Connect and get the inside scoop on Airline Companies

Welcome to Airline Pilot Forums - Connect and get the inside scoop on Airline Companies

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ. Join our community today and start interacting with existing members. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free.


User Tag List

Post Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 09-16-2015, 08:44 AM   #1  
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
 
Joined APC: Aug 2015
Posts: 216
Default 1000 hr requirement for 121.436

Hello according to the requirements to serve as PIC under the 121.436, (a), 3.
It is stated to have 1000 hrs as sic under 121, however there are other options that I could use towards the requirements.

One of them is the pilot in command under 91.1053 (a).(2).(1). As an option towards the 1000 requirement, which refers to crew member experience in general.

Since I have that experience with 737, 145 and 190 aircrafts at foreign FAA certified operators.
Just trying to get a clear answer about this, just to confirm since I'm getting into a regional with the option to upgrade soon.

Thanks for your advise
AMC190 is offline  
Old 09-16-2015, 10:23 AM   #2  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Oct 2013
Posts: 972
Default

91.1053 is part of the fractional program rules, so unless your time was gained in a 91K program, it will not count.
Xdashdriver is online now  
Old 09-16-2015, 12:01 PM   #3  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Apr 2005
Posts: 1,083
Default

It specifically states that your pic times if operated under these parts apply, so I think you're good. A call to an FSDO may help you clarify this.
Rama is offline  
Old 09-16-2015, 01:01 PM   #4  
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
 
Joined APC: Aug 2015
Posts: 216
Default

Yeah thanks, according to the 91 rules it states flying as pilot in command for a turbojet aircraft in general, it does not specify carrier or operator, it refers to general terms.

Do you recommend me to check with any fsdo or any location in particular?

Thanks
AMC190 is offline  
Old 09-16-2015, 03:29 PM   #5  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Apr 2005
Posts: 1,083
Default

If you are not near an FSDO, I would recommend the one where your company is based/headquartered.
Rama is offline  
Old 09-16-2015, 06:50 PM   #6  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Oct 2013
Posts: 972
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by AMC190 View Post
Yeah thanks, according to the 91 rules it states flying as pilot in command for a turbojet aircraft in general, it does not specify carrier or operator, it refers to general terms.

Do you recommend me to check with any fsdo or any location in particular?

Thanks

I guess some more explanation is needed. 91.1053 is a section of Subpart K of Part 91. If you read 91.1001 - Applicability, it says that Subpart K governs fractional ownership programs. As a result, 91.1053 applies specifically to fractional ownership programs, not generally as you suggest. 121.436 says "as pilot in command in operations under 91.1053...".

In several letters of interpretation, the FAA has interpreted this regulation VERY strictly and has denied multiple petitions for exemptions from companies and individuals seeking relief.

I would NOT recommend seeking information from a FSDO. Contrary to popular opinion, general aviation inspectors are not well-versed in Part 121 regulations, and their advice carries no legal weight at all. I would google "121.436 letter of interpretation" and read up on what the FAA legal department has said. That will provide you with much more accurate information.
Xdashdriver is online now  
Old 09-16-2015, 08:48 PM   #7  
Lineholder
 
Joined APC: Mar 2013
Position: Death by Powerpoint
Posts: 320
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Xdashdriver View Post

I would NOT recommend seeking information from a FSDO. Contrary to popular opinion, general aviation inspectors are not well-versed in Part 121 regulations, and their advice carries no legal weight at all.
for inspectors that should be more versed in 121 regs, try to contact a Certificate Management Office (should be one in ATL, ORD, DFW etc.) or the ORD FSDO (not the DPA FSDO). ORD and DPA serve the same area, but ORD is strictly 121 ops.

Last edited by web500sjc; 09-16-2015 at 08:49 PM. Reason: CMO is abbreviation for Certificate Management Office
web500sjc is offline  
Old 09-17-2015, 12:49 PM   #8  
Disinterested Third Party
 
Joined APC: Jun 2012
Posts: 3,620
Default

The FSDO level is not authorized to interpret regulation, and no answer you get at that level will be defensible, even if you receive it in writing. In other words, what you get is purely opinion, and at no time will you ever be able to fall back on that answer.

14 CFR 121.436(a)(3) states that a PIC under Part 121 must have 1000 hours as SIC either: under 121, 135, or 91K. Note that the specific 135 requirement is experience in turbojet multi engine (or multi engine in commuter operations) aircraft of 10 seats or more--in which the PIC must hold an ATP. Likewise, the 91K requirement is specifically multi-engine fixed wing airplane or powered lift operations in which the PIC must hold an ATP. In other words, not just any charter or fractional experience will do. The intent is that it's the equivalent level of responsibility and duty that a Part 121 operation would require.

If you operated for a foreign airline, it wasn't under Title 14 of the United States Code of Federal Regulations, and therefore, not a 91K, 121, or 135 operation.

Time spent as pilot in command or second in command in foreign operations does not apply to the 1000 hr. SIC requirement of 14 CFR 121.436(a)(3).

Note that 121.436(a)(3) doesn't apply if you've served as PIC under Part 121 prior to July 31, 2013.

If your experience wasn't working for a US carrier under 91K, 121, or 135, you may count 500 hours of military experience as PIC in a multi engine turbine aircraft (that requires more than one pilot) toward the 1000 hours required by 121.436(a)(3).

The following FAA Chief Legal Counsel Letters of Interpretation will help clarify the answer to your question and give additional insight. These are defensible and are a reliable source regarding the Administrator's position on your question:

http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/...rpretation.pdf

http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/...rpretation.pdf

http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/...rpretation.pdf

The final letter of interpretation above serves to clarify the specific Part 135 reference requirements of the earlier Kelly letter.

Last edited by JohnBurke; 09-17-2015 at 01:08 PM.
JohnBurke is offline  
Old 09-18-2015, 06:16 AM   #9  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Oct 2013
Posts: 972
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnBurke View Post

Note that 121.436(a)(3) doesn't apply if you've served as PIC under Part 121 prior to July 31, 2013.
Great, informative post. Unfortunately the regulation does not have the above common-sense provision in the language. The language in 121.436(a)(3) says it doesn't apply if you were serving as PIC under Part 121 ON July 31, 2013. As a result, prior PIC time is null and void unless you were a PIC ON that date. That was one of the main points of the Kelley interpretation you referenced.
Xdashdriver is online now  
Old 09-18-2015, 09:00 PM   #10  
Disinterested Third Party
 
Joined APC: Jun 2012
Posts: 3,620
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Xdashdriver View Post
Great, informative post. Unfortunately the regulation does not have the above common-sense provision in the language. The language in 121.436(a)(3) says it doesn't apply if you were serving as PIC under Part 121 ON July 31, 2013. As a result, prior PIC time is null and void unless you were a PIC ON that date. That was one of the main points of the Kelley interpretation you referenced.
Hence the purpose of turning to the correct source for gaining an authoritative and defensible interpretation of the regulations. The FAA Chief and Regional Legal Counsels are the only sources authorized by the Administrator to interpret the regulation; an interpretation of the regulation at the FSDO level is not authorized and any opinion received at that level cannot reliably be supported or relied upon.
JohnBurke is offline  
 
 
 

 
Post Reply
 



Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes


Related Topics
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
PIC Requirement for the ATP soon2bfo Regional 24 05-24-2007 11:50 AM
Crj 1000 bintynogin Regional 41 03-26-2007 03:12 PM
Seneca II job in Denver need 1000 hrs multi??? 1013dot25hPa Hiring News 5 04-27-2006 03:09 PM
Air Canada question/how do I get a 1000 hrs? aircanada_addict Flight Schools and Training 5 04-09-2006 12:44 PM
Cheapest Way to 1000 hours? AirWillie Flight Schools and Training 4 01-20-2006 07:45 PM


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 05:13 AM.