PDA

View Full Version : WARNING - To anyone considering flight training in the USA


G SXTY
28th Feb 2003, 22:17
Having got through the fiasco at Naples Air Center (see existing thread for chapter & verse) I managed to switch to another school in Naples - only for them to be told to stop operating, by the same people and for the same reason.

When looking at possible schools to train with, be sure to ask them what is their position with regard to insurance of their employees. Specifically, would they have sufficient cover to remain in business if the State of Florida decided to pay them a visit?

It would appear that the government is having a purge of FTOs (in Naples at the moment, but no doubt across Florida in due course, and possibly even countrywide). Whether this is heavy-handed bureaucracy stifling free enterprise, or schools getting caught out trying to exploit loopholes in employment legislation, I neither know nor care. It’s academic.

What you absolutely must be aware of is that the government has the power (and the will) to shut down FTOs at a moment’s notice. If it happens to your school, you may be lucky and find somewhere else to train, or you may not.

At best, your flying programme will be seriously disrupted and you will be doing a lot less flying than you expected. At worst, you may have no option but to cut your losses and take the next flight home.

My plan was to do a quick FAA PPL flight test (not having had time to convert my JAA licence) then hours build for a couple of weeks, coming back with another 50 hours or so. One week in, I have incurred approx $2,600 costs and flown a whopping 3 hours 50 minutes. P/UT. In a C-150. Do the sums, consider the risks, and ask yourself very carefully whether the USA, at the present time, is really your best option.

(Scroggs / WWW – I’ve posted this in Private Flying as well)

notice
1st Mar 2003, 01:07
Sorry you were s...... at Naples but there are responsible and respectable schools in Florida. It is still the best on balance so one or two bad apples should not change that.

polzin
1st Mar 2003, 01:26
Dont pay in advance. EVER. Even if it seems cheaper. NOT ALL PEOPLE IN AVIATION ARE CROOKS, BUT ALL CROOKS ARE IN AVIATION. This will become more apparent as the USA and all countries slide into further recession.

I sincerely hope that this post did not offend anyone. Even the folks at jetblast.

scroggs
1st Mar 2003, 09:23
All crooks are in aviation? I'm sure all the law enforcement agencies involved in things other than aviation will be pleased to learn that they can pack up and go home!

Seriously - read G SXTY's post carefully. There's something odd going on in Florida, and it seems that a lot of FTO's may be caught in the fallout. As polzin says, don't pay in advance. If you can, pay by credit card to obtain the protection of the card issuer (but check that your protection is valid on overseas transactions - 'Which' and the OFT says it is; some card issuers disagree).

If anyone can give us some authoritative info on what's happening and which schools are affected, we'd all be grateful!

Scroggs

VFE
1st Mar 2003, 13:20
Hi G-SXTY,

Really sorry to hear about your trouble mate. I have been on the phone to a friend of mine who is an instructor at the Florida Institute of Technology flight school in Melbourne to try and get some more info on this worrying issue for you. He said that FIT's insurance costs have recently been increased too but there is very little chance of FIT going bust because basically, being a part of Florida's biggest university they obviously have government links/backing/approval/ .....call it what you want, but it would be very unlikely to happen!

So, if you are still milling about trying to find a suitable FTO I could think of no better place to recommend than FIT in Melbourne. I did my FAA PPL and hours build package late last year with them and could not fault the set up. They have a C172, C152 and PA28 for hire at reasonable prices. If you call 321-6746501 and ask to speak to Mike Brandon (a senior CFI and examiner) he should be able to help.

I hope this info will be of some help to you, if it's not then please except my apologies.

There does indeed appear to be something strange happening amongst Florida FTO's at them moment, apparently another FTO in Orlando went under this week too. I recommend FIT from personal experience and for the above reasons of university backing.

Hope you sort something out soon and good luck.

VFE.

Naples Air Center, Inc.
1st Mar 2003, 14:21
G SXTY,

I am sorry and do apologize because we were not able to complete your PPL and hour building at this time.

At the same time, we did immediately refund all your money you had on account, as we did with all the students. You arrived on Saturday night, came in on Monday when you took your PPL written exam, then Nikki personally took you to another school that afternoon and introduced you to the president of the school, so you could continue training with the least amount of interruption. As I understand, you were due to start at 0800 on the Tuesday. In addition, I had checked on your progress as I did with all students and understand that you had been trying to get the night portion completed over the last couple of nights.

polzin,

I think it only seems like there are a lot of crooks in aviation. In fact I have over the years met many good people and only a hand full of bad ones. This is just a very unforgiving industry.

Richard

hasell
1st Mar 2003, 14:49
G-SXTY,
Mate... I'm sorry to hear that your having such a difficult time trying to get something "meaningful" achieved whilst your out there.
I hope you manage to get some flying done in the next week or so.

Regards.

Has.

G SXTY
1st Mar 2003, 17:41
Just so we are clear, I am not attempting to blame anyone for this situation, nor have I ever done so. I pointed out in my post on the original thread that NAC were refunding deposits and assisting students in finding alternative schools. I think they have behaved entirely above-board, and in the circumstances, I don’t think there is anything more they could have done. I phrased this post very carefully to provide the most objective assessment of the situation that I could, and if anyone reads blame into that then they misinterpret my comments.

The word ‘fiasco’ still stands however, because it is becoming increasingly clear that there is an ‘issue’ in Florida regarding employee insurance at flying schools. I do not know how this situation has arisen – time will tell - but it obviously isn’t restricted to one school, and it clearly has the potential to catch out an awful lot of people.

That fact needs reporting, so that would-be students are aware of the situation before they commit themselves.

notice
1st Mar 2003, 20:22
There does seem to be a big compliance crackdown in Florida and 'about time too' as it's unfair that some schools have been allowed to operate with desparate instructors but without paying their proper dues.
This thread underlines the importance of choosing a reputable school, wherever you want to train.

reido
1st Mar 2003, 22:33
What about Florida Flight Training, the partner of CABAIR in Kissimmee, I have been down to CABAIR and all seems well over there- any comments or experience?

charlie-india-mike
1st Mar 2003, 22:42
Richard (NAC)

Can you let us know exactly why you (and others by the look of it) had to cease flight training?

I applaude your sence of ethics by making sure that none of the students who had paid you monies upfront were left out of pocket , but it seems that others havn't been so lucky.


It is begining to appear that flight training and hours building in the US is rapidly beoming a no no.

Maybe there are other countries and FTO's who will benifit from this. I hope that they are on the ball and get things sorted so that they can benifit.

BTW

I was planning to come to the US to do some hrs building in Srept/Oct 2003. I will now be looking to South Africa for some cheap flying hours.


C-I-M

pittss2b
2nd Mar 2003, 02:35
Yeah...consider Canada!


Adam
www.harvsair.com

airbourne
2nd Mar 2003, 04:41
Ive just come back from holidays. Part of which was a trip to some FTOs in florida. Basically we went to Comair. I had been in touch with their international admin person beforhand so I knew what was in order. I spoke to Chris McShea who was more than helpful will all aspects of what Comair offers. We saw the first JAA class, unfortunatly, they were in class, so I didnt get to speak to them about life in Comair but from some of the other students we talked to, they seemed very happy. The have great training facilities and a rather large fleet that is in great nick. Fro next month, students will be in blue uniform, whilst instructors will be in white. Yes, I will agree that Comair is more expensive than other FTOs, but after going there and seeing the facilities first hand I would say that it is well worth it.

I dont speak for Comair, if you want to talk more about it, mail me, you will get an unbiased opinion. The other thing is that I would also consider is Las Vegas for a FTO. Check out www.westairaviation.com which is a school I went to and hired a 172 to fly over the grand canyon!! What a serious buzz!!

Campbell Cooke
2nd Mar 2003, 16:03
Please note that there are still small operators across the US who can offer you good value high quality training. The Big operators, due to current constraints, may not be the best way to go. I fly every now and then in Oklahoma and Kansas. I have done some flight training in Oklahoma with a small operator and found the instruction superb. Don't let one bad experience chill your dreams.

gateradial
2nd Mar 2003, 21:25
Agreed re. small operators offering value and quality.

The problem now is the need for M visa for training towards ratings or certificates. Small operators are not necessarily registered to issue the I-20 and probably can't justify the time and effort when their local or national pilot market keeps them busy enough.

Anyone with recent experience of small operators and M visas?

notice
2nd Mar 2003, 22:24
Part of which was a trip to some FTOs in florida. Basically we went to Comair.
err and ......... -Great plug from you, Still-born

Campbell Cooke
3rd Mar 2003, 00:09
A common misunderstanding. You do not need an M-1 visa to do a short course of flight training in the US and acquire a license. This is a permissible activity under the B1/B2 visa or visa waiver program. However, if you are intending to fly an aircraft over 12,500lbs then you will need to get clearance before you start your training. If your flight training involves aircraft under 12,500 lbs you do not need clearance. Come on over and enjoy yourself, the US is a great place to fly.

DesiPilot
3rd Mar 2003, 04:07
Campbell,

Not true my friend. Any flight training that leads to issue of licence requires you to be on either M or J visa. INS changed the regulations in June last year and I can give you email addresses of many of my students who were sent back home from Orlando airport. (btw I talk on behalf of Britannia Flight Center, which we closed down in October due to lack of visa approvals).

VFE,

As far as I know FIT is not a FTO. Please do not confuse FBO with FTO's. All the FTO's (Flight Training Organisation) have to be approved by CAA/JAA. You can find the list of approved FTO's in the USA at CAA's website www.srg.caa.co.uk.

Good luck everyone with your flight training.

Cheers,
Jatin

slim_slag
3rd Mar 2003, 04:16
Desipilot

INS changed the regulations

Can you cite the regulation?

What might be interesting is whether the INS officer quoted any specific regulation(s) when denying entry to all your contacts.

EGPFlyer
3rd Mar 2003, 08:15
Details here (http://www.usembassy.org.uk/cons_web/visa/niv/student.htm) (US embassy website)


Quoteing from it,

those wishing to attend a vocational or non-academic institution require an M-1 visa. Holders of visitor(B-2) visas and those who have entered the United States visa free under the Visa Waiver Program are prohibited from entering into full-time study.

VFE
3rd Mar 2003, 08:15
Desipilot,

I stand corrected (as the kid with orthopaedic shoes once said!). Indeed FIT is an FBO who do only FAA licences. G-SXTY said in his original post he wanted to do the FAA PPL skills test and then hours build. Could he not do this at FIT and then hours build as planned?

VFE.

gateradial
3rd Mar 2003, 10:47
Desipilot,

You seem to have been closest to this issue. Can you say what is required for an operator to get the necessary approval for I-20 issue or whether there is an "alternative method of compliance" for the student to apply for the M-1?



Everyone should note the sticky at the head of this forum. Unfortunately, the references to the regs are broken and my trivial search of the Federal Register has me none the wiser. Perhaps RJG can repost the current links?

Note that normally an M visa is required for full-time (vocational) study - defined as 18 hours or more a week. Whilst the new regs probably overrule part-time study without M visa in the case of flying training, it would anyway defeat the major reasons for training in the USA - time and money.

Campbell Cooke
3rd Mar 2003, 11:01
You do not need an M-1 visa to pursue a short course of study and get a pilots license in the US. Please see United States Foreign Affairs Manual section 41.31.N10.6 which states that a B-2 visa is applicable for "Aliens comming to the United States primarily for tourisim who will incidently engage in a short course of study during their visit... No I-20 required". Further at 41.31.N8 the Manual clearly states that aliens can enter the United States "to participate in a training program " on a B-1.

The previous e-mail clearly states that an M-1 visa is require for full time study. Well this is not what we are all talking about. The question is whether you need an M-1 to enter the US as a visitor and while here engage in flight training to get a license and then leave. The answer is no.

I may not have your expertise and experience in the world of flying, but your are now in my area of expertise.

EGPFlyer
3rd Mar 2003, 11:36
What I said before about the M-1 visa is what we are talking about. Going to America to do a PPL course is a course of full time study. A student will spend more than 18 hours a week, not speciffically in the air, but certainly at the flying school.

To quote from the foreign affairs manual that you refer to,

9 FAM 41.31 N10.6 Short Course of Study

Aliens coming to the United States primarily for tourism who also incidentally will engage in a short course of study during their visit. Insert the notation

STUDY INCIDENTAL TO VISIT;
I-20 NOT REQUIRED

immediately below the B-2 visa stamp.

:


Almost everyone who is going to the states is going PRIMARILY to get an aviation license, not to go visit Mickey and his mates down at Disney.

When they show up at the immigration desk with the waiver form or B-2, the Immigration officer will ask them for their reasons for visiting the USA. As soon as they say that they are going to get a license, its turn around and straight back home..It has happened, and will happen until people start getting the correct visa.

Hour building is different because you are there on holiday. The fact that you will spend that holiday flying is irelevant. It is the fact that you are not attending a course of study that is important. That is why you can do this on a visa waiver.

Campbell Cooke
3rd Mar 2003, 11:55
Hi Desipilot:

You are stating in your response e-mail exactly what I am saying. A foreign national entering the United States to visit who will attend a short course of study, get a pilots license and then leave is not engaging in full time study as envisioned for the M-1, J-1 and F-1 visas. He is a visitor whose flying is incidental to the visit.

Foreign nationals can and do enter the US reguarly to attain a private pilots license and then leave. This is done on the visa waiver or a B1/B-2. The nature of the visit is declared to the Immigration Service on entry, namely I am here to fly and get my license. No problem.

A foreign national who enters the United States to engage in a full time structured course of study at a flght school that issues M-1 visas and requires a year of training or so to get a private license, should seek the M-1. This is full time study.

My suggestion is that a wannabe enters the US on a visa waiver and gets his license with a small operator. This can be done in an unstructured environment with minimal cost and within a month or so. This is what the B-1/B-2 or visa waiver is for.

Please read both sections previously quoted.

EGPFlyer
3rd Mar 2003, 12:13
Even though a PPL course may only last 3 or 4 weeks, it is still full time study... therefore requiring an M-1... I know this because I got mine 2 weeks ago for my trip to the states to finish my PPL in a couple of weeks.

Foreign nationals can and do enter the US reguarly to attain a private pilots license and then leave. This is done on the visa waiver or a B1/B-2. The nature of the visit is declared to the Immigration Service on entry, namely I am here to fly and get my license. No problem

Why is it then that so many people are being turned away from the states when they turn up on visa waivers to do PPL courses. Immigration officers will stop 'young males travelling alone' at places like Orlando and Sanford because they know that these are the people most likely attending these courses.

gateradial
3rd Mar 2003, 12:32
Campbell Cooke,

I can see very clearly where you are coming from and don't dispute your sources, expertise or interpretation!

But that is the whole point. It is all a matter of interpretation. Alas, the INS official may have the right to exercise discretion but at the end of the day they refer to the regs and the interpretation(s) they and their peers put on them. Hence, Britannia had students turned back at the airport.

Some people will wish to enter the USA for the explicit purpose of flight training; they are not initially tourists. They require a visa for study beyond 18 hours per week whether or not they are training for a year or 10 days (read: fast-track FAA IFR rating for UK IMC holder). Not all operators can grant them the paperwork towards that visa. Here is the point of all this - you do not then have the choice of your preferred training organisation but instead must train with an organisation approved to issue the I-20. These are typically not your small operators who, as has been said before, can also offer very good quality and value-for-money.

I understand this applies to training and testing towards a certificate or rating; renewals or check-outs or rental don't require a (student) visa and so can indeed be done as a tourist (even though the US embassy prefers you have a B-2 than a waiver). The question of endorsements (e.g. tailwheel, complex, etc.) I guess can be easily answered if it is part-time training prior to undertaking tourism with your newly accepted skills.

Happy Landings
3rd Mar 2003, 15:17
Aliens coming to the United States primarily for tourism who also incidentally will engage in a short course of study during their visit.

Sorry EGPFlyer, but this just reminded me of Men in Black and made me laugh!

Naples Air Center, Inc.
3rd Mar 2003, 15:56
Here is the entire Regulation so you will not need to worry about the link being changed in the future.

DOCUMENT NUMBER: FR 11-02



FEDERAL REGISTER CITE: 67 FR 18062



DATE OF PUBLICATION: April 12, 2002





BILLING CODE: 4410-10



DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE



Immigration and Naturalization Service



8 CFR Parts 214 and 248



[INS No. 2195-02]



RIN 1115-AG60



Requiring Change of Status From B to F-1 or M-1



Nonimmigrant Prior to Pursuing a Course of Study



AGENCY: Immigration and Naturalization Service, Justice.



ACTION: Interim rule with request for comments.



SUMMARY: This interim rule amends the Immigration and Naturalization Service (Service) regulations by eliminating the current provision allowing a B-1 or B-2 nonimmigrant visitor for business or pleasure to begin attending school without first obtaining approval of a change of nonimmigrant status request from the Service. This change will enhance the Service’s ability to support the national security needs of the United States and is within the Service's authority under section 248 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (Act). The amendment will ensure that no B nonimmigrant is allowed to enroll in school until the alien has applied for, and the Service has approved, a change of nonimmigrant status to that of F-1 or M-1 nonimmigrant student.



DATES: Effective date: This interim rule is effective April 12, 2002.



Comment date: Written comments must be submitted on or before June 11, 2002.



ADDRESSES: Please submit written comments to the Director, Regulations and Forms Services Division, Immigration and Naturalization Service, 425 I Street, NW, Room 4034, Washington, DC 20536. To ensure proper handling, please reference the INS No. 2195-02 on your correspondence. Comments may also be submitted electronically to the Service at [email protected]. When submitting comments electronically, please include INS No. 2195-02 in the subject heading. Comments are available for public inspection at this location by calling (202) 514-3048 to arrange for an appointment.



FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Craig Howie, Business and Trade Services Branch, Adjudications Division, Immigration and Naturalization Service, 425 I Street, NW., Room 3040, Washington, DC 20536, telephone (202) 353-8177.



SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:



Background



What Is a B Nonimmigrant Alien?



A B nonimmigrant is an alien whose admission to the United States is based on a temporary visit for business (B-1) or a temporary visit for pleasure (B-2). Section 101(a)(15)(B) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(B), defines the visitor classification as:



An alien (other than one coming for the purpose of study or of performing skilled or unskilled labor or as a representative of foreign press, radio, film, or other foreign information media coming to engage in such vocation) having a residence in a foreign country which he has no intention of abandoning and who is visiting the United States temporarily for business or temporarily for pleasure.



Based on the statutory language, the Service has long held a B-1 nonimmigrant to be one seeking admission for legitimate activities of a commercial or professional nature such as meetings, conferences, or consultations in the United States in connection with the conduct of international business and commerce. A B-2 nonimmigrant is one seeking admission for activities relating to pleasure such as touring, family visits, or for purposes of receiving medical treatment.



What Is the Service Changing in This Interim Rule?



The Service is eliminating the ability of an alien admitted to the United States as a B-1 or B-2 nonimmigrant to begin attending classes without first applying to the Service, and obtaining the Service's prior approval, for a change of nonimmigrant status to that of an F or M nonimmigrant student. This rule expressly prohibits a B nonimmigrant from enrolling in a course of study or taking other actions inconsistent with B nonimmigrant status unless and until the Service has approved the B nonimmigrant's change to an appropriate student nonimmigrant status.



Why Is the Service Instituting This Change?



The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, highlight the need of the Service to maintain greater control over the ability of an alien to change nonimmigrant status once the alien has been admitted to the United States. This interim rule will allow the Service to fully review any request from a B nonimmigrant to change nonimmigrant status to that of full-time student before allowing the alien to enroll in a Service-approved school. The elimination of the ability of a B nonimmigrant to begin classes before receiving the Service's approval of the change of nonimmigrant status is also consistent with the Act's requirement in section 101(a)(15)(B) that a B nonimmigrant not be a person coming to the United States for the purpose of study.



Why Is This Change Limited to B Nonimmigrants?



In the process of drafting this rule, the Service considered making its requirements (i.e., that nonimmigrants obtain a student visa before being able to take courses) apply to anyone in the United States not currently in student status. Such a requirement would be broader than the rule as presently drafted, which applies just to nonimmigrants in B-1 or B-2 visitor status.



B nonimmigrants generally enter the United States for purposes of tourism or for a business trip. Pursuing a course of study is inconsistent with these purposes, and thus inconsistent with B status. However, pursuit of studies generally is consistent with most other nonimmigrant statuses, and thus such a broader rule could have unintended and overly burdensome consequences for such nonimmigrants. For some, such a J-1 au pair or an H-3 trainee, the courses might be an integral part of the program for which they obtained their status. For many dependent spouses, such as H-4s, derivatives of A or G diplomats, or NAFTA TN-2s, studies may be their only permissible pursuit while accompanying their spouse who is working in the United States. Dependent children are, in fact, expected to attend school. Even some principals in nonimmigrant status (e.g., H-1Bs, L-1s) may take courses incident to status to enhance their professional development. Requiring that these individuals change to F-1 or M-1 status in order to pursue studies would eliminate their ability to attend part-time, since by statute F-1s and M-1s must be pursuing a full course of study and since a nonimmigrant is prohibited from holding more than one nonimmigrant status while in the United States.



How Does This Interim Rule Affect B-1 or B-2 Nonimmigrants Previously Admitted to the United States?



This interim rule will accommodate B-1 or B-2 nonimmigrants who have already been admitted to the United States prior to April 12, 2002. In view of the Service's prior policy, this interim rule does not prevent such aliens from starting a course of study after filing an application for change of status, or require those aliens to stop taking classes while the Service processes the change of nonimmigrant status request.



However, this interim rule applies to all aliens who are admitted as, or change their status to, a B-1 or B-2 nonimmigrant, on or after April 12, 2002. This interim rule also applies to all current B visitors who apply for an extension of their B nonimmigrant status on or after April 12, 2002.



Request for Comments



The Service is seeking public comments regarding this interim rule. The Service requests that parties interested in commenting on the provisions contained within this rule do so on or before June 11, 2002, as the Service will not extend the comment period.



Good Cause Exception



The Service's implementation of this rule as an interim rule, with provisions for post-promulgation public comments, is based on the “good cause” exceptions found at 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) and (d)(3). The reason and necessity for the immediate promulgation of this rule are as follows: The rule is necessary to ensure the national security of the United States by eliminating the ability of a B nonimmigrant to enroll in school until the Service has approved a change of nonimmigrant status application filed by the prospective alien student. The previous rule allowing such enrollment prior to adjudication of the application was used by some of the September 11th terrorists to obtain flight training in the United States. Closing this loophole is essential to efforts to prevent this abuse from recurring.



There is also reasonable concern that publication of this regulation as a proposed rule, one that would not take effect until after a final rule was promulgated, could lead to the counterproductive result of a surge of entries by individuals who have no intention of going through the consular screening process overseas and who would seek admission as a B nonimmigrant while having the intent of becoming an F or M nonimmigrant student after admission to the United States.



However, this interim rule takes account of the interests of those aliens currently admitted to the United States in B nonimmigrant status. Such aliens will continue to be governed by the Service's prior policy regarding change to F or M nonimmigrant status, for the remainder of their currently-authorized B nonimmigrant admission.



Accordingly, the Service believes that advance public notice and comment on this regulation would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest. Therefore, there is good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) and (d) for dispensing with the requirements of prior notice and to make this rule effective upon the date of publication in the Federal Register.



Regulatory Flexibility Act



The Commissioner of the Immigration and Naturalization Service, in accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 605(b)), has reviewed this regulation and, by approving it, certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This rule applies only to B nonimmigrants applying to change to either F or M nonimmigrant status. It does not affect small entities as that term is defined in 5 U.S.C. 601(6).



Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995



This rule will not result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more in any one year, and it will not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. Therefore, no actions were deemed necessary under the provisions of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995.



Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996



This rule is not a major rule as defined by section 804 of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Act of 1996. This rule will not result in an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more; a major increase in costs or prices; or significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or on the ability of United States-based companies to compete with foreign-based companies in domestic and export markets.



Executive Order 12866



This rule is considered by the Department of Justice, Immigration and Naturalization Service, to be a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866, section 3(f), Regulatory Planning and Review. Accordingly, this rule has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget for review.



Executive Order 13132



This rule will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the National Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, in accordance with section 6 of Executive Order 13132, it is determined that this rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a federalism summary impact statement.



Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform



This rule meets the applicable standards set forth in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988.



Paperwork Reduction Act



Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13, all Departments are required to submit to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), for review and approval, any reporting or recordkeeping requirements inherent in a rule. This rule does not impose any new reporting or recordkeeping requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act.



List of Subjects



8 CFR Part 214



Administrative practice and procedure, Aliens, Employment, Foreign officials, Health professions, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Students.



8 CFR Part 248



Aliens, Immigration, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.



Accordingly, chapter I of title 8 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:



PART 214--NONIMMIGRANT CLASSES



1. The authority citation for part 214 continues to read as follows:



Authority: 8 U.S.C. 1101, 1101 note, 1103, 1182, 1184, 1186a, 1187, 1221, 1281, 1282; sec. 643, Pub. L. 104-208, 110 Stat. 3009-708; Section 141 of the Compacts of Free Association with the Federated States of Micronesia and the Republic of the Marshall Islands, and with the Government of Palau, 48 U.S.C. 1901 note, and 1931 note, respectively; 8 CFR part 2.



2. Section 214.2 is amended by adding and reserving paragraph (b)(6) and by adding new paragraph (b)(7) to read as follows:



§ 214.2 Special requirements for admission, extension and maintenance of status.



* * * * *



(b) * * *



(6) [Reserved]



(7) Enrollment in a course of study prohibited. An alien who is admitted as, or changes status to, a B-1 or B-2 nonimmigrant on or after April 12, 2002, or who files a request to extend the period of authorized stay in B-1 or B-2 nonimmigrant status on or after such date, violates the conditions of his or her B-1 or B-2 status if the alien enrolls in a course of study. Such an alien who desires to enroll in a course of study must either obtain an F-1 or M-1 nonimmigrant visa from a consular officer abroad and seek readmission to the United States, or apply for and obtain a change of status under section 248 of the Act and 8 CFR part 248. The alien may not enroll in the course of study until the Service has admitted the alien as an F-1 or M-1 nonimmigrant or has approved the alien's application under part 248 of this chapter and changed the alien's status to that of an F-1 or M-1 nonimmigrant.



* * * * *



PART 248--CHANGE OF NONIMMIGRANT CLASSIFICATION



3. The authority citation for part 248 continues to read as follows:



Authority: 8 U.S.C. 1101, 1103, 1184; 1258; 8 CFR part 2.



4. Section 248.1 is amended by revising paragraph (c) to read as follows:





§ 248.1 Eligibility.



* * * * *



(c) Change of nonimmigrant classification to that of a nonimmigrant student.



(1) Except as provided in paragraph (c)(3) of this section, a nonimmigrant applying for a change of classification as an F-1 or M-1 student is not considered ineligible for such a change solely because the applicant may have started attendance at school before the application was submitted. The district director or service center director shall deny an application for a change to classification as an M-1 student if the applicant intends to pursue the course of study solely in order to qualify for a subsequent change of nonimmigrant classification to that of an alien temporary worker under section 101(a)(15)(H) of the Act. Furthermore, an alien may not change from classification as an M-1 student to that of an F-1 student.



(2) [Reserved]



(3) A nonimmigrant who is admitted as, or changes status to, a B-1 or B-2 nonimmigrant on or after April 12, 2002, or who files a request to extend the period of authorized stay as a B-1 or B-2 nonimmigrant on or after such date, may not pursue a course of study at an approved school unless the Service has approved his or her application for change of status to a classification as an F-1 or M-1 student. The district director or service center director will deny the change of status if the B-1 or B-2 nonimmigrant enrolled in a course of study before filing the application for change of status or while the application is pending before the Service.



* * * * *







April 9, 2002 Signed

_______________ _______________________



Dated: James W. Ziglar,



Commissioner, Immigration and



Naturalization Service.

carb
3rd Mar 2003, 17:26
Yawn! As pointed out previously, the visa waiver is class W, so all this stuff for people switching from B to M status is irrelevant. Regulations can be complex and need to be carefully read and understood.

Facts Not Fiction Pls
3rd Mar 2003, 19:51
Hour builders

If you hold an FAA licence or a JAA Licence with a conversion completed or to be done, you are not required to be on a Visa.

Flight Training

If you are undertaking training towards a licence/certificate/rating of any sort, you are considered to be training and therefore require a M1/F1/J1 Visa.

There are those that say you can get in on your Visa Wiaver, just ask them to show you the proof. Call the US Embassy and ask them if you want nitty gritty. Do not take it from some faceless person who is probably associated with a school that is not Visa approved!

Facts

carb
3rd Mar 2003, 20:45
Ah, but the trouble is that all the propoganda saying you *do* need a visa, originated from FTOs with visa approval, some of whom also appeared to be lobbying gov't agencies to back them up on that. Having visa approval has obviously been a great selling point in recent times. But I personally know of dozens of people who've entered via visa waiver since 9/11 (there must have been hundreds if not thousands) many being perfectly open about the purpose of the visit, some questioned at length, yet we've only heard about a handful (2? 3?) who were sent back. And, we don't know how many of those would have been denied entry anyway, as suspected immigrants or illegal workers or for security reasons.

I just don't believe anything I read on pprune, when commercial interests are involved.

And the US Embassy is full of faceless bureaucrats, the next worst thing. I imagine they love issuing visas galore, keeps them busy. It's the immigration service (INS) themselves that people should consult.

Campbell Cooke
3rd Mar 2003, 22:41
Good to hear the quiet voice of reason from Carb.

The original question phrased by our friend was:

Can you enter the United States and engage in informal flight training with a small operator to get an FAA license without an
M-1 visa?

The answer is simply yes.


This is done regularly and with great success by many flight students who enter on the visa waiver after declaring to the Immigration Service that they are going for flight training.

If a formal and structured course of study at a big flight school is a preferred choice then get an M-1 and enter the US.

Either way you choose, please do not get lost in a morass of irrelevant information that only causes confusion and really has little to do with the question at hand.


As an aside note the final rule on the U.S. "Flight Training Candidate Checks Program" was issued in the Federal Register on Friday (Volume 68, Number 30, page 7313-7321). It clearly states it only applies to training in aircraft with a maximum certified takeoff weight in excess of 12,500 lbs.

I hope you enter the U.S. and enjoy your flying.

scroggs
4th Mar 2003, 10:22
I think we're getting very wound up about this, and it's probably all a bit unnecessary! I get the impression that Mr Cooke is talking about people who wish, while on a visit to the US, to get perhaps a type conversion before they go off touring around the country. The trouble is that the people on this forum (as opposed to those on the Private Flying forum) wish to visit the US with the sole or primary aim of completing a formal course of study to obtain a JAA (not FAA) licence or rating, and so his interpretation, while undoubtedly correct, is inappropriate to the circumstances of our readers.

My reading of the regulations from the INS website (linked from the US Embassy's) suggests that an M visa is required for most of the courses that you guys are likely to want to do, which most certainly do not fit Mr Cooke's description of 'informal flight training with a small operator to get an FAA license'. If I am wrong, perhaps someone could explain why, and give the references to show what the correct procedure is.

Scroggs
Virgin/Wannabes Moderator
[email protected] ([email protected])

Cricketer
4th Mar 2003, 10:28
Might it not be simpler for everyone wishing to go to the US for any flying to simply get the M1 visa? Sure it is a bit more time and money to get it but at least you can then be pretty sure that you will not get turned back from the Immigration desks.

On the original thread - my condolences to G-SXTY, what a nightmare and I really hope that you can get things sorted. Unbeleivable how these things happen.

Tony Cornish
4th Mar 2003, 11:19
Scroggs

Not true

Firstly many people obtain an FAA PPL and then pursue the JAA modular route to obtain their JAA Commercial licence. An FAA PPL being an ICAO licence is recognised by the JAA as a valid entry quailification for all of the JAA Modular Courses.

Secondly FAA PPL specifically excludes flying commercial operations and therefore the training for this licence (or for ratings associated with the PPL) can only be defined as non-vocational. A school whose operations are limited to non-vocational training is outside the scope of the M1 visa and the training it provides, being recreational by definition, can be completed whilst on vacation under the visa waiver scheme.

You can check all of this out be reading the JAR FCL documentation, the US Visa Waiver Legislation, and the US INS M1 Visa Requirements. Until the US changes its laws this situation will stand.

Our experience confims this. We instruct all of our students to inform the INS officers on arrival that they are on vacation, that they will be completing a PPL course, and to show them the schools' documentation. No one has yet been refused entry!!!

People get hot under the collar because you have had a sticky on your website for a considerable amount of time which is at least questionable and is probably misleading.

The US government and their population welcomes visitors to their country including those learning to fly. Visitors for flying are not doing anything wrong and should not worry about the INS officers who will only turn back people who they suspect as being a threat, or are being deceptive, or do not comply the the visa regulations.

gateradial
4th Mar 2003, 12:46
Cricketer,

Yes, but for the minor problem that very few if any "small informal flight training operators" have INS approval to issue the I-20 paperwork which is a necessary prerequisite for the M-1 visa. Catch-22 or ONLY go and do your informal but M-1 approved flight training with a larger formal school recognised by the INS for issue of I-20. Nothing wrong with that but it doesn't suit all needs (e.g. time & money). I for one am very happy to get an M-1 but the small informal operator of my choice for a further rating can't oblige and I haven't yet heard of an alternative means of compliance than an I-20. I'm not going to put his and my certificates in jeopardy and so will need something in writing from the INS in advance to confirm they are happy with either visa Waiver or B visa entry for my specific case.


Scroggs,

Yes, there are clearly two groups that can be identified. However, even for the second group, such as further ratings at PPL level (which may or may not be a necessary part of an overall wannabee modular training plan) you are according to one interpretation, undertaking recreational i.e. non-vocational (or informal, if you will) flight training. Or are you? Who knows for sure? By the same token, it can be argued that many in the first group should also have an M-1. What is not disputed is that a BFR, type check-out or rental appear very recreational and likely do not involve 18+ hours of study per week. Endorsements, I would argue, are also in this latter group. It is, however, hard to include training and testing for initial certificate or rating issue at any level in this group to the same degree of certainty that one can for BFR etc.

However, none of this deals with the small operator and M-1/I-20 issue above, whether formal or informal.

As for references, what exist are open to interpretation (and Campbell Cooke, slim-slag, carb and NAC etc. are to be commended for their input). I'm waiting to hear back from the US Embassy right now - they didn't have a definitive reference and are no doubt waiting for the INS to open shop before they give me THEIR interpretation. Key points for them were - recreational vs. number of hours per week and is a test involved? Even a tourist doing incidental training towards an FAA PPL checkride is being tested and is likely "studying" more than 18 hours per week - which counts most in the INS estimation? According to this thread reports of actual cases illustrate both ends of the spectrum - many succeed and yet some get turned back before entry.

What I don't yet see is the flight training operators, FBOs, AOPA, IAOPA, etc. etc. banging the doors of the US government to get the whole mess clarified once and for all! I conclude that the economics of training foreign pilots just isn't hurting enough and perhaps it never will.


Tony Cornish,

I'm very glad for your precedent but my conversations with the US embassy with heavy use of "recreational", "non-vocational" and "non-commercial" were not enough for them to make their mind up on the spot, either way!
I agree totally with your advice to your students but not all operators have taken the trouble as you have to get legal advice. Or become I-20 issuers.

PS Did you get the PM I sent you re. IFR? Would appreciate your feedback. Thanks.

piperindian
4th Mar 2003, 14:10
In the current world situation its better to get a M1 for any flight training in the US, even if you are caucasian-looking. Its not a big hassle (just go to the US embassy with the paperwork) when you consider what the JAA/CAA bureaucrats themselves require (they reinvented flying)
The yanks are a bit on the nerves right now and its understandable.

Yes, true some years ago you could get in without a M1 or even better. I dont understand all the fuss.

Also its true, never pay any money upfront for your flight training but its easier said than done. If am not mistaken, some brilliant UK flight schools REQUIRED you to pay some money in advance for the fATPL training
If think its the same with sponsorships (dont tell me sponsorships are safe look at buzz !) Even fligth tickets are not guaranteed nowadays.

Campbell Cooke
4th Mar 2003, 14:38
Dear Cricketer and all those others engaged in this discussion:

The idea of just getting an M-1 visa is an interesting proposition. Please note that anyone admitted into the US on an M-1 visa is then bound to engage in a full time course of study with the school that issued the M-1 visa. That is all you are allowed to do.

I think Tony Cornish hit the mark, M-1 visas are for full time vocational training. This is not what we are talking about. What we are talking about is entering the US doing some flying, doing some study, applying for an FAA private license on light aircraft under the weight of 12,500 lbs and leaving the US within 90 days. This is visa waiver activity - it is not vocational study. Thus you do not need the M-1 visa and allows you the option of small operators.

Another writer to this forum raised the big factor - the Immigration Service at the point of entry into the US. They have the ultimate decision as to whether you gain admission into the United States or not, regardless of what non-immigrant visa type you enter on. The issues at the point of entry are:

Immigrant intent;
Are you going to work without authority;
Are you going to leave the US before the authorized period of stay expires;
Are you a terrorist threat; and,
Do you have a criminal record.

The Immigration Officer has on average about 15 seconds to make this decision. If in doubt you may be referred to secondary inspection. This is a more intense scrutiny of who you are and what you are intending to do in the US. None of these grounds of exclusion apply to the pilot we are discussing who is doing FAA certification on a visa waiver. You do not have to hide anything.

Single males between the ages of 17 and 30 run into the question of whether they are entering the US to marry a US citizen or are seeking economic migration. This raises the issue of immigrant intent.

Immigrant intent makes one inelligible for admission under nearly all the classes of nonimmigrant visas (including the B-1/B-2; M-1; or visa waiver). The exceptions to this are the H-1B, K and L-1 visas which allow for immigrant intent.

Please note the US Immigration Service now falls under the Bureau of Homeland Security. Which has two immigration sub-divisions, namely: enforcement, which includes inspectors at the ports of entry, and benefits, who are the people who adjudicate applications and petitions in the US. With this change we are all hoping for a more efficient government entity (if such a thing exists).

Campbell

scroggs
4th Mar 2003, 14:39
Tony

thanks for your input. I am sure you are quite correct in your statements but, as gateradial shows, the competent authority in the UK isn't sure itself what the rules are, or how they should be interpreted. As for the 'sticky', Campbell Cooke has kindly agreed to update it to take account of the latest legislation and interpretations. I've no doubt individual cases will still arise that confound the rules or the rulemakers, but I hope it will help avoid confusion.

Scroggs
Virgin/Wannabes Moderator
[email protected]

Cricketer
4th Mar 2003, 15:00
Fair do's - I did not realise that it had to be issued by the flight school. I reckon it has to be easier and cheaper to go to SA now. Although having been knocked out of their own world cup maybe now is not such a good time. They deserved to get through unlike us!!

On a separate note - if you have a JAA IR and want to fly Instrument stuff in the US - do you have to do a full IR FAA?

gateradial
4th Mar 2003, 15:43
Cricketer,

1) If you already have a 61.75 certificate (ie issued on the basis of your foreign JAA licence) then I think you need to:

a) complete the new foreign licence verification procedure for a future rating/certificate issue at your nominated FSDO
b) sit and pass a reduced IR written knowledge exam - the IR Foreign Pilot test
c) visit said FSDO with your verification letter and JAA licence and test results and have them undertake the necessary administrative update to your 61.75 licence.
Note that your JAA licence must be valid and your IR must be current from verification request through to administrative update.

2) Alternatively, you could sit the full written and pass the normal IFR rating practical test (assuming you already meet all the experience requirements of 14 CFAR 61.65 by virtue of your JAA IR training and flying). Then your 61.75 certificate will also be endorsed with "US Test Passed".

3) If you already have a standard FAA certificate (ie you originally undertook a course of training, a full written test and an FAA flight test) then you can certainly do the second above on your standard certificate without the endorsement; whether the first is allowed I don't know.

4) If you have neither FAA licence (standard or 61.75) then you have to get one of them first!

BTW, don't quote me - I'm not a CFI, lawyer or holder of either IR. I have found the New York IFO very helpful on answers not obvious in the FAR/AIM. Don't ask the FAA office in London (Gatwick?) - they have no operations inspectors and will refer you to New York IFO or another FSDO.

Anticyclone
5th Mar 2003, 12:33
Hey all,

I went to Naples Air center on the 6th of march and recieved a great welcome, however it is clear in my view now that where money is concerned keep it in your pocket and not their`s. After two weeks of superb instruction, and some hidden costs, i rode in to the school to go solo for the first time, only to be met by a notice of temporary closure???After a day of hanging around i jumped on a grey hound to Orlando flight training in kissimi where i have had no troubles since and was lucky to land myself with a great instructor once again. Ironically 3 days later another 6 students from Naples arrived and with the closure of NFT at Orlando Executive another load are due too. In all honesty i never found out or new, nor would i claim too, what the EXACT problem was at Naples, perhaps the only guys who do really know are the FAA or whayever department deals with airschool workers compensation. I felt that Naples did make a substancial effort to keep the sudents infomed, and i did recieve my deposit back soon after asking. My only advise to people like myself training in the US is the following:

1.Manage your money very very carefully, never pay up front, sadly known all too well by the students at NFT who in cases lost $50,000 due to paying up front.

2.Trust you insticts, as many schools employ very good salesmen.

3.There is some great flying to be had in the US, at low cost, with good instruction, and as long as the above is taken into account you CAN return to the UK with your intended qualifications and a wide smile on your face.

Keep flying everyone!

Anticyclone
:D :D

Sir Digby Spode
5th Mar 2003, 18:42
My two penneth for what it's worth...
I went to the USA last January as part of a modular JAA fATPL course. I entered via Atlanta on the Visa waiver permit. On arrival I was asked by the nice chap at immigration what the purpose of my visit was, and how long I was going to stay. When I told him that I would be visiting for ten weeks, he raised one eyebrow. When I explained that I would be doing some flying, he raised the other one. He ummed and arred for what seemed like an eternity and then gave me a big orange folder and told me to wait for someone else to come and talk to me. After about twenty minutes, I was ushered into an office where three immigration officials were waiting to grill me. I answered all of their questions truthfully, gave them the name and address of the flying school where I would be training. I explained to them that I would be doing my FAA PPL and nothing more. It was non-vocational and purely for recreation. They did let me into the country, although the also told me that I should have had an M1 visa.
I can understand their caution, since I could have appeared to them as one of Osama's buddies, being blond haired, blue eyed, having spent sixteen years working for a major airline and also being married to an American!
My experience? Tell the truth, don't hide anything, be polite and friendly and they will be ok. The flight school where I trained was very small. Even smaller than I had imagined, with only three Cessna 152's and two instructors. That said, the training I received was absolutely first class. It must have been as I somehow managed to get 100% for my PPL written exam and a first time pass for the flight test.
Just for the record, I paid all the fees upfront before leaving the UK and the training wasn't in Florida!
There are good schools out there and it is possible to get in without an M1 visa.

Naples Air Center, Inc.
5th Mar 2003, 19:52
Sir Digby Spode,

The rules changed on April 12, 2002. I posted the rule change on the second page of this thread.

Richard

carb
5th Mar 2003, 20:20
What you posted refers to change of visa status. Sir Digby Spode stated that he was on a visa waiver. The law is full of nuances, but it is all crystal clear if read in full, and with care.

Campbell Cooke
5th Mar 2003, 22:34
Dear Richard:

The rule change you refer to is with regard to changing non-immigrant visa status from visitor to student while in the US. The old rule allowed you start studying immediately after filing the application. The new rule requires you to wait for the application to change status to be approved before you start studying. This rule change is included in the voluminous copy of the immigration regulations you posted previously.

Changing visa status from visitor to student is a completely different animal to recreational flying on an visa waiver.

Best wishes,
Campbell

Naples Air Center, Inc.
6th Mar 2003, 01:53
Campbell,

The reason they address the B Visa and not the Visa Waiver is because the Visa Waiver is not a Visa, so you do not have a Visa to change from, in order to allow you to do any training. There are threads already on this in this forum.

Here are the highlights:

Why Is the Service Instituting This Change?



The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, highlight the need of the Service to maintain greater control over the ability of an alien to change nonimmigrant status once the alien has been admitted to the United States. This interim rule will allow the Service to fully review any request from a B nonimmigrant to change nonimmigrant status to that of full-time student before allowing the alien to enroll in a Service-approved school. The elimination of the ability of a B nonimmigrant to begin classes before receiving the Service's approval of the change of nonimmigrant status is also consistent with the Act's requirement in section 101(a)(15)(B) that a B nonimmigrant not be a person coming to the United States for the purpose of study.


Why Is This Change Limited to B Nonimmigrants?



In the process of drafting this rule, the Service considered making its requirements (i.e., that nonimmigrants obtain a student visa before being able to take courses) apply to anyone in the United States not currently in student status. Such a requirement would be broader than the rule as presently drafted, which applies just to nonimmigrants in B-1 or B-2 visitor status.



B nonimmigrants generally enter the United States for purposes of tourism or for a business trip. Pursuing a course of study is inconsistent with these purposes, and thus inconsistent with B status. However, pursuit of studies generally is consistent with most other nonimmigrant statuses, and thus such a broader rule could have unintended and overly burdensome consequences for such nonimmigrants. For some, such a J-1 au pair or an H-3 trainee, the courses might be an integral part of the program for which they obtained their status. For many dependent spouses, such as H-4s, derivatives of A or G diplomats, or NAFTA TN-2s, studies may be their only permissible pursuit while accompanying their spouse who is working in the United States. Dependent children are, in fact, expected to attend school. Even some principals in nonimmigrant status (e.g., H-1Bs, L-1s) may take courses incident to status to enhance their professional development. Requiring that these individuals change to F-1 or M-1 status in order to pursue studies would eliminate their ability to attend part-time, since by statute F-1s and M-1s must be pursuing a full course of study and since a nonimmigrant is prohibited from holding more than one nonimmigrant status while in the United States.

Then you go to the Visa Waiver Program information at the U.S. Embassy London Website you will find:

Transit under the Visa Waiver Program
Travelers who qualify for visa free travel under the Visa Waiver Program are eligible to transit the United States. Application for entry is made on the arrival/departure form I-94W provided by the airline or shipping company. If transiting the United States to a destination in Canada, Mexico or the adjacent islands, the traveler may re-enter the United States on the return journey using any mode of transport, as long as the total visit, including both periods of time spent in transit and in Canada, Mexico or the adjacent islands, does not exceed 90 days. If transiting to a destination outside of Canada, Mexico, or the adjacent islands, the return journey must be on a participating carrier, but need not be within 90 days, as the traveler will be required to make a new application for admission and therefore, required to complete a new arrival/departure form, I-94W. Travelers transiting the United States to take up residence in Mexico, Canada, Bermuda or the Caribbean Islands must be legal permanent residents of these areas.

Important reminder: Visa-free travel does not include those who plan to study, work or remain more than 90 days. Such travelers need visas. If an officer of the BCIS believes that a visa-free traveler is going to study, work or stay longer than 90 days, the officer will refuse to admit the traveler.



A student wishing to attend a university or other academic institution in the United States requires a student (F-1) visa; those wishing to attend a vocational or non-academic institution require an M-1 visa. Holders of visitor(B-2) visas and those who have entered the United States visa free under the Visa Waiver Program are prohibited from entering into full-time study.


Nonacademic (M-1) Visa: A student wishing to pursue a course of study which is not principally academic in nature at an established vocational or other recognized nonacademic institution such as a post secondary vocational or business school requires an M-1 visa.

But once again, do not take my word for it. Check with the U.S. Embassy in your country.

If you were to use common sense, ask yourself why would NAC, OFT, EFT, IFTA, Comair, Embry-Riddle, and many others in Florida (there are many more schools in other states too) spend tens of thousands of dollars a year to offer the Visas to students at no charge. How would a school benefit from this?

Then take what happened on 9-11. The U.S. Government is going to stop this from happening again. There are people in the thread saying the U.S. Governments is so dumb, they are going to leave a huge hole open for potential terrorists to enter the country without a Visa (and Background check for that matter) because they are going to go to a small school to learn to fly. In the U.S. every flight school, no matter how small, can train someone all the way to ATP. Does common sense tell you the U.S. Government is going to leave that gaping whole in their security so we can have a second 9-11?????

Do not take my word for it, talk to the source, the U.S. Embassy in your country!

Richard

P.S. I just do not get why people are so afraid of a simple two week process that actually allows them to enter legally. They would rather risk deportation by trying to fool an Immigration Officer upon entry to the U.S.

Campbell Cooke
6th Mar 2003, 03:07
Dear Richard:

Thank you for the response. I deal with the Bureau of Homeland Security, the Department of Justice and the Department of State on a daily basis resolving immigration issues such as these.

You are mixing concepts and visa requirements, a very easy thing to do when working off the internet.

The Visa Waiver program is a waiver of the requirement of the B-1/B-2 visas for visitors of certain countries. The United Kingdom is one of these countries. This program was enacted into section 217 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, through section 313(a) of the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986. The visa waiver visitor may upon admission participate in B-1 or B-2 activities in the United States for a period of 90 days. Engaging in training and acquiring a license or certificate is permitited under a B-1 and thus under the visa waiver. Please see Letter from Yvonne M La fleur, Chief Nonimmgrant Branch, INS Office of Adjudications, to lawyer Wiliam Z. Reich, File no. HQ 1815 - C (Dec. 21, 1995). Thus, the permissable B-1/B-2 activities include recreational flying training and acquiring an FAA light aircraft private pilots license. This is what we are talking about.


Full time study at an academic or vocational training school is not what we are talking about. This does requires an M-1, J-1 or F-1 visa. If a person wants to pursue a course of study which would lead to commercial license then the M-1, J-1 or F-1 visa would be the appropriate vehicle. This is why serious flight schools acquire authorization to issue the documentation which underpins these visas. This is what you are discussing.

It should be noted that Immigration is the second most complex body of law in the United States. This is because of its fluid and political nature. One cannot read a collection of reguations and FAQ's off a website in isolation and expect to understand the finer points. Experienced attorneys don't even try that. I don't think this is what this website forum intended. We may all want to stop and consider checking what we are talking about before making what could possibly be wild, irresponsible and inaccurate statements. This is a very important topic for some potential pilots out there. They have to make serious financial decisions for their futures and may have no room for error.

I think we should head back to the joys of flying and leave these dry legal topics to wander alone in the wilderness

Best wishes,
Campbell

gateradial
6th Mar 2003, 09:31
Campbell,

Your input to date has been excellent and reassuring. It has, however, been concentrated solely around "recreational flying training" towards "acquiring" an FAA PPL "license or certificate", i.e. initial issue.

I for one would welcome your point of view on flying training towards an FAA IFR "rating" on an existing FAA PPL. To my mind this can be nothing but recreational in both use and training but is not necessarily about "acquiring a certificate or license".

Without seeing the content of the La Fleur/Reich letter I'm in the dark as to any possible differing INS interpretation. Are INS adjudications available on the web?

Thanks.

Campbell Cooke
6th Mar 2003, 14:17
Dear Gateradial:

I am sending Scroggs an accurate overview of the US entry requirements for posting, subject to his approval. I will address this question of yours in this. I plan to do it over the weekend when I have time and Scroggs should have it Monday.

The US Immigration Administrative Decisions and the Board of Immigration Appeals Precedent Decisions are available online through the Immigration Service's (now the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services) pfficial government website. However, the internal policy memoranda are not. These are available in two publications "Interpreter Releases" published by West Group and "Benders Immigration Bulletin" published by Mathew Bender. Have a browse through their website and if you have any specfic questions or difficulties you may want to give me an e-mail. Please remebr it is the Bureau of customs enforcement and immigration that makes the determination on admssion into the United States not the consulate. This is regardles of whether you have a valid visa, of any descripition, or not.

I have generally found the US Consulate website very unhelpful and have rarely received helpful assistance from a Consular officer, it is always vague. I suppose these are the joys of international diplomacy. I will try to get an advisory letter from Steven Fischel at the Department of State, he deals with visa policy.

The admission determinations are usually made at the US border and there are very few people who have big enough b.... b... to challenge an admission denial. If the decision to deny admission is a discretionary issue then you will not get anywhere. I don't think I would challenge an admission denial.

I hope this helps.

Campbell

Private jet
7th Mar 2003, 09:12
Not quite OT but doesn't it seem a little strange that British Citizens are subjected to all this from our "closest ally"?
Also, if one wishes to emigrate to the US then Brits are behind the Irish, Mexicans andjust about everybody else. So much for the "special relationship"....a bit one sided if you ask me.

Campbell Cooke
8th Mar 2003, 13:34
Hi there Private Jet:

Maybe a bit OT but if you look at the whole nautre of the relationship the US has with the UK and then look at Blair phasing out the Harrier and signing on to the the Joint Strike Fighter project, which is basically owned and controlled by Lockheed Martin. It does seem a bit strange. Where does that leave the UK with regard to air power for the next decade or two?

The UK may have climbed out of the drivers seat to find itself on the side of the road trying to ride with others. I hope not.

Campbell

scroggs
8th Mar 2003, 19:27
Chaps, while an esoteric discussion about the relative priorities of different nationalities' entry to the States, and the merits of the JSF, the Harrier and Tony Blair may be very interesting, they are not relevant to the thread or to Wannabes. Keep it focussed!

Scroggs