AFS-14-446-E

Exemption No. 13993

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION

WASHINGTON, DC 20591

In the matter of the petition of

RAYMOND A. SALMON Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2014-0658

for an exemption from § 121.436(a)(3)

of Title 14, Code of

Federal Regulations

GRANT OF EXEMPTION

By submissions to the public docket dated September 2, 2014 and October 21, 2014, Mr. 

Raymond A. Salmon, 3319 F 5/8 Road, Clifton, Colorado 81520, petitioned the Federal 

Aviation Administration (FAA) for an exemption from § 121.436(a)(3) of Title 14, Code of 

Federal Regulations (14 CFR). The proposed exemption, if granted, would allow Mr. Salmon

to use experience gained as a pilot in command (PIC) under 14 CFR part 121 prior to July 31, 

2013, to count toward the experience requirements of § 121.436(a)(3), even though he was not 

serving as a pilot in command in part 121 operations on July 31, 2013.

The petitioner requests relief from the following regulation:

Section 121.436(a)(3) states, in pertinent part, that no certificate holder may use nor may any 

pilot act as pilot in command of an aircraft unless the pilot has 1,000 hours as second in 

command in part 121 operations, pilot in command in operations under §91.1053(a)(2)(i), 

pilot in command in operations under §135.243(a)(1), or any combination thereof. The section 

adds that pilots who were employed as a pilot in command in part 121 operations on July 31, 

2013, are not required to comply with this requirement.
2

The petitioner supports its request with the following information:

Mr. Raymond A. Salmon seeks exemption from § 121.436(a)(3) to allow his time serving as 

PIC in part 121 operations prior to July 31, 2013, to count toward the 1,000 hours of air 

carrier experience required by the regulation to serve as a PIC in part 121 today. Mr. Salmon 

states that he is not able to take advantage of the exception built into the rule for those PICs in 

part 121 operations that were employed as a PIC on July 31, 2013, because he was not 

employed as a part 121 PIC on that date. 

Mr. Salmon states that he has approximately 1,200 hours as PIC in part 121 passenger 

carrying operations. This time was accrued prior to July 31, 2013. Mr. Salmon explains that, 

while he has approximately 130 hours of experience as second in command (SIC) in part 121 

passenger carrying operations, he has no creditable time in operations under part 91, 

subpart K, or part 135. 

Mr. Salmon contends that his experience meets the intent of the regulation, which he believes 

is to ensure that PICs have a certain level of experience before serving in that capacity. 

The petitioner contends that part 121 PIC experience should count toward the 1,000 hours of 

experience required by § 121.436 because a pilot with previous PIC experience in part 121 

operations has been successful through the most rigorous training and checking program 

among all the allowable experience types.

Mr. Salmon suggests that recency of experience may be considered important when 

considering which pilots are qualified to serve as PIC in part 121 operations, which could 

have contributed to the FAA’s decision to restrict the exception to only those pilots serving as 

PIC on July 31, 2013. However, he notes that the FAA did not place time limitations on other 

types of experience creditable towards satisfying the requirements of § 121.436. The 

petitioner adds that some may argue it is necessary for a part 121 PIC to have served as an SIC 

before serving as PIC. However, he highlights that a pilot who has only served as a part 135 

PIC or part 91, subpart K, PIC and has accumulated 1,000 hours in that capacity, is qualified 

under § 121.436 to serve as a part 121 PIC without serving any time as SIC.

Mr. Salmon also states that in the preamble to the Pilot Certification and Qualification 

Requirements for Air Carrier Operations final rule (78 FR 42324), the FAA repeatedly stated 

that it was looking for flight time that was essentially similar to part 121 flight time; 

specifically operations that required an airline transport pilot (ATP) certificate in a multicrew 

environment in turbine powered aircraft. Mr. Salmon states that PIC time accrued in part 121 

operations meets all of these requirements.

Mr. Salmon also notes that table 4 of the final rule (78 FR 42331) states “all time in 121 

operations” is eligible to credit towards the 1,000 hour requirement. However, he notes that as 

the wording in the final rule is written and interpreteted, prior 121 PIC time is not creditable 

unless the PIC was serving as such on July 31, 2013. Mr. Salmon believes that the wording in 
3

§ 121.436(a)(3) unintentionally created a restriction on prior PIC time that was not intended 

based on discussion in the preamble.

Mr. Salmon believes that a grant of exemption would increase the overall level of safety

because it would make pilots with the most extensive training and demanding experience 

available to serve as PIC in part 121 operations. The petitioner asserts that this increased level 

of safety would benefit the public. Additionally, Mr. Salmon contends that a grant of 

exemption is in the public interest because it would increase the number of highly trained and 

experienced pilots qualified to serve as PIC in part 121 operations at a time when airlines are 

struggling to find pilots with the requisite experience.

A summary of the petition was published in the Federal Register on September 30, 2014, 

(79 FR 58847). The FAA received no comments.

The FAA’s analysis is as follows:

The FAA has fully considered the petitioner’s supporting information and determined that a 

grant of exemption from § 121.436(a)(3) would provide a level of safety equivalent to the 

regulation and is in the public interest. 

The Airline Safety and Federal Aviation Administration Extension Act of 2010 

(Pub. L. 111-216, “the Act”), directed the FAA to conduct rulemaking to improve the 

qualifications and training for pilots serving in air carrier operations. In support of the Act, the 

FAA published the Pilot Certification and Qualification Requirements for Air Carrier 

Operations Final Rule on July 15, 2013 (78 FR 42324). The rule created new certification and 

qualification requirements for pilots in air carrier operations, including the provision that 

pilots serving as PIC in part 121 operations must have, in addition to an ATP certificate and 

an aircraft type rating, at least 1,000 hours of air carrier experience.

The air carrier experience required to serve as PIC in part 121 is specified in § 121.436(a)(3) 

as a combination of time serving as PIC in operations conducted under § 91.1053(a)(2)(i) or 

§ 135.243(a)(1), or as an SIC in part 121 operations. However, this requirement does not 

apply to those pilots employed as a PIC in part 121 operations on July 31, 2013. On March 7, 

2014, the FAA issued a legal interpretation, which clarified that experience as a PIC in part 

121 operations gained prior to July 31, 2013, cannot be used to satisfy the § 121.436(a)(3) air 

carrier experience requirement for pilots not serving as PIC on that date.1

Additionally, the introductory paragraph in § 121.436(a) prohibits a pilot from serving as PIC 

in an aircraft in part 121 operations and also prohibits a certificate holder from using a pilot as 

PIC in part 121 operations unless the pilot meets all of the requirements in paragraphs (a)(l)

through (a)(3). Accordingly, both pilots and certificate holders are responsible for compliance 

with § 121.436(a).

 1 FAA Legal Interpretation, Zachary Kelley, 2014
4

In the preamble to the final rule, the FAA provided the following rationale for the types of 

experience that may qualify a pilot to serve as PIC:

The FAA has determined that the ability to fly at the ATP certificate level and have 

demonstrated this proficiency during evaluation is an important regulatory 

differentiation. The FAA first proposed that certain operations under part 135 should 

require an ATP certificate in 1977. In that NPRM, the FAA stated the requirement to hold 

an ATP certificate to act as PIC in some part 135 operations was ‘‘[. . . ] based in part on 

operational complexity and the number of persons carried, would provide a level of safety 

more comparable to that provided by part 121.’’ For these same reasons the FAA has 

determined that flight time acquired as a PIC in operations under § 91.1053(a)(2)(i),and 

§ 135.243(a)(1) and flight time acquired as an SIC in part 121 operations should count 

towards the 1,000 hour air carrier experience requirement. Operations under 

§ 91.1053(a)(2)(i) or § 135.243(a)(1) require an ATP certificate, are multicrew 

operations, and generally use turbine aircraft and therefore are the most applicable to 

part 121 operations. (78 FR 42356)

A PIC in part 121 air carrier operations is expected to possess leadership and command 

abilities, including aeronautical decision making and the sound judgment necessary to 

exercise operational control of the flight. The intent of the 1,000-hour air carrier experience 

requirement in § 121.436(a)(3) is to prevent two pilots in part 121 operations with little or no 

air carrier experience from being paired together as a flightcrew in line operations. In addition, 

the intent of this rule is to ensure that pilots obtain at least one full year of relevant air carrier 

operational experience before assuming the authority and responsibility of a PIC in operations 

conducted in part 121 operations (78 FR 42355).

The FAA finds that allowing a pilot’s experience gained as PIC in part 121 operations prior to 

July 31, 2013, to count toward the 1,000 hours of air carrier experience required by 

§ 121.436(a)(3) is consistent with the intent of the rule. In issuing the final rule, the FAA 

identified the types of experience that qualify a pilot to serve as PIC in part 121 operations 

based, in part, on the applicability of the experience to part 121 operations. A previous PIC in 

part 121 operations has exercised the privileges of an ATP certificate in a position where that 

certificate is required by rule in the United States, the operation was in a turbine aircraft and in 

a multicrew environment. That pilot has also previously demonstrated proficiency operating at 

this level through an FAA-approved training and qualification program. Therefore, the FAA 

finds that allowing a pilot’s time as PIC in part 121 operations to count toward the air carrier 

experience required by § 121.436(a)(3) would not adversely impact safety and supports the 

FAA’s goal of ensuring that a pilot possesses sufficient experience to assume the authority 

and responsibility of PIC in part 121 operations. 

In addition, the FAA emphasizes that all PICs at part 121 certificate holders complete the air 

carrier’s approved training and qualification program prior to serving as PIC. This training

and qualification ensures every PIC is proficient in the air carrier’s operations including, but 
5

not limited to, standard operating procedures, environments, kinds of operations, operational 

authorizations and the operation of its aircraft.

The petitioner contends that a grant of exemption would increase the overall level of safety 

because it would make pilots with the most extensive training and demanding experience 

available to serve as PIC in part 121 operations, which is in the public interest. The FAA 

agrees that it is in the public interest to ensure that candidates with the best experience are 

available to serve as PIC in part 121 operations. 

The FAA’s Decision

In consideration of the foregoing, I find that a grant of exemption would provide a level of 

safety equal to that provided by the rule and is in the public interest. Therefore, pursuant to the 

authority contained in 49 U.S.C. §§ 106(f), 40113, and 44701, delegated to me by the 

Administrator, Raymond A. Salmon is granted an exemption from § 121.436(a)(3), subject to 

the conditions and limitations listed below. A part 119 certificate holder employing the 

petitioner as a PIC in part 121 operations is also granted an exemption from § 121.436(a)(3) to 

the extent necessary to allow Mr. Salmon to serve as a PIC in its operation, subject to the 

conditions and limitations listed below.

Conditions and Limitations

1. Prior to commencing training to serve as a PIC in part 121 operations, Mr. Raymond A. 

Salmon must provide the part 119 certificate holder with appropriate documentation to 

support his previous employment at a part 119 certificate holder and flight time as a PIC in 

part 121 operations prior to July 31, 2013.

2. Mr. Salmon must provide a copy of this grant of exemption to any part 119 certificate 

holder employing him as a PIC in part 121 operations.

3. In accordance with § 121.683, the part 119 certificate holder employing the petitioner as a 

PIC in part 121 operations must include a copy of this grant of exemption in Mr. Salmon’s 

crewmember record.

This exemption terminates on December 31, 2020, unless sooner superseded, amended, or 

rescinded. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on December 15, 2015.

/s/

John Barbagallo

Deputy Director, Flight Standards Service