Kelley Interpretation Letter - 121.436

CoffeeIcePapers

Well-Hung Member
This seems like this regulation wasn't very well thought out.

http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org...2014/Kelley - (2014) Legal Interpretation.pdf

1. So a guy with 1000 PIC under Part 121 cannot be hired as a PIC after July 31st if he doesn't have 1000 SIC under 121? How does this make any sense at all?

2. A guy flying a 1900 for a cargo operator is disqualified, but a guy who flew under the old Great Lakes is good to go?

Do you guys see these being changed any time soon?
 
This seems like this regulation wasn't very well thought out.

http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/agc/pol_adjudication/agc200/Interpretations/data/interps/2014/Kelley - (2014) Legal Interpretation.pdf

1. So a guy with 1000 PIC under Part 121 cannot be hired as a PIC after July 31st if he doesn't have 1000 SIC under 121? How does this make any sense at all?

2. A guy flying a 1900 for a cargo operator is disqualified, but a guy who flew under the old Great Lakes is good to go?

Do you guys see these being changed any time soon?
That'y my letter. I wrote it because, yes it seemed quite absurd.
 
2. A guy flying a 1900 for a cargo operator is disqualified, but a guy who flew under the old Great Lakes is good to go?
Well, as always, the guys with boxes in the back are less qualified and important.

You fly the Metro/1900 single pilot, no autopilot, in the weather, at night? Ohhhhh wellllllz - no airlines for you!

Your 747 has ULDs in the back instead of sweaty travelers? No worries, you don't need as much rest as the guys with self loading cargo.
 
This rule is crazy. At my previous airline, we flew ATRs for FedEx and Hawaiian. We had an FO on the Hawaiian side that had a whole bunch of Shorts 330/360 PIC time (all cargo) and wanted to upgrade to captain. The FAA looked at it and said "no, because the time is not carrying passengers." So he reapplied for an exemption saying he would instead upgrade to the FedEx side carrying only boxes (but still part 121). They said "we already said no, this is no different." It's not???
 
I have applied for an exemption from this regulation because I have 1200 hours of PIC 121 passenger carrying time they will not currently allow. We'll have to see what they say.
 
I have applied for an exemption from this regulation because I have 1200 hours of PIC 121 passenger carrying time they will not currently allow. We'll have to see what they say.
Please let us know. This is one of the more absurd rules that anyone who has ever flown different airplanes around would never have been able to come up with.
 
My guess is that this is to prevent Cape Air PIC's from jumping into the left seat of a CRJ or ERJ as a street captain. If that's the case, then I agree with the FAA on this.
 
My guess is that this is to prevent Cape Air PIC's from jumping into the left seat of a CRJ or ERJ as a street captain. If that's the case, then I agree with the FAA on this.
It's considerably more wide sweeping than that though.
 
It's considerably more wide sweeping than that though.

How so? How many guys came into a job as a Part 121 captain with no PIC time, and are now going to transition to a part 121 job as a captain again?

The great majority of part 121 jobs are in jets, and not small ones at that. The purpose of this rule is to prevent inexperience from showing up in the left seat, and it will do exactly that.

It doesn't matter if this hurts our feelings, or if we feel our professionlaism has been insulted. The purpose of the FAA as a regulatory body isn't to make our lives miserable, it's to protect the public from US.
 
Please let us know. This is one of the more absurd rules that anyone who has ever flown different airplanes around would never have been able to come up with.

Looks like they just published it in the register and opened it for public comment. If you go to regulations.gov and search for FAA 2014-0658 you will be able to see my petition and comments there. Of course, you're welcome to post your own comments, for and against, especially if I left anything out that you think is relevant :)
 
How so? How many guys came into a job as a Part 121 captain with no PIC time, and are now going to transition to a part 121 job as a captain again?

The great majority of part 121 jobs are in jets, and not small ones at that. The purpose of this rule is to prevent inexperience from showing up in the left seat, and it will do exactly that.

It doesn't matter if this hurts our feelings, or if we feel our professionlaism has been insulted. The purpose of the FAA as a regulatory body isn't to make our lives miserable, it's to protect the public from US.
That's the same shortsightedness that lead to this rule. There are a LOT of 121 ops in props still. Remember 135 can't haul more than 8500 lbs or 9 pax.
A 1900 is a great example. Emb120, atr, dash8, shorts 360, dash6, L382, dc6, dornier, jetstream just to name a few. Some of those fly under both certificates. And the leap from an emb120 in cargo is not much to a shorts or twotter. Pax vs boxes are flown the same, so that shouldn't matter.
If they wanted to keep inexperience out of jets they need to write it that way.
It also excludes the 121 capt with 10000000 hours PIC in a 74 but not enough sic should he have been furloughed on the magic day.
That's literally keeping experience out of the cockpit.
 
My guess is that this is to prevent Cape Air PIC's from jumping into the left seat of a CRJ or ERJ as a street captain. If that's the case, then I agree with the FAA on this.

Actually, time at Cape Air counts. That time is "scheduled, multi-engine, commuter operations." In theory, guys from Cape Air could go directly from the left seat of a 402 to the left seat of a CRJ. Whereas I, who am single pilot typed in the 1900 could not be a direct entry captain at Great Lakes in the 1900, even though I've flown as a crew in the airplane and have about 1000hrs in type. Not the most logical ruling, I would have much preferred better CRM training at all levels (instead of the nonsense "check the box" stuff in 135) and something like "1000hrs PIC in a similar type of aircraft" or something of that nature - I don't really see a problem with 1900 guys going to fly Brasilias and vice versa, but I don't really think this rule was implemented very well.
 
Actually, time at Cape Air counts. That time is "scheduled, multi-engine, commuter operations." In theory, guys from Cape Air could go directly from the left seat of a 402 to the left seat of a CRJ. Whereas I, who am single pilot typed in the 1900 could not be a direct entry captain at Great Lakes in the 1900, even though I've flown as a crew in the airplane and have about 1000hrs in type. Not the most logical ruling, I would have much preferred better CRM training at all levels (instead of the nonsense "check the box" stuff in 135) and something like "1000hrs PIC in a similar type of aircraft" or something of that nature - I don't really see a problem with 1900 guys going to fly Brasilias and vice versa, but I don't really think this rule was implemented very well.
Again, I think the 402s are 135.
 
Again, I think the 402s are 135.

It doesn't matter, because:

121.436
(3) If serving as pilot in command in part 121 operations, has 1,000 hours as second in command in operations under this part, pilot in command in operations under §91.1053(a)(2)(i) of this chapter, pilot in command in operations under §135.243(a)(1) of this chapter, or any combination thereof. For those pilots who are employed as pilot in command in part 121 operations on July 31, 2013, compliance with the requirements of this paragraph (a)(3) is not required.

here's 135.243

(a) No certificate holder may use a person, nor may any person serve, as pilot in command in passenger-carrying operations—
119 of this chapter, unless that person holds an airline transport pilot certificate with appropriate category and class ratings and, if required, an appropriate type rating for that airplane.

(1)Of a turbojet airplane, of an airplane having a passenger-seat configuration, excluding each crewmember seat, of 10 seats or more, or of a multiengine airplane in a commuter operation as defined in part 119 of this chapter, unless that person holds an airline transport pilot certificate with appropriate category and class ratings and, if required, an appropriate type rating for that airplane.

so... yeah

and Cape Air is a 135 Scheduled Commuter Operation
 
Here's a good example Key Lime (regardless of what you think of them), is running into. I guess you could argue if you raised the pay enough, someone qualified would do it. But lets be honest. The guy flying the metro every day is going to fly the metro better than the guy flying the CRJ.

Also of interest is the Gulf Caribbean Cargo(IFL Group), which is written by the same counsel as the Durden interpretation was sent to. Defies understanding and lacks any rational basis is about right.

We can probably go on all day on how this reg is so much more broad sweeping and absurd than just keeping a C210 captain out of the left seat of a CRJ, and I really do believe it is at least as successful in keeping vastly more qualified crews out of the cockpit if we step outside the 121 regional box.
 

Attachments

  • Key_Lime_Air_-_Exemption_Rulemaking.pdf
    406.5 KB · Views: 782
  • Gulf_Caribbean_Cargo,_Inc_-_Exemption_Rulemaking.pdf
    204.7 KB · Views: 522
Last edited:
My understanding of 135.243 (a) (1) is that it applies to Turbojet airplanes OR airplanes with 10 or more pax seats OR a multiengine 119 commuter airplane.

The LOI above talks about turbojet airplanes with 10 pax seats OR multiengine commuters.
 
My understanding of 135.243 (a) (1) is that it applies to Turbojet airplanes OR airplanes with 10 or more pax seats OR a multiengine 119 commuter airplane.

The LOI above talks about turbojet airplanes with 10 pax seats OR multiengine commuters.
No, any airplane under 135 with 10 or more pax seats, 119 commuters and/or turbojets under 135/91k.
 
No, any airplane under 135 with 10 or more pax seats, 119 commuters and/or turbojets under 135/91k.

I'm sorry, maybe I wasn't clear. Would an 8 pax seat bizjet operated under 135 qualify?

My interpretation was that it would, reading their letter to you suggests that it would not.
 
Back
Top