FAA PPL with no M1 visa?!

[RedBullGaveMeWings]

Is it legally possible to train for a FAA PPL in the US with no visa? Just go there on a visitor visa?

I am asking this because an outfit that is mainly specialized in hour building told me that I wouldn't need any visa for a FAA PPL course and hour building.

No problem for hour building, I know there is no need for a visa for that, but I know that at least a M1 visa is required to enroll in a flight training course, regardless of the licence, rating or certificate. They told me there are provisions to be done for flight training without a student visa.

Am I missing anything here?:confused:

[dera]

If you are getting a 61.57 piggyback based on your existing license, and only doing training required for the BFR then no, no visa is required.
If you are doing training for an initial license or rating then yes, visa is required.

[RedBullGaveMeWings]

That would be for initial training, but they told me they've been doing it for years and it is totally legal.

That's weird:suspect:

[BackPacker]

Is this by any chance a Part-91 school that is not SEVIS approved? In that case they would not be able to "sponsor" your visa and by extension, would not be able to get your business.

By walking the thin line and possibly exploiting some ambiguity in the regulations at least they get your business. And if you're found training without the appropriate visa it's you that will get in trouble, not them. So it's relatively risk-free for them.

But remember that if you're caught in the US without the appropriate visa, not only may you get expelled (or worse), but it also automatically invalidates your qualification for any VWP application in the future. In fact "Have you ever been refused a visa" or something like that is one of the questions on the VWP form.

[sapperkenno]

They need to be SEVIS approved, and you will also need TSA approval to train as a foreign student.

[dera]

They need to be Part 141 to be able to be SEVIS approved, which is needed for them to issue an I-20 to sponsor your visa.

For TSA approval, Part 61(not 91...) is enough. You can train in a P61 school that is not SEVIS approved, but this still requires a visa. The only way this is viable is if you start training in a Part 141 school and finish your training in a Part 61 school.

[BackPacker]

Sorry, you're right. It's Part-61, not Part-91.

[piperboy84]

Don't go busting homeland security visa rules for flight training, they'll have you down in G-Bay with an orange boilersuit before you know it !!!!

[RedBullGaveMeWings]

I'm gonna attach a part of their email.

well first of all will you have any licenses issued by any country when you come here.. ? if so you do not need to do anything but have that license verified, if not then you will need to do the TSA etc etc and this can be done on a visitor visa

And they go on to say:

if you have not started and would like to do your course within the FAA regs that is perfect, you can do that on your visitors visa, I have been doing it for many years now and it is perfectly legal, the reason that schools want you to get the I-20 is so that they lock you in and when you get here you have no choice but to do everything with them.
We are registered as flight training providers and will take care of all of your needs

[BackPacker]

Well, let me put in a few counterpoints, with links, so you can make up your own mind.

Pleasure, Tourism, Medical Treatment - Visitor Visas (B-2) - If the purpose of the planned travel is recreational in nature, including tourism, visiting friends or relatives, rest, or is related to medical treatment, activities of a fraternal, social, or service nature, or participation by amateurs who will receive no remuneration in musical, sports and similar events or contests, then a visitor visa (B-2) would be the appropriate type of visa for the travel. Persons planning to travel to the United States for a different purpose including students, temporary workers, crew members, or journalists, must apply for a different category of visa.

http://travel.state.gov/content/dam/visas/VisaFlyer_March_2014_print.pdf

Also check out this link, particularly the first bullet on page 2. (For some weird reason I can't copy&paste.)

http://www.eandvh.com/engine/pubs/getdoc.aspx?id=40&dl=1

There's a lot more discussion on this in the "JAA PPL in the US" thread, particularly on the last page (page 5): http://www.pprune.org/private-flying/278995-guide-obtaining-jaa-ppl-us-part-1-a.html

[dera]

Whatever they say, they CAN NOT provide you flight training for FAA PPL without a student visa. This is NOT allowed on the Visa Waiver Program.

Let me say this again:

It is illegal, and you will get in trouble.

They can be provider for TSA purposes, but to enter the country for flight training, you need a visa. You can not enter the US without a visa if you intend to train for an initial license or rating, simple as.

Who gave you that advice, name and shame. They should be reported to INS and FAA immediately.

[RedBullGaveMeWings]

It was not for me, actually I am looking for a place for hour building. I even started a thread a couple of days ago.
Actually I was helping a friend who is new to flight training and is planning his way to the frozen ATPL and we came across this outfit as I was looking for a place where to build up hours.

FlightTimeBuilding.com - Affordable aircraft time building (http://www.flighttimebuilding.com/index.html)

[chrisbl]

The advice here is pretty clear - AVOID this school.


They understate by a long way what needs to be done to do a PPL even for US residents.


Their comments about schools locking you in is disingenuous.


This outfit puts you in no position to complain if there are issues. You feel ripped off who do you tell? You have broken the terms of you Visa Waiver, you are breaking the law and risk jail and deportation.


They tell you something very simple: They say "we don't abide by Federal immigration law" in other words we break important laws. If they are prepared to do that do you not think that might be up for breaking other laws as far as you are concerned.


At the best they may be honest but totally misguided.

[RedBullGaveMeWings]

They should be reported to the FAA then. How to proceed?

[Genghis the Engineer]

They should be reported to the FAA then. How to proceed?

Probably forward the email to the nearest FSDO with a polite and innocent sounding question along the lines of "can you confirm that this is true, as clearly I don't want to get into trouble?"

Then sit back and see what happens next.

G

[chrisbl]

I would also forward the email to department for Homeland Security who oversee immigration and the TSA.

[piperboy84]

There is a very specific reason the visa laws for student pilots was introduced, it's called 9-11, that's how those f$)kers got their training. Orlando FSDO notified

[chrisbl]

it's called 9-11, that's how those f$)kers got their training.

Its not that simple.They got their training because some greedy flight training school were after money without thinking about what they were doing. Looking back its incredible to see how how stupid they were.

Money makes people stupid. As a consequence aviation at all levels across the globe has been massively inconvenienced.

It's incredible some outfit is so stupid or greedy to thinks its worth trying the same stunt again.

You can blame those f$)kers all you like but they took advantage of flight schools asleep on the job.

[Mach Jump]

They probably just went wherever it was cheapest.

All the Americans have done, with their restrictions is shoot their own industry in the 'ass'.


MJ:ok:

[sherburn2LA]

"we don't abide by Federal immigration law"

That would never be tolerated ......oh wait..............

[BackPacker]

There is a very specific reason the visa laws for student pilots was introduced, it's called 9-11, that's how those f$)kers got their training.

You needed visas to enter the US well before 9/11. And the visa waiver program was always restricted to B-1/2 visas. Sure, they may have become stricter, but fundamentally 9/11 didn't change all that much as far as visas is concerned.

What did change was the whole TSA thing. With fingerprinting and everything. But that's not the discussion here. In fact, the flight school concerned clearly states that you have to do the TSA.

[piperboy84]

You needed visas to enter the US well before 9/11. And the visa waiver program was always restricted to B-1/2 visas. Sure, they may have become stricter, but fundamentally 9/11 didn't change all that much as far as visas is concerned.

Incorrect, prior to 9-11 and patriot act there were no restrictions on people that qualified for a standard tourists visa walking into any flight school with an ID from there home country and training for and receiving a PPL, post 9-11 when the Feds realized how the hijackers had got there training new laws were put in place that put rules on both the trainee and flight schools. Just try and get a FAA DE to enter the approvals to take a checkride into the FAA online system without him/her checking for the correct school and visa paperwork and see how far you get.

[OldDogNew]

I'm not sure those who are being totally dogmatic on this issue are correct. I was told something different by a flying club in the US, and it made sense to me. If you are in the US for another purpose (eg business or visiting family), then without a visa (but with TSA approval) you can do some training while you are there as long as it doesn't exceed a certain number of hours per week. I don't remember what the number is (15 rings a bell but don't quote me). The key is that you are not there solely for the purpose of training, and that the training is incidental to the purpose of your visit.


Anyhow in 2012/13, over a few trips to visit family I accumulated enough hours to get an FAA PPL, and had no trouble with the IACRA system or getting the FAA examiner lined up. Your experience may differ of course, etc etc!


I think it is in reality a bit of a grey area. I would say that obvious abuses are likely to get you in trouble, and there may well be a distinction between a flying school offering a PPL course vs a flying club where you make a private arrangement with a flying instructor to get yourself up to the required standard.

[custardpsc]

Olddognew has it exactly right. It istrue to say that if you enrol in a formal course as a student then an m1 isrequired. That is not the same as needing an m1 for training at all. I did my private on the waiver and my cpl on a b1. Just make sure you have all your tsa stuff done, you wont get started without it (assuming first faa licence). Everyone is rightfully diligent about tsa, hardly anyone cares about visa status when yoou go for training, unless you are on a formal course.

[dera]

My DPE told me it is not his job to check immigration requirements, and he never did.
Our school did, on the last day it was open, get a visit from TSA and CBP checking passports and visas. And I can 110% tell you, anyone found there doing flight training without a visa would have been in trouble.

So: No, you probably won't get caught but Yes, it is illegal.
This "incidental to visit" has been discussed ad nauseam. TSA views, that if you get flight training with intent to get an initial FAA certificate or a rating, it is flight training and thus you are required to have the correct visa for it.
If you want to risk it, go ahead. I'd guess 99% of people who do that, get away with it just fine. The IACRA etc has no clue about your immigration status, and it seems TSA doesn't routinely check it either, even though they say they do.

[Aphrican]

The M1 Visa is a vocational training visa.

The Part 91 training organisation that I use in the US (where I am non-resident) have been through many CBP and TSA audits of their foreign clients, none of whom are under the M1 program with no problems whatsoever. They follow the TSA procedures rigourously.

The argument that seems to be accepted is that a Part 91 PPL and IR for their clients is recreational and not vocational. They do not offer a Part 91 or Part 141 pathway of PPL/IR/MEL/CPL/CFI/ATP which would make their training vocational rather than recreational.

I know that this is an anecdotal recounting of a single data point. The conclusion that I have drawn could also be incorrect.