121.436
10-05-2014 | 06:28 PM
#22
Line Holder
Joined: Sep 2014
Posts: 84
Likes: 0
skydrol,
If you hold an ATP, you are covered under 121.436.
I don't know you... but I would think you do.
For example, the regs do not specify you need 1000 hours under 91 as PIC, they just state you need to hold an ATP and appropriate Type rating.
The comma means everything....
Think like a lawyer... not a pilot.. and you'll be fine..
(i also agree with the above who stated to not bother with a local FSDO... I recommend you call OKC instead).
My opinion? The FAA screwed the pooch.. as usual. But you can work it to your advantage.
If you hold an ATP, you are covered under 121.436.
- pilot in command in operations under §91.1053(a)(2)(i) of this chapter
§91.1053(a)(2)(i)- (2) For multi-engine turbine-powered fixed-wing and powered-lift aircraft, the following FAA certification and ratings requirements:
(i) Pilot in command—Airline transport pilot and applicable type ratings.
Do you hold the requirements of §91.1053(a)(2)(i)?(i) Pilot in command—Airline transport pilot and applicable type ratings.
I don't know you... but I would think you do.
For example, the regs do not specify you need 1000 hours under 91 as PIC, they just state you need to hold an ATP and appropriate Type rating.
The comma means everything....
Think like a lawyer... not a pilot.. and you'll be fine..
(i also agree with the above who stated to not bother with a local FSDO... I recommend you call OKC instead).
My opinion? The FAA screwed the pooch.. as usual. But you can work it to your advantage.
10-05-2014 | 06:49 PM
#23
Line Holder
Joined: Oct 2013
Posts: 1,674
Likes: 0
Thinking like a lawyer first means being able to read like a lawyer. 121.436(a)(3) says, in part, only time spent as PIC IN operations under 91.1053 counts. 91.1053 is part of the fractional ownership rules. In other words, if you have not served as as a fractional program PIC, you cannot count hours spent as some other part 91 PIC towards being a part 121 PIC.
This situation is addressed in scenario 1 of the Kelley interpretation posted above and since it is an interpretation issued by the FAA lawyers, it carries legal weight. There's really no issue understanding WHAT the reg says, just an issue understanding WHY it says what it says.
This situation is addressed in scenario 1 of the Kelley interpretation posted above and since it is an interpretation issued by the FAA lawyers, it carries legal weight. There's really no issue understanding WHAT the reg says, just an issue understanding WHY it says what it says.
10-05-2014 | 06:58 PM
#24
Line Holder
Joined: Sep 2014
Posts: 84
Likes: 0
This is what is says....
(3) If serving as pilot in command in part 121 operations, 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 paragraph (a)(3) is not required.
If it said soles "91.1053", you would be correct.But clearly the reg is specified.
This is the difference of thinking like a lawyer..... and is why the regs, (CFR or State Statutes) are specified.
10-05-2014 | 07:25 PM
#25
Line Holder
Joined: Sep 2014
Posts: 84
Likes: 0
I would also bet that skydrol meets these requirements?
Pilot in command qualifications.
(a) No certificate holder may use a person, nor may any person serve, as pilot in command in passenger-carrying operations—
(1) Of a 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, unless that person holds an airline transport pilot certificate with appropriate category and class ratings and, if required, an appropriate type rating for that airplane.
Skydrol.... you're fine.. don't sweat it...
Pilot in command qualifications.
(a) No certificate holder may use a person, nor may any person serve, as pilot in command in passenger-carrying operations—
(1) Of a 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, unless that person holds an airline transport pilot certificate with appropriate category and class ratings and, if required, an appropriate type rating for that airplane.
Skydrol.... you're fine.. don't sweat it...
10-05-2014 | 09:45 PM
#26
Line Holder
Joined: Aug 2014
Posts: 88
Likes: 0
Thinking like a lawyer first means being able to read like a lawyer. 121.436(a)(3) says, in part, only time spent as PIC IN operations under 91.1053 counts. 91.1053 is part of the fractional ownership rules. In other words, if you have not served as as a fractional program PIC, you cannot count hours spent as some other part 91 PIC towards being a part 121 PIC.
This situation is addressed in scenario 1 of the Kelley interpretation posted above and since it is an interpretation issued by the FAA lawyers, it carries legal weight. There's really no issue understanding WHAT the reg says, just an issue understanding WHY it says what it says.
This situation is addressed in scenario 1 of the Kelley interpretation posted above and since it is an interpretation issued by the FAA lawyers, it carries legal weight. There's really no issue understanding WHAT the reg says, just an issue understanding WHY it says what it says.
Correct, but CaptPappy is also correct with more specifically stating you can only log time meeting the criteria of (a)(2)(i), not just 91.1053... If you could log all PIC time under just 91.1053, SICs could log 'sole manipulator' time towards 121.436. That's why they specify §91.1053(a)(2)(i).
As for the why, see my first post in this thread.
skydrol,
If you hold an ATP, you are covered under 121.436.
I don't know you... but I would think you do.
For example, the regs do not specify you need 1000 hours under 91 as PIC, they just state you need to hold an ATP and appropriate Type rating.
The comma means everything....
Think like a lawyer... not a pilot.. and you'll be fine..
(i also agree with the above who stated to not bother with a local FSDO... I recommend you call OKC instead).
My opinion? The FAA screwed the pooch.. as usual. But you can work it to your advantage.
If you hold an ATP, you are covered under 121.436.
- pilot in command in operations under §91.1053(a)(2)(i) of this chapter
§91.1053(a)(2)(i)- (2) For multi-engine turbine-powered fixed-wing and powered-lift aircraft, the following FAA certification and ratings requirements:
(i) Pilot in command—Airline transport pilot and applicable type ratings.
Do you hold the requirements of §91.1053(a)(2)(i)?(i) Pilot in command—Airline transport pilot and applicable type ratings.
I don't know you... but I would think you do.
For example, the regs do not specify you need 1000 hours under 91 as PIC, they just state you need to hold an ATP and appropriate Type rating.
The comma means everything....
Think like a lawyer... not a pilot.. and you'll be fine..
(i also agree with the above who stated to not bother with a local FSDO... I recommend you call OKC instead).
My opinion? The FAA screwed the pooch.. as usual. But you can work it to your advantage.
Skydrol,
Feel free to PM if you want to discuss this off the board to see if you can use §91.1053(a)(2)(i). I am currently a 91K PIC.
10-06-2014 | 04:46 AM
#27
Line Holder
Joined: Oct 2013
Posts: 1,674
Likes: 0
Like planes,
We are on the same page. I agree that the reg is specific on what time can be counted. What i cannot go along with is that you can take 91.1053(a)(2)(i) in isolation from its context and say "aha, I have an ATP, so I am good," which is what it seems captpappy is saying you can do.
What captpappy seems to think is that merely meeting the qualifications to be a 135 and 91K PIC equates to having served in those capacities for 1,000 hours.
Additionally, in general, you're not going to get away with disagreeing with the FAA lawyers on interpretation of the regulations when they have already published an interpretation. Plenty of case law on that one.
We are on the same page. I agree that the reg is specific on what time can be counted. What i cannot go along with is that you can take 91.1053(a)(2)(i) in isolation from its context and say "aha, I have an ATP, so I am good," which is what it seems captpappy is saying you can do.
What captpappy seems to think is that merely meeting the qualifications to be a 135 and 91K PIC equates to having served in those capacities for 1,000 hours.
Additionally, in general, you're not going to get away with disagreeing with the FAA lawyers on interpretation of the regulations when they have already published an interpretation. Plenty of case law on that one.
Last edited by Xdashdriver; 10-06-2014 at 05:00 AM.
10-06-2014 | 08:58 AM
#28
Thread Starter
On Reserve
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
From: lazyboy
The way I see it, the FAA wants time where you were either..:
- In a 121 environment which ensures you have an ATP/R-ATP, and thus the experience required to achieve such certificate.
- In a 135 PIC environment which requires an ATP, and thus the experience required to achieve such certificate.
- In a 91k PIC environment which requires an ATP, and thus the experience required to achieve such certificate.
... and that's the time you can count towards 121.436.
10-06-2014 | 06:27 PM
#29
Weekends and Holidays OFF
Joined: Feb 2014
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
I don't think 91.1053 will work for me but it's ironic that I will have to scour my logbooks and tie together scraps of 135 PIC time from long ago, plus a few hundred hours of 121 SIC to qualify under "any combination thereof".
So, I suppose the issue is moot for me. But not by much.
So, I suppose the issue is moot for me. But not by much.
10-06-2014 | 06:58 PM
#30
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Feb 2013
Posts: 3,153
Likes: 16
I think the spirit of the rule is that a pilot needs to have 1000 hours of 121 time (PIC or SIC) in order to meet the requirement 121.436 after July 31st to be PIC. The rule probably should have said either SIC or PIC time. Since the date has now come and gone, the spirit of the rule is probably that they want you to have 1000 hours of experience as an SIC in a 121 operation before upgrading to Captain if you have no other 121 flight time.
Further, technically speaking, one could argue that if the pilot had the day off on July 31st, 2013 that he is not excepted from the 1,000 hour air carrier operations experience requirement because he did not serve as PIC on that date.
Further, technically speaking, one could argue that if the pilot had the day off on July 31st, 2013 that he is not excepted from the 1,000 hour air carrier operations experience requirement because he did not serve as PIC on that date.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
