bigtime209

You're understanding is incorrect. It hasn't been voted on yet. But I'd be shocked if it doesn't pass.

AZPilotMike

I stand corrected, voting goes until February 28th. I would think it is pretty much a done deal though, 43% pay raise across the board would be hard to turn down.

Fr8Thrust

135.243(a)(1): “...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...”

121.436(a)(3): “...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...”

40 CFR 87.1: “Turbofan engine means a gas turbine engine designed to create its propulsion from exhaust gases and from air that bypasses the combustion process and is accelerated in a ducted space between the inner (core) engine case and the outer engine fan casing.

Turbojet engine means a gas turbine engine that is designed to create all of its propulsion from exhaust gases

Turboprop engine...
Turboshaft engine...”

Hope that helps. Yes, the rules permit a 121 turboprop SIC to advance faster than almost all 135 PICs. Thank you Congress!

inky13

By your logic, an aircraft would have to meet all of the elements in 135.243(a)(1). I disagree with your interpretation. Your quote left out two very important, albeit short, words at the beginning of 135.243(a)(1), "of a":

Looking at the above now, you'll find that the rule separates out 3 conditions of a type/configuration of aircraft. The "or" is what really clues us in that this is a list of conditions. Moreover, because it is "or" and not an "and", a minimum of one of the conditions must be true for it to count. The "of 10 seats or more" is simply part of the second condition. The "excluding each crewmember seat" is what may be leading to the confusion since it is comma'd out, but that is just setting a condition on what "configuration" means. If you were to ignore it, the paragraph is easier to understand.

Your quote of the turbojet definition comes from 40 CFR, which is the title of CFR's where EPA regulations live. EPA needs to define turbojet from turbofan because the vast difference in their emissions. Many regs say something like "in this chapter", which is the FAA's chapter in 14 CFR. While it is not specifically addressed, I can't imagine that the FAA would restrict pilots in 135 operations because their aircraft has turbofan engines instead of turbojet engines.

So overall, and as an example, a Captain flying the 421 with Cape Air would be able to credit such time towards 121.436(a)(3) because it is a multiengine airplane in a commuter operation as defined in part 119.

Fr8Thrust

My mistake, you are absolutely right—there’s 3 conditions (turbojet, >9 pax, commuter). Thank you.

I couldn’t find another definition in the regs for turbojet in 14 CFR, hense my reference to Title 40.

I want to see the same intent, or spirit-of-the-regulation, because I agree with that statement (turbojet is turbofan), but I couldn’t find any supporting documents.

Fr8Thrust

Inky, as I said before I do agree with you. However, the FAA’s Office of Council published this letter (below), in which they grouped turbojet and 10 or more together. Can someone please phone a lawyer?

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

Mustang62

True, but whoever wrote the legal opinion misinterpreted the regulation. Consequently, the FAA issued the following clarification:

https://forums.jetcareers.com/attach...age-jpg.31590/

inky13

Good find!

Now we just need one for the turbojet vs turbofan debacle.

SHVpilot

In other FARs it’s been interpreted that a Turbofan = a turbojet. The requirements for a type rating specify that a turbojet powered aircraft requires one. Small turbofan powered aircraft require a type Rating, for Example, Citation Mustang, CJ series, Hondajet, etc. If they weren’t considered the same for legal purposes, none of those aircraft would require a type Rating.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

TheRaven

4200 TT is virtually a non-starter for Majors......just not enough total time. The competition is RJ Captains with 10000+ hrs TT flying 121, and current Military trained pilots. Not saying it doesn’t happen for people at 4200 TT, but there is generally something else (recommendations, former interns, neighbors with Chief Pilot, etc).