FAA Validation of a UK CAA JAA CPL

[selfin]

Originally Posted by Alister

This is irrelevant as the student is not taking an FAA PPL. The only aspect of relevance in terms of the FAR's is a student going solo.

Part 61 was not written with a view to facilitating this sort of 'training.' Consequently it is not clear whether Subpart E (private pilots), or even Subpart D (recreational pilots) shall apply. Before reasoning this, I would draw your attention to the contents of subpart C (student pilots):

====================
§ 61.87 Solo requirements for student pilots.

[...]

(c) Pre-solo flight training. Prior to conducting a solo flight, a student pilot must have:

(1) Received and logged flight training for the maneuvers and procedures of this section that are appropriate to the make and model of aircraft to be flown; and

(2) Demonstrated satisfactory proficiency and safety, as judged by an authorized instructor, on the maneuvers and procedures required by this section in the make and model of aircraft or similar make and model of aircraft to be flown.

(d) Maneuvers and procedures for pre-solo flight training in a single-engine airplane. A student pilot who is receiving training for a single-engine airplane rating or privileges must receive and log flight training for the following maneuvers and procedures:

[...]

Formatting added.
====================

You allude in post #31 to knowing these manoeuvres exist under §61.87 and must be demonstrated to the satisfaction of an authorized instructor. You again show an understanding of the need to demonstrate them, in post #33. So far however it isn't clear that you are aware of the requirement under paragraph (c) above. The term flight training has a very specific definition given in Part 61:

61.1(a)(6): Flight training means that training, other than ground training, received from an authorized instructor in flight in an aircraft.

Does the clause "who is receiving training for a single-engine airplane rating or privileges" in paragraph (d) above apply? Is the student pilot receiving training for a single-engine airplane rating or privileges?

Under Part 1 of Title 14 - definitions and abbreviations - the term rating is defined as:

1.1: Rating means a statement that, as a part of a certificate, sets forth special conditions, privileges, or limitations.

A student pilot who is receiving training for a single-engine airplane rating in this context either holds a US airman certificate or is training for one. If the same interpretation is given to the term privileges then section 61.87 does not, sensu strictissimo, apply to persons undergoing 'training' exclusively for a JAR-FCL PPL.

If the student pilot is receiving training for a single-engine airplane rating, and he does not hold a US airman certificate, then he must clearly be receiving training under Subparts D or E. However the time requirements under Subparts D and E are necessary only for persons applying for the respective certificates. How long is reasonably necessary for an authorized instructor to give training for the manoeuvres under 61.87(d)? What is clear from the spirit of these regulations is the desire to ensure any persons sent on a solo flight have been adequately trained and tested by an instructor whose methods of teaching and testing have been (and continue to be) regulated by the United States. The fact that you hold a JAA FI rating and have carried the student as a passenger is essentially irrelevant.

I can certainly sympathise with the feeling that a CFI under these circumstances might be tempted to cut corners. Also raised is a question regarding which course of training alien students might have registered in their request for TSA security threat assessments - are the courses not strictly regulated under the SEVIS certification? A need exists to straighten out the legislation imho.

Have you observed the requirement made under §61.113(c) (cf §61.75(e)(1)) preventing a private pilot from paying less than the pro rata share of the operating expenses of flights with passengers?

You may wish to look at Walling v. Portland Terminal Co., 330 U.S. 148 (1947) [link] and at a similar scenario dealt with by the US Department of Labor in this document (with an emphasis on item 4 in the list.) Furthermore review 8 USC 1101(a)(15)(B) expressly prohibiting persons under the Visa Waiver Program performing skilled or unskilled labor.