want is not an offence. He was perhaps charged with the wrong offence, and should not have been found guilty since if he didn’t yet have the licence that he was keeping records to acquire, he wouldn’t have been required to keep a record of the flight time. In my opinion it looks like he should have been charged with 7.3(1) (a). The guy probably didn’t request a tribunal review and just accepted the suspension like a good little Canadian. That being said, it wouldn’t be the first time the Tribunal agreed with the Minister’s decision in the face of clear evidence to the contrary … Right Hedley ??

And Hedley I never said you enjoyed defending yourself, I said it appeared you enjoyed telling others how you were wronged. Anyways, I was kinda joking, much like you were joking about the crack pipe … cheer up.

[Donald]

What about these three words:

intent to mislead

Would it not be argued that a person who applies for a job that has minimum experience requirements, then exhibits a falsified logbook to the employer, has intentionally mislead someone in respect to their flight experience?

Or is it only in respect to gaining a license?

[CD]

Did you notice the date of the infraction for the license padder? It was Dec 29, 2000. So either the investigation was quite slow, or it just proves that eventually something like this can catch up to you.

I think that there are limitations to when an enforcement action can be started -- I want to say that it's 12 months but can't recall where I saw that (edit: yup, it's 12 months, but there are exceptions 9.6 Limitation Period). So I would suggest that the length of time it took for this to be posted on the web might also indicate that the individual was trying to get it overturned through the TATC or some other process:

The information published on this site will be updated monthly and will remain posted for 6 months before being moved to archive pages of the Civil Aviation web site. Because of the various delays inherent with the enforcement and Transportation Appeal Tribunal of Canada processes, it is not abnormal to see the date of a published violation posted 12 to 18 months after the infraction.

Aviation Enforcement Publications

[Hornblower]

What about these three words:

intent to mislead

Would it not be argued that a person who applies for a job that has minimum experience requirements, then exhibits a falsified logbook to the employer, has intentionally mislead someone in respect to their flight experience?

Or is it only in respect to gaining a license?

It still only refers to records required to be kept. You need to read the section as a whole.

And CD, it appears that the limitation period does not apply to suspensions. And I believe that they would not publish the info until all is said and done, and the case is closed. In this case it could take up to a years to assess the suspension (or longer since the limitation doesn't apply) and then a full year of the suspension, then case closed and results published.

[Hedley]

There is a very legally important, but subtle point
that needs to be clarified: the word required
in the Act, with respect to record keeping.

If he's already got his ATPL, and enough entries in
his logbook to prove 5 yr recency (etc) then the
padded time is not required to be logged
and thus the Act does not apply to them.

For example, I could write an entry in my logbook
tonight as follows:

I do not like tomato sauce with my pasta

Would I be violating the Act? Well, since that
entry was NOT REQUIRED to be entered in my
personal logbook, I am NOT violating the Act,
because even though it's not correct and totally
misleading - I do in fact quite enjoy tomato sauce
with my pasta - it is NOT a legally required entry,
and thus the Act DOES NOT apply to it.

Another angle. You are NOT required to by law
in Canada to log each and every flight in your
personal logbook. Lots of older pilots don't
even keep a logbook, and they are NOT violating
any law.

Now, someone could argue that NOT logging
a flight would be a violation of the Act with
respect to the accuracy of your logbook - but
that's patently false, because you are NOT
REQUIRED to make the (unnecessary) entry.

Understand?

Again, a trained and experienced legal professional
might comprehend this - a Tribunal member certainly
could not. You would have much better luck in
Federal Court, where the law is actually considered.

P.S. The 12 month limitation ONLY applies to
a fine. There is NO statute of limitation with respect
to a licence suspension. I know of a case where a
commercial pilot had his licence suspended for a
total of FIVE YEARS for supposed contraventions
that had occurred long after the 12 month mark -
Transport argued that there was no financial
impact to a commercial pilot being without his
licence for FIVE YEARS

P.P.S. I betcha I could have gotten this guy
off in Federal Court. This is a slam dunk, with
a competent judge with a law degree.

Good lawyers get paid much, much more than
good pilots, because they understand - and
can argue - these sorts of things.

As OJ taught us all, you get the justice you
can afford. This guy couldn't afford a really
good lawyer - it would have cost at least a
quarter million dollars to push it through the
Tribunal Review, Tribunal Appeal, Federal
Court and Federal Court of Appeals - so he
gets the licence suspension.

Remember, Brian Mulroney and Jean Cretin
both ought to be in jail, but they aren't. Both
are lawyers. Hmmm.

[Hornblower]

Lots of older pilots don't
even keep a logbook, and they are NOT violating
any law.

Not really, since he still needs to log the 5 TOs and landings for recency. However since there is no time specified as to when this must be done, he could do it whenever asked to produce it, even after the request to produce it, ... totally unenforceable rule.

And I'm pretty sure you could have got the guy off who is the subject of this thread too.

[Hedley]

he still needs to log the 5 TOs and landings for recency

Only applies if you want to carry pax.

My previous example had a cranky old guy with an ATPL
that flew a single seater. He only needs to log one flight
every 5 years, and that's it.

Any other entries in his personal logbook are "not required"
and as such the Act does not apply to them. He could write
entires in his personal logbook like

Earth - Mars - Earth: C172 C-FCUK 58.2 days PIC 58 days x/c

and the Act would not apply, because even though those
entries are clearly ridiculously incorrect, they are NOT REQUIRED
to be made in his personal logbook.

[Hornblower]

agree

[CD]

Speaking of padding logbooks, I wonder what will happen in the US if Congress makes these changes:

Congress takes steps to improve airline safety

WASHINGTON (AP)— Congress is taking steps to toughen regulations on pilot training, qualifications and hours in response to accidents involving regional airlines, including a February crash in upstate New York that killed 50 people.

Lawmakers want to raise the minimum number of flight hours required to become an airline pilot from the current 250 to 1,500 and give air carriers greater access to the past training records of pilots they're considering hiring. Revising the rules governing how many hours pilots can be required to work before they're given rest also is being considered.

The bipartisan proposals are contained in a House bill introduced Wednesday by key members of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. The committee is expected to vote Thursday to send the bill to the full House for action.

"Our bill is a comprehensive effort to consolidate what we know industrywide about aviation safety to improve safety performance going forward," said Rep. Jerry Costello, D-Ill., chairman of the aviation subcommittee.

The impetus for the bill was Continental Connection Flight 3407, which crashed on Feb. 12 as it prepared to land at Buffalo-Niagara International Airport, killing all 49 aboard and one man in a house below.

Testimony at a National Transportation Safety Board hearing in May indicated the flight's captain and first officer made a series of critical errors leading up to the accident, possibly because they were fatigued or unwell. The flight was operated for Continental by Colgan Air Inc. of Manassas, Va.

Documents released by NTSB show the 24-year-old co-pilot earned less than $16,000 the previous year, which was her first year working for the regional air carrier. On the day of the crash she said she felt sick, but didn't want to pull out of the flight because she'd have to pay for a hotel room.

The flight's captain didn't have hands-on training on a key piece of safety equipment that played a critical role in the last seconds of the flight. He also had failed several tests of his piloting skills before coming to Colgan.

The last six U.S. airline crashes have all involved regional air carriers, and pilot performance was a factor in three of those cases.

Other provisions in the bill would:

_ Require airlines to take a new approach to scheduling pilots that has been long advocated by fatigue experts. Airlines would have to take into account that some kinds of flying — such as shorter flights with more frequent takeoffs and landings — are more tiring than other types of flying, and adjust schedules accordingly.

_ Direct the National Academy of Science to study how commuting by pilots contributes to fatigue and provide preliminary results after four months to the Federal Aviation Administration.

Rep. John Mica, R-Fla., a co-sponsor of the bill, said the bill contains provisions opposed by both labor unions and airlines, "who will probably raise some Cain over this."

The bill is H.R. 3371.

On the Net:
Congress: http://thomas.loc.gov

[2R]

"What an evil web we weave, when first we set to deceive" a quote from some old guy in red shoes

I bet he thinks his only crime was to get caught

You can watch a thief,but you cannot watch a liar.If this is proven not to be an honest mistake he should be forbidden from flying Passengers in any airplane.

[Spokes]

he still needs to log the 5 TOs and landings for recency

Only applies if you want to carry pax.

My previous example had a cranky old guy with an ATPL
that flew a single seater. He only needs to log one flight
every 5 years, and that's it.

Any other entries in his personal logbook are "not required"
and as such the Act does not apply to them. He could write
entires in his personal logbook like

Earth - Mars - Earth: C172 C-FCUK 58.2 days PIC 58 days x/c

and the Act would not apply, because even though those
entries are clearly ridiculously incorrect, they are NOT REQUIRED
to be made in his personal logbook.

I have a question on this line of thinking. What if your cranky old ATPL was employed as a commercial pilot someplace. Would he not have to show that he has not flown too much? Maybe company records are enough for this I suppose? I don't know.

[Doc]

Oh boy! Lots of interesting arguments, legal points, semantics and opinions here, but it doesnt change the fact that this is a dishonest person trying to decieve , I for one dont want him/her flying my grandkids or sitting next to me in the pointy end.I seem to get dinged for jury duty a lot of late, have heard lots of this stuff, none of which really makes much difference in the long run in most cases, other than increasing the income of the legal types making these legal points, when a drunk driver is up on his fith charge I for one dont care if he didnt have a happy home, get the prick of the road!The same goes for pilots with phony training records, get them out of the industry! Not everything in this world is black and white, but forgery is not a grey area.

Clunk, every pilot tries to "deceive". Take the job interview for example. Here is where the shit is really shoveled. I know of a pilot hired recently by a fairly well respected western Canadian company, who can't fly they're way out of a bag! Rather see my kids fly with somebody who took a little, shall we say, artistic licence with a Parker pen, than a pilot who deceived(or bought,using whatever "currency" would do the job) their way into a job, and can't fly.
If I ever get into shit.....I'm calling Hedley!

[Cat Driver]

Hmmm....dishonest and possibly incompetent....

If he can't work as a pilot he would fit perfect into TCCA in the Pacific Region.

Unless he is really dishonest then the top management probably would see him as competition.

[Lost Lake]

I think anyone who pads their log book, for what ever reason is a low life. The one operator I flew for made me underpad. Could have put an extra tenth on hundreds of legs over the years. Gee, maybe that's one of the reasons I have a decent job with a decent operator, honesty, now that's something different!

[Hedley]

Last night I made an entry in my logbook:

I do not like blonde women with large, firm breasts

which is a horrible fib.

I really really like blonde women with large, firm breasts. Heck,
I wouldn't turn down a brunette, or even a redhead.

We shall see if Enforcement action follows. I can only imagine
the conversations and testimony that will occur at the Tribunal!

The expert witnesses should be very interesting people. I
shall be interested to learn if my being bottle-fed is admissible
evidence or not.