Great Lakes' Part 135 plan
#61
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2013
Position: Pitot heat, what's to eat?
Posts: 392
Assuming they get this 135 operation running, the only path forward for someone who doesn't have ATP minimums would be to be a 135 SIC until getting the hours, then getting their ATP and flying as a 121 SIC for another 1000 hours. I don't think GL is going to be able to hold onto pilots that long in this environment, not unless they pay a lot more. Furthermore, getting the ATP is going to become more expensive due to the ACQ ATP program.
Last edited by ackattacker; 07-12-2013 at 10:32 AM. Reason: clarity
#62
On Reserve
Joined APC: May 2012
Posts: 12
Assuming they get this 135 operation running, the only path forward for someone who doesn't have ATP minimums would be to be a 135 SIC until getting the hours, then getting their ATP and flying as a 121 SIC for another 1000 hours. I don't think GL is going to be able to hold onto pilots that long in this environment, not unless they pay a lot more.
#64
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Oct 2012
Position: Just because the MEL says we can, doesn't mean we should
Posts: 324
#65
Banned
Joined APC: Dec 2007
Position: EMB 145 CPT
Posts: 2,934
I could go on but I'm just to tired to flight it anymore
Everyone who simply looks at the hour aspect as the fix is so narrow-minded in their thinking.
But WRT circumventing rules, it won't be the first time: GLA already operates part 121 using less-restrictive part-135 rest rules. The Colgan incident was also a catalyst to improve things fatigue-wise, yet GLA already has an 'out'.
I don't think any of this is right, but it is the way it is.
I don't think any of this is right, but it is the way it is.
Assuming they get this 135 operation running, the only path forward for someone who doesn't have ATP minimums would be to be a 135 SIC until getting the hours, then getting their ATP and flying as a 121 SIC for another 1000 hours. I don't think GL is going to be able to hold onto pilots that long in this environment, not unless they pay a lot more. Furthermore, getting the ATP is going to become more expensive due to the ACQ ATP program.
Last edited by Nevets; 07-13-2013 at 10:46 AM.
#66
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2013
Position: Pitot heat, what's to eat?
Posts: 392
From the new 121.436:
(3) If serving as pilot in command, 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 subparagraph is not required.
#67
Banned
Joined APC: Dec 2007
Position: EMB 145 CPT
Posts: 2,934
From the new 121.436:
(3) If serving as pilot in command, 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 subparagraph is not required.
So theoretically, if you meet the requirements to get an RATP at 1000 hours, then you can get hired at GLA with as little as 190 hours (141 commercial minimums), get to 1000 hours as FO, get your RATP, go to the 121 side as on FO for another 1000 hours (2000 total time), and then upgrade. Did I miss any shorter path other than street captains who already meet the 1000 hour requirement?
#69
If they are allowed to do this it would, to a degree, defeat the spirit of the new rules and circumvent the possible increase in safety.
I hope they don't get away with it, but I suspect they will because the FAA can't discriminate against GLA while allowing all those operators up in Alaska to keep providing their vital services under the same provisions.
I hope they don't get away with it, but I suspect they will because the FAA can't discriminate against GLA while allowing all those operators up in Alaska to keep providing their vital services under the same provisions.
#70
What's old is new again. GLA operated 135 back in the 90s before the FAA forced them to go 121. Except I don't remember the 1900s limited to 9 people. Regardless, I don't see the FAA approving this scheme any time soon, but I give them points for creativity, lol.
Maybe they should being the Beech 99s back? I think a few are still sitting around in SPW.
Maybe they should being the Beech 99s back? I think a few are still sitting around in SPW.
Sounds like a brilliant plan actually, GLA will be the place to build time to get the hours for the new ATP for SIC's!
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post