Sad Realization

ppragman said:
Come fly medevac! It's the best thing ever.
Click to expand...
Where are you working?

Bandit_Driver said:
I think the FAA totally got he reg wrong.

it makes no sense that in theory

Fly Falcon 20 with pax or C402 with pax for a 1000 hours and that counts for the 121 world. But do the same thing with boxes in the back the time becomes absolutely useless for 121.
Click to expand...
They definitely got it wrong but there really isn't much that can be done about it at this point.
 
Finhunter89 said:
Allegiant is still an option if I decide to stay for the "required" 3 years and meet the other criteria.


I'm still looking at corporate, air ambulance, and other 135 flying. Corporate was the original plan.
Click to expand...

Having never worked at AMF I can't comment on much, but I have worked at Allegiant, and my advice is to look long and hard at why they want a "required" three years.
 
I recently interviewed at a large 121 regional airline. The CP said during my interview that he thinks that he had heard of AMF, but didn't know anything about us. Thought we flew Caravans in the Pacific Northwest. As far as references and credibility go, I don't think AMF helped at all. As far as actual flying ability, and ability to do well in the Sim part of the interview, I think my time at AMF helped a great deal.

(Not a troll post, this really happened).
 
The flight department from CP, DO and everyone below had no idea what AMF was when I came on. My last job had a bunch of AMF guys so they liked prior AMF experience. But looking back I think it's because they knew our working conditions were so horrible, that even a bottom feeding 135 jet charter job would be a step up.
 
PhilosopherPilot said:
Of course they got the reg wrong. It was an emotional response from a very small interest group that pushed something through Congress. Hours were not the problem with the Colgan crash, and they aren't the solution.
Click to expand...

I may be mistaken, but it looks like the legal interpretation that they came up with for 135.243(a)(1) is wrong too.

They seem to see it as
" Section 135.243(a)(1) operations are passenger carrying operations using a turbojet WITH a passenger-seat configuration of 10 seats or more, or using a multiengine airplane in a commuter operation for which the PIC must hold an ATP with appropriate category and class ratings and, if required, an appropriate type rating. "
instead of:
* part 135 passenger operations in a turbojet aircraft.

* part 135 passenger operations with a passenger seating configuration ( not capability ) of 10 or more seats... Example, beech 1900, Saab 340, etc. with more than 9 passenger seats installed.

* part 135 passenger operations using Multi engine airplanes in a commuter operation ( example, Cape Air using Cessna 402s ).

Am I just mistaken?
 
Beep said:
I may be mistaken, but it looks like the legal interpretation that they came up with for 135.243(a)(1) is wrong too.

They seem to see it as
" Section 135.243(a)(1) operations are passenger carrying operations using a turbojet WITH a passenger-seat configuration of 10 seats or more, or using a multiengine airplane in a commuter operation for which the PIC must hold an ATP with appropriate category and class ratings and, if required, an appropriate type rating. "
instead of:
* part 135 passenger operations in a turbojet aircraft.

* part 135 passenger operations with a passenger seating configuration ( not capability ) of 10 or more seats... Example, beech 1900, Saab 340, etc. with more than 9 passenger seats installed.

* part 135 passenger operations using Multi engine airplanes in a commuter operation ( example, Cape Air using Cessna 402s ).

Am I just mistaken?
Click to expand...
http://forums.jetcareers.com/threads/kelley-interpretation-letter-121-436.207571/
Idk if you have found this yet but here is the letter of interpretation.
 
Beep said:
Am I just mistaken?
Click to expand...

I don't think so. I read it that way, as well. That is, flying nonsched 135 in a turbojet is only going to work if you have 10 or more passenger seats physically in the aircraft while you're doing it.

I don't really understand what "commuter operation" is, though. Scheduled 135?
 
Boris Badenov said:
I don't think so. I read it that way, as well. That is, flying nonsched 135 in a turbojet is only going to work if you have 10 or more passenger seats physically in the aircraft while you're doing it.

I don't really understand what "commuter operation" is, though. Scheduled 135?
Click to expand...

It sure seems a bit vague, in my opinion. It looks like the scheduled 135 guys at some companies are covered if they're flying something like a 402, but if you're flying the caravan at that company... Nope.

:)
 
135.243(a)(1) hasn't really changed for a while though, I guess that's where my confusion on their legal interpretation comes from.
That's why I'm wondering if I just have an incorrect understanding of the regulation.

:)
 
We almost have to be misreading this. The 91(k) section explicitly includes all turbojet PIC time...so it wouldn't make much sense that they're excluding more restrictive and "air carriery" 135 time with fewer than 10 seats.

Of course, it's also the FAA...
 
Boris Badenov said:
We almost have to be misreading this. The 91(k) section explicitly includes all turbojet PIC time...so it wouldn't make much sense that they're excluding more restrictive and "air carriery" 135 time with fewer than 10 seats.

Of course, it's also the FAA...
Click to expand...

True that!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top