Beefy McGee
Well-Known Member
I thought Piedmont was getting 145s?
Same old song and dance...
- Thread starter Beep
- Start date
I thought Piedmont was getting 145s?
Beep
Well-Known Member
Thank you everyone, yes I really do want to move on to 121 flying. @Beefy McGee I have 135 turbine PIC but according to the interpretation letter that was being discussed on here a while back it won't work for 121 minimums because we don't have enough passenger seats installed in our airplane. It's probably just as well since I'll be new to airline flying.
Also, I apologize if I come across as someone who feels like they're too good to fly for a regional, that is not the case... It's just that it would require me to dip in to savings most months and the thought of that hurts.
Also, I apologize if I come across as someone who feels like they're too good to fly for a regional, that is not the case... It's just that it would require me to dip in to savings most months and the thought of that hurts.
Dan208B
Well-Known Member
Did everyone make it through training? Haven't heard from them.
Gonzo
Well-Known Member
All check rides are done, just Loft for two guys and the other three have a few more things to knock out. I never had any doubt that everyone was going to make it through. Smart guys, the FMC stuff was new but nothing they couldn't figure out.
scooter2525
Very well Member
@z987k Does this answer your question?View attachment 31587 So, I was just looking in to the FAA interpretation of 135.243(a)(1)and it looks like they have addressed the issue that many people raised.
It looks my PIC time will count toward the 121.436(a)(3) minimums.
Autothrust Blue
"Well, on the Brasilia..."
"ALTHOUGH IT DOES NOT CORRECT THE LEGAL INTERPRETATION"View attachment 31587 So, I was just looking in to the FAA interpretation of 135.243(a)(1)and it looks like they have addressed the issue that many people raised.
It looks my PIC time will count toward the 121.436(a)(3) minimums.
(I've been awake for quite some time, but have I missed something?)
inigo88
Composite-lover
Haha man this is funny. Thanks to whoever that original guy was who asked the question.
Beep
Well-Known Member
Content from the original interpretation letter, April, 2014
" Experience as PIC on flights conducted under § 135.243(a)(l) is the only part 135 experience that may be credited towards the 1,000-hour experience requirement in § 121.436(a)(3). One of the defining characteristics of § 135.243(a)(l) operations, is that these operations are passenger-carrying operations and require an ATP certificate. 2 The operations you have described are all-cargo operations and only require a commercial pilot certificate thus § 135.243(a)(l) would not apply.
As the agency recently stated in the final rule on Pilot Certification and Qualification Requirements for Air Carrier Operations, operations under § 135.243(a)(l) require an ATP certificate, are multicrew operations and generally use turbine aircraft and therefore are the
most applicable to part 121 operations. See 78 Fed. Reg. 42324, 42357 (July 15,2013). The agency determined that while other part 91 and part 135 operations may involve certain elements that are related to part 121 operations, the varied nature of operations does not make credit toward the air carrier operations experience requirement appropriate. "
@Autothrust Blue
I didn't go to law school, so this is just my belief of what is meant by " doesn't change the legal opinion ", but in the original letter two individual circumstances that would require a PIC under Part 135 to have an ATP were incorrectly lumped together ( 1. turbojet airplane, 2. airplane having a passenger seating capacity excluding pilot seats of ten or more ) so they are addressing that.
The legal opinion that the only part 135 PIC time that is accrued as per 135.243(a)(1) is applicable toward 121.436(a)(3) does not change.
" Experience as PIC on flights conducted under § 135.243(a)(l) is the only part 135 experience that may be credited towards the 1,000-hour experience requirement in § 121.436(a)(3). One of the defining characteristics of § 135.243(a)(l) operations, is that these operations are passenger-carrying operations and require an ATP certificate. 2 The operations you have described are all-cargo operations and only require a commercial pilot certificate thus § 135.243(a)(l) would not apply.
As the agency recently stated in the final rule on Pilot Certification and Qualification Requirements for Air Carrier Operations, operations under § 135.243(a)(l) require an ATP certificate, are multicrew operations and generally use turbine aircraft and therefore are the
most applicable to part 121 operations. See 78 Fed. Reg. 42324, 42357 (July 15,2013). The agency determined that while other part 91 and part 135 operations may involve certain elements that are related to part 121 operations, the varied nature of operations does not make credit toward the air carrier operations experience requirement appropriate. "
@Autothrust Blue
I didn't go to law school, so this is just my belief of what is meant by " doesn't change the legal opinion ", but in the original letter two individual circumstances that would require a PIC under Part 135 to have an ATP were incorrectly lumped together ( 1. turbojet airplane, 2. airplane having a passenger seating capacity excluding pilot seats of ten or more ) so they are addressing that.
The legal opinion that the only part 135 PIC time that is accrued as per 135.243(a)(1) is applicable toward 121.436(a)(3) does not change.
Soku39
Well-Known Member
There is no way in hell a two leg commute to any Piedmont base out of Dallas would ever be worth it. Mesa would be worth checking out if just checking the 121 box, have money in the bank to live off of, and not overly worried about upgrade times.
wheelsup
Well-Known Member
Depends, will they keep their outstation basing with their jets? I thought they were getting 170's, I guess it's just 145's but still. It's a gamble, for sure.
mastermags
Well-Known Member *giggity*
Have you considered Compass with an LAX base?
xdashdriver
Well-Known Member
You would get DFW straight out of training at Mesa. 80% of our AA flying will be out of DFW by the end of the year. We are taking delivery of 900s through the end of the year, so we're not done with expansion just yet. Turnover should start to pick up over the next few months (in fact I think it has already started to creep up based on how my number has jumped the last couple of months) and we are well positioned for additional growth, so you wouldn't necessarily be at the tail end of the seniority list for very long. Having said all that, things could change in an instant both on the positive or negative side, but that's regional airline life for you.
z987k
Well-Known Member
They answered it long ago. The mistake they are correcting now has little consequence to me, but I guess it's not quite as ridiculous.
I have to be missing something.Haha man this is funny. Thanks to whoever that original guy was who asked the question.
Soku39
Well-Known Member
Not a clue, whoever heads up the USX carriers seems to enjoy keeping secrets. Honestly I wouldn't wish a commute out of dfw on an enemy in general, Piedmont or not.
Beep
Well-Known Member
@raysalmon
Yes, a crystal ball would be nice! I just read the string a little while ago that another 170 operator put their hand up and asked for a break, so maybe there is a chance for some of those to come over.
@mastermags
I have considered them, they seem to be growing pretty well too!
Yes, a crystal ball would be nice! I just read the string a little while ago that another 170 operator put their hand up and asked for a break, so maybe there is a chance for some of those to come over.
@mastermags
I have considered them, they seem to be growing pretty well too!
Eagle421flyer
Well-Known Member
I heard about that, that stinks.
Similar threads
