Go Back  Airline Pilot Central Forums > Airline Pilot Forums > Regional > Other
Great Lakes' Part 135 plan >

Great Lakes' Part 135 plan

Search
Notices
Other Regional Airlines

Great Lakes' Part 135 plan

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 07-12-2013, 10:21 AM
  #61  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Jan 2013
Position: Pitot heat, what's to eat?
Posts: 392
Default

Originally Posted by M20EPilot View Post
I thought the changes to the ATP rule specifically allowed part 135 (and 91K fractional) SIC time to count towards the 1000 in air carrier ops required to act as PIC?
Nope. Only 121 SIC time and certain 135 PIC and 91 PIC where an ATP is required. Basically you need to have 1000 hours in operations that require an ATP before you can be a Part 121 PIC. Realistically, that means that any Part 121 Captain has to have at least 2500 hours (or slightly less if they have an aviation degree or military service). They need to get an ATP first, then fly 1000 hours in operations which require an ATP, and then they can be a part 121 Captain.

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
ackattacker is offline  
Old 07-12-2013, 11:11 AM
  #62  
On Reserve
 
Joined APC: May 2012
Posts: 12
Default

Originally Posted by ackattacker View Post
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.
Thus the proposed $17,000, 3 year, non-prorated training contract.... indentured servitude apparently is alive and well.
roogs25 is offline  
Old 07-12-2013, 11:42 AM
  #63  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Sep 2012
Position: FO
Posts: 268
Default

I bailed ASAP and never looked back best decision of my life. Loved all the pilots that worked there and that's it.
Hurryage65 is offline  
Old 07-12-2013, 12:09 PM
  #64  
Gets Weekends Off
 
680crewchief's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Oct 2012
Position: Just because the MEL says we can, doesn't mean we should
Posts: 324
Default

Originally Posted by Hurryage65 View Post
I bailed ASAP and never looked back best decision of my life. Loved all the pilots that worked there and that's it.
Thanks for coming to work today!
680crewchief is offline  
Old 07-13-2013, 10:26 AM
  #65  
Banned
 
Joined APC: Dec 2007
Position: EMB 145 CPT
Posts: 2,934
Default

Originally Posted by NCR757dxr View Post
Originally Posted by TBucket View Post
yeah, I see keeping 250 hour wonders out of airliner cockpits as a good thing.
It is b/c they think reaching "some" number is going to make you safer. But then they reduce the hours by 500 if you go to a joke of a 141 school anyway. They didn't go after the real issue; instead they came up with these arbitrary numbers to make the general public feel better.

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.
So you are an advocate for getting rid of the hour requirement for every single certificate and rating? We don't need 1500 hours for captains then. If they are competent at 1000 hours, then fine, right?

Originally Posted by M20EPilot View Post
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.
GLA is not the only 121 airline which operates under 135 rest rules and flight time limitations!

Originally Posted by ackattacker View Post
Originally Posted by M20EPilot View Post
I thought the changes to the ATP rule specifically allowed part 135 (and 91K fractional) SIC time to count towards the 1000 in air carrier ops required to act as PIC?
Nope. Only 121 SIC time and certain 135 PIC and 91 PIC where an ATP is required. Basically you need to have 1000 hours in operations that require an ATP before you can be a Part 121 PIC. Realistically, that means that any Part 121 Captain has to have at least 2500 hours (or slightly less if they have an aviation degree or military service). They need to get an ATP first, then fly 1000 hours in operations which require an ATP, and then they can be a part 121 Captain.

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.
So to answer the original question, if GLA is operating under 135.243a1, those FOs will be able to count their SIC time.

Last edited by Nevets; 07-13-2013 at 10:46 AM.
Nevets is offline  
Old 07-13-2013, 10:51 AM
  #66  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Jan 2013
Position: Pitot heat, what's to eat?
Posts: 392
Default

Originally Posted by Nevets View Post
So to answer the original question, if GLA is operating under 135.243a1, those FOs will be able to count their SIC time.
The 135.243(a)(1) SIC time does not count towards the 1000 hour requirement. It does count toward the 1500 total time requirement to get an ATP.

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.
ackattacker is offline  
Old 07-13-2013, 12:02 PM
  #67  
Banned
 
Joined APC: Dec 2007
Position: EMB 145 CPT
Posts: 2,934
Default

Originally Posted by ackattacker View Post
Originally Posted by Nevets View Post
So to answer the original question, if GLA is operating under 135.243a1, those FOs will be able to count their SIC time.
The 135.243(a)(1) SIC time does not count towards the 1000 hour requirement. It does count toward the 1500 total time requirement to get an ATP.

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.
Oh it's PIC time that counts towards the 1000 required to be a 121 captain. I see what you mean now. My bad, I didn't catch that on your previous post.

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?
Nevets is offline  
Old 07-13-2013, 03:59 PM
  #68  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Feb 2011
Position: Precarious
Posts: 378
Default

Maybe they can get some beat up old King air 200's and fly it all single pilot.....but then they would have to keep an auto pilot functioning.
conquestdz is offline  
Old 07-13-2013, 05:42 PM
  #69  
Gets Weekends Off
 
ZBowFlyz's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Position: Left
Posts: 251
Default

Originally Posted by rickair7777 View Post
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.
What in the heck are you talking about?
ZBowFlyz is offline  
Old 07-13-2013, 06:04 PM
  #70  
Gets Weekends Off
 
2cylinderdriver's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jun 2006
Posts: 732
Default

Originally Posted by Captain Tony View Post
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.
The regs changed in 96 to force 135 air carriers into 121 for all ops greater than 9 seats. The old 135 allowed all the way up to 30 plus seats (7500 lb payload). That was how they forced the change by restricting 135 to 9 seats.

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!
2cylinderdriver is offline  
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
wmuflyboy
Flight Schools and Training
30
03-26-2023 06:18 PM
skypilot35
Other
139
12-29-2015 03:51 PM
Pony Express
Part 135
11
05-06-2013 08:08 PM
Aero1900
Career Questions
22
12-03-2012 06:31 AM
FuelJetA
Part 135
11
03-12-2006 03:29 PM

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



Your Privacy Choices