1

Docket Management Facility

U.S. Department of Transportation

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE

West Building, Ground Floor, Room W12-140

Washington, D.C. 20590

Re: Petition for Exemption

Via Electronic Filing and U.S.P.S.

Dear Sir or Madam:

Pursuant to 14 CFR Part 11, this is a Petition for Exemption from specific portions of 14 

CFR. 

I. Name and mailing address: Richard J. Durden, General Counsel, Gulf & Caribbean

Cargo, Inc. , 6860 S. Service Drive, Waterford, Michigan 48327, 248-666-1961, direct line 

(cell) 616-901-6516, email rdurden@iflgroup.com. 

II. Relief is sought from 14 CFR Part 121.436 as it applies to pilots employed by Gulf & 

Caribbean Cargo, Inc. for cargo flights conducted both inside and outside the United States 

to expand its scope and applicability with regard to the experience requirement for a pilot 

in command in 14 CFR Part 121 cargo operations and its limiting reference to 14 CFR Part 

135.243(a)(1) so as to allow the pilot in command of turbojet airplanes in 14 CFR Part 135 

operations to count that pilot in command time toward the experience requirement of 14 

CFR Part 121.436 in Gulf & Caribbean Cargo, Inc. cargo operations regardless of whether 

the airplane was configured to carry passengers or freight. 

III. Extent of relief sought and reasons: We are seeking an exemption for pilots 

employed by our company from 14 CFR Part 121.436 to expand its scope and applicability 

with regard to the experience requirement for a pilot in command in cargo only Part 121 

operations and its reference to Part 135.243(a)(1) to allow the pilot in command of a 

turbojet airplane, whether carrying passengers or freight, to count that pilot in command 
2

time toward the experience requirement of Part 121.436 for cargo flights inside and 

outside the United States. 

Background: Written in the disjunctive, Part 135.243(a)(1) sets out requirements for a 

person to fly as pilot in command in passenger-carrying operations of three types of 

airplanes: (1) all turbojets; (2) airplanes having a passenger-seat configuration, excluding 

each crewmember seat, of 10 seats or more (which can include such airplanes as the singleengine turboprop Cessna 208 Caravan, piston twin Cessna 404 and unpressurized 

turboprop Beech 99 Airliner); and (3) multi-engine airplanes in a commuter operation as 

defined in Part 119. The FAA Inspector’s Handbook, FAA Order 8900.1, defines and 

interprets Part 135.243(a)(1) in this manner in section 3-1275. 

Gulf & Caribbean Cargo, Inc. operates Convair turboprops and Boeing 727 turbojets under 

Part 121 in cargo-only operations. 

We note that Part 135 turbojet captains/pilots in command undergo standard training 

prescribed by the FAA for Part 135 turbojet operations. The training is applicable for 

carriage of passengers or freight—no distinction is made in the training or the oversight 

carried out by the local FAA office with regard to passenger or freight operations. Whether 

carrying passengers or freight, the crews fly through the same weather, in the same type 

airplanes, manage the same fatigue and operate in the same ATC system. 

As written, Part 121.436 requires that a pilot in command in Part 121 cargo operations 

must have a certain level of experience, either as second in command in Part 121 

operations, pilot in command in “fractional” aircraft under Part 91—the lowest level of 

safety under the Federal Aviation Regulations—or as pilot in command in passenger 

carrying operations falling under Part 135.243(a)(1). 

Because the training, operational requirements and FAA oversight for a Part 135 turbojet 

captain are far more rigorous than for a fractional operator under Part 91.1053, allowing 

credit for experience for the much lower level of safety of a Part 91 pilot in command but 

not for a Part 135 turbojet pilot in command carrying freight, defies understanding and 

lacks any rational basis—whether safety of flight or level of rigor of the total operational 

experience. 

It also makes no sense that a pilot in command of an airplane such as a Cessna 208 or 

Cessna 404 configured for 12 passengers (or in commuter operations) and unable to 

operate in the Flight Levels because it is not pressurized, can count her or his experience 

toward the Part 121 cargo pilot in command requirement when a captain of a turbojet

carrying freight and operating in the same environment as a Boeing 747 cannot count her 

or his time just because the airplane doesn’t have seats in it. 
3

In addition, because pilots employed to fly as pilot in command of turbojets for Part 135 

carriers fly in precisely the same weather, with precisely the same training and under the 

same FAA regulatory oversight whether the airplane is configured for passengers or 

freight, it makes utterly no sense that they may only count the time carrying passengers in

those jets toward the experience requirement of Part 121.436 for an all-cargo carrier. 

Further, it makes no sense to not give credit toward the experience requirement of 121.243 

for cargo operations to captains flying turbojets carrying cargo under circumstances that 

are more rigorous than pilots of passenger-configured Cessna Caravans and captains flying 

fractional jets under the much less restrictive regulations of Part 91. 

The level of safety for Part 135 turbojet freight operations is every bit as high as for Part 

135 turbojet passenger carrying operations. 

From an economic point of view, our company has already experienced the difficulty in 

locating and hiring pilots that meet the experience requirements mandated by the recent 

changes to the Federal Aviation Regulations that was predicted by so many commentators 

when the changes were proposed. There is no incentive for pilots to seek a job flying for a

Part 135 turbojet cargo operation because the pilot in command time cannot be counted 

toward Part 121 experience requirements—creating a hardship for us in finding pilots. 

From the standpoint of an applicant for a captain’s position in a freight-hauling turbojet, 

why go through the intensive training and the exacting FAA oversight for a flying job where 

the hours she or he builds don’t count? 

It makes no sense that a Part 135 turbojet freight captain receives more, and more involved 

training than fractional jet crews, and is subject to much more intensive FAA scrutiny, but 

because she or he is flying freight, that pilot is treated as second-class in the eyes of 

121.436, without any safety justification or rational basis. 

Accordingly, this is to apply for an exemption that would allow Gulf & Caribbean Cargo, Inc. 

employees who have flown as pilot in command of a turbojet airplane under Part 135, 

whether configured for freight or passengers, to count that pilot in command time toward 

the experience requirement of Part 121.436 for our Part 121 cargo operations in and 

outside of the United States. 

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 cargo 

operations for our company, thus allowing us to select from deeper pool of and thereby 

increase the level of safety for the public. 

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 
4

provided by this exemption is markedly increased over the current rule because more 

pilots with more extensive training and demanding experience become available for Part 

121 cargo operations. Currently, the regulations allow pilots flying under far less rigorous 

conditions than Part 135 turbojet captains—flying a Cessna 404 at 200 knots at 8,000 feet 

does not begin to provide the experience for Part 121 that flying a turbojet in the flight 

levels, and flying a fractional jet under Part 91 does not provide the demanding operational 

rigor that operation under Part 135 provides. The exception helps overcome the lower 

level of safety currently set up by allowing pilots in a less demanding operating 

environment count the time toward cargo Part 121 experience. 

VI. Summary for the Federal Register:

14 CFR Parts 121.436 and 135.243(a)(1)

Gulf and Caribbean Cargo, Inc. seeks an exemption from 14 CFR Part 121.436 for its 

pilots for cargo operations to allow the pilot in command of turbojet airplanes in Part 135 

operations to count that pilot in command time toward the experience requirement of 14 

CFR Part 121.436 regardless of whether the airplane was configured to carry passengers or 

cargo. 

Very truly yours,

Richard J. Durden

General Counsel