I. Name and mailing address: 

Philippe LeRoy

320 N. Cochise Ave

Wilcox, AZ 85643

II. Relief is sought from 14 CFR Part 121.436 to allow experience the petitioner gained as pilot 

in command under 14 CFR Part 121 prior to 31 July 2013 to count towards the experience 

requirements of 14 CFR 121.436(a)(3).

III. Extent of relief sought and reasons: Petitioner is seeking an exemption to allow experience 

he gained as pilot in command under 14 CFR Part 121 prior to 31 July 2013 to count towards 

the experience requirements of 14 CFR 121.436(a)(3), even though he was not serving as 

pilot in command on July 31, 2013.

Background: 

The petitioner is the holder of an Airline Transport Certificate (Certificate # 2786643) and has

accumulated approximately 600 hours of time as second in command in domestic passenger 

carrying operations under 14 CFR Part 121. He also accumulated approximately 1,400 hours 

of pilot in command time for the same Part 119 certificate holder in operations under 14 CFR 

121 during a previous period of employment. He therefore has approximately 2,000 hours of 

Part 121 air carrier experience. He was not, however, serving as pilot in command on July 

31, 2013 and therefore unable to make use of the exemption in the regulation for pilots in 

command who were serving in that capacity on that date. He does not have any creditable 

time as pilot in command under Part 135 or Part 91K. As a result, as the regulation is written, 

he does not meet the experience requirements to serve as pilot in command under Part 121, 

even though he already has 1,400 hours in that position and a total of 2,000 hours of air 

carrier experience.

14 CFR 121.436 requires that a pilot in command in Part 121 must have 1,000 hours of 

experience, either as second in command in Part 121 operations, pilot in command in aircraft 

under Part 91K or as pilot in command in passenger carrying operations falling under Part 

135.243(a)(1).

In two separate letters of interpretation (Kelley 2014 and Durden 2014), the FAA is consistent 

in its interpretation that previous 121 PIC time cannot count towards the experience 

requirements of 14 CFR 121.436 in cases very similar to this one. Additionally, both letters 

allude to the possible consideration of petition for exemption by the FAA from pilots in the 

petitioner’s situation.

In comparison to the three types of time that are allowed to be counted under the regulation, 

a pilot with previous Part 121 PIC experience has even more relevant experience than those 

types. He has therefore met the intent of the regulation, which was to ensure pilots in 

command have a certain level of experience before serving in that capacity. The FAA states 

in the preamble to the rule that creditable time should (1) require an ATP certificate, (2) be in 

multi-crew operations and (3) generally be in turbine aircraft, as those conditions are most 

applicable to Part 121 operations. A pilot with prior Part 121 PIC experience has met all those 
requirements. Combining his PIC and SIC time together, the petitioner has twice the number 

of hours required under the regulation to meet the requisite experience level intended.

On December 15, 2015, the FAA issued Exemption 13993 to Raymond A. Salmon, granting 

him the ability to count his prior time as PIC under 14 CFR 121 in a case almost identical to 

this one.

IV. Public Benefit: The exemption would increase the number of highly trained and experienced 

pilots who are qualified to fly as pilot in command in Part 121 operations at a time when 

airlines are struggling to find pilots with the requisite experience in order to conduct their 

operations. The public would benefit from at least an equal level of safety as a result of 

allowing a pilot with prior 121 PIC experience to count that time towards regaining that status.

When compared to other pilots qualifying to be be PIC with only 1,000 hours of relevant air 

carrier experience, this petitioner brings 2,000 hours of relevant air carrier experience to the 

experience pool.

V. Reasons the exemption would not adversely affect safety, or how the exemption would 

provide a level of safety at least equal to the current rule: The overall level of safety provided 

by this exemption is at least equal to the current rule because a pilot with twice the relevant 

experience becomes available to serve as pilot in command under Part 121 operations.

VI. Granting this exemption would not set a precedent as this case is almost identical to 

Exemption 13993 granted to Raymond A. Salmon. Any delay in granting this exemption 

would prevent the petitioner from being able to exercise his seniority at his current Part 119 

employer to become a PIC and would therefore be detrimental to him. Based on the 

foregoing, he respectfully requests his exemption be granted without publishing a summary in 

the Federal Register or be subject to public comment.

VII. Summary for the Federal Register:

14 CFR Part 121.436 

Philippe LeRoy seeks an exemption from 14 CFR Part 121 exemption to allow experience 

gained as pilot in command under 14 CFR Part 121 to count towards the experience 

requirements of 14 CFR 121.436(a)(3), even though he was not serving in that capacity on 

July 31, 2013 as required by the regulation.