### I. Name and mai ling address:

Philippe LeRoy

320 N. Cochise Ave

Wilcox, AZ 85643



### II. Relief is sought from 14 CFR Pa rt 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 121.43 6(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 o f time as second in command in domestic passenger carrying operations unde r 14 CFR Part 121. He also accumulated approximately 1,400 hours of pilot in command time for the sa me Part 119 c ertificate holder in operations under 14 CFR

121 during a pre vious period of employment. He therefore has approximately 2,000 hours of Part 121 air carrier experience. He was not, however, serving as p ilot in command on July 31, 2013 and therefore una ble to make use of the exemption in the regulation for pilots in command who were serving in that capacity on that date. He do es not have any creditable time as pilot in command under Part 135 or Part 91K. As a result, as the regulation is written,

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

ev en though he already has 1,4 00 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 91 K or as pilot in command in passenger carrying operations falling unde r Part 135.243(a)(1).

In two separate letter s 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 121.4 36 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 p ilot with previous P art 121 PIC experience has even more relevant experience than those

types. He has the refore 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) g eneral ly be in turbine aircraft, as those conditions are most applicable to Part 121 operations. A pilot with p rior Part 121 PIC experience has met al l thoserequirements. 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 orde r 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 leve l 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 become s 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 wit hout 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.