FAA Validation of a UK CAA JAA CPL

[Whopity]

If its the same as in the UK, Aerial Work occurs if the student pays for the aircraft i.e hire; it has nothing to do with the instructor being paid.

A number of schools operating in the US have applied similar interpretations but it does not mean it is correct. The reference in Stds Doc 39 was put there so that staff would be made aware that it was their responsibility to ensure they were instructing legally. Around 2000/2001 students were flying around Florida with no pilot licence at all, having trained for a JAA PPL, Night, IMC, and Multi and did not apply for anything, until they completed their hour building and returned to the UK with 150 hours; most of which was flow illegally in the US. The latter was of no concern to the UK CAA.

[englishal]

2.1.2 If the only payment involved is the payment of the pilot, the flight is deemed to be private for airworthiness purposes (although it will still be aerial work for other purposes, e.g. flight crew licensing). This enables a private owner to pay a flying instructor for a flying lesson in his own aircraft even though the continuing airworthiness requirements that would be applicable to public transport aircraft may not have been applied.

I would expect the FAA to ensure that pilots giving any form of instruction in the USA meet the US rules and requirements....Just like the CAA would....unless possibly it is in a G reg aeroplane.

[Whopity]

Public transport and aerial work - general rules
157 (1) Subject to the provisions of this article and articles 158 to 163, aerial work means any purpose (other than public transport) for which an aircraft is flown if valuable consideration is given or promised in respect of the flight or the purpose of the flight.

So even if the pilot is not paid, its Aerial Work unless the pilot owns the aircraft or gets it for free.

[S-Works]

The only aspect of relevance in terms of the FAR's is a student going solo.

And how is exactly is a student going solo in an N reg aircraft in US airspace then? They can't be doing under your licence as a JAA Instructor as you don't have the right to send someone solo in a foreign registered aircraft and as you are not an FAA CFI you can't do it.

The only way it can be done is on a FAA student pilot certificate.

Which means that student must then have the minimum required training with an FAA CFI..........

[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.

[S-Works]

You have backed yourself into a corner through a fundamental lack of understanding of how the system works. We have all read your posts and telling us to read them properly is not going to change the fact that you can't teach legally in the USA without a Visa and an FAA CPL/IR and CFI. However you may try to justify it.

Just remember that most of the people round here were teaching and examining while you were still filling your nappy. A cross section of your posts as revealed some interest assumptions about your character. What I see is a young kid with a newly minted CPL desperate to get hours and willing to cut corners to get there.

[S-Works]

Which part of the requirement for 20hrs training with an FAA CFI are YOU missing? Or the requirement for training to be from an authorised Instructor which a JAA Instructor is not.

As I have said you have backed yourself into a corner and if anyone is failing to understand a few things it is you...........

We all understand that you are giving instruction in an N reg aircraft for reward without holding an FAA CPL or CFI. You are working illegally in the United States without a work visa as you are getting a reward. You are then trying to justify how you think you are circumventing the system. All in the name of hours building.

Think of this another way, if your CV ever came across my desk seeking employment on our turboprop fleet it would go straight into the round filing cabinet. There is no way we or anyone I know would employ someone who is so keen to flout the rules and the laws. What else are you going to do, hide a hot start or a heavy landing.......

I would also suggest that you direct your responses to the forum, as I do not see a single person agreeing with you rather than me individually. Rather than making it personal, this also includes sending me emails. Trust me you don't want to get on the wrong side of me personally!!!!

[S-Works]

Does that make it fair for a complete stranger to pass judgement? Let's stop this bose x and keep these forums constructive.

I think you will find that people were trying to be constructive but you are blind to opinion.

Again bose x you haven't read my posts. The 20hr requirement is for the issue of an FAA PPL. We are not talking about FAA PPLs we are talking about JAA PPLs with FAA solo sign offs. As I have explained many times now an FAA CFI checks the students on the all the requirements throughout the pre solo.

Yes I have read your posts. You can't teach in an N reg aircraft for the purpose of reward without an FAA CPL. If you are sending someone solo in an N reg aircraft it must be under an FAA student pilot certificate. If it is under an FAA student piot certificate then the training must have been done by an authorised Instructor. A JAA Instructor is not an authorised Instructor so you are nothing more than a pilot taking someone along for a ride and as they are paying for the aircraft and you don't have an FAA CPL nor a work visa it is illegal.

Listen to what I have told you and everyone on this thread.

[S-Works]

I'm glad you now realise the 20hr rule is irrelevant.

Where on earth did you get that from???? It is not irrelevant, it is one part of the whole thing that people are trying to explain to you.

However to settle it I have just written to US Immigration and the FAA in Oklahoma explaining what you have told us and asking for an opinion. I will post it when I get it.

[BigGrecian]

Maybe Alister you should reveal who you work for first.

Hang on that'd get you the black stamp in your passort, and who knows what consequences for your employer.

Notice you backed off on the immigration issue though, since people brought to the table US Immigration rulings which state that you were working illegally.

[S-Works]

You seem to have much to say for yourself.

As do you young man. Virtually all of it incorrect......

I guess that with your constant response to me and ignoring others posts with the same opinion I have struck a raw nerve.

[S-Works]

Oooooh! A raw nerve indeed!!! What no witty retorts or explanations of why you are doing nothing wrong just an easy slide into personal abuse?

You are no sport at all.

[S-Works]

And I have spent my last 10 explaining while you are wrong so touche!!!

Difference is I have a green card, and you have sweet FA chance of getting one especially when you get banned for being illegal!!

But honestly, my kids are more resilient than you, they at least can come back with an intellectual retort.......

[S-Works]

Lol, you are like a kid, gotta have the last word!!

Ner ner ner ner!!!!

I can bait you all day long...............

[S-Works]

Just you at the moment apparently......

15/30.....

[421C]

Socal, your posts always read sensibly to me and Bose, you are a personal friend, so I hope you won't mind my saying that you are being tough on Alister on one particular point.

There seem to be 3 issues here.
1. the training of students by a JAA FI (but not FAA CFI) who then go solo on an N-reg aircraft
This was the major point being debated, and although both of you have hammered your views, I am afraid I agree with Alister. I think he's right and you're wrong, so a bit less certainty slamming someone might be in order
2. the activity above without an FAA CPL, only a PPL
I think this is the problem. If Alister is the PIC, and someone else is paying for the aircraft hire (irrespective of whether Alister is paid or not) then I think Alister needs a CPL. It's more the "common purpose" legal interpretation of 14 CFR than something actually written in 14 CFR. But the local FSDO is the authority, not a letter some other FSDO wrote at some point in time. Only the FAA's main legal office issues letters binding across all FSDOs.
3. the immigration issue
I know nothing about this, so no comment other than personally I think it's crazy to mess with US immigration and I would not rely on being unpaid as a defence in something that in other respects looks like work.

Alister,
Trying to be neutral, it does sound as if the legality of what you're doing is a potentially fragile construct based on your interpretation of points 2 and 3 above. It is notoriously difficult to get definitive and binding interpretations of this sort of thing. Generally, the competent authorities (FAA, TSA or US Immigration) don't issue exhaustive guidelines, there is always a boundary area in which the discretion of individual officers and offices applies, and if it comes to a conflict, case law is used to resolve it in court. The fact you read the rules and felt you had a reasonable interpretation of them (eg. "I didn't need an FAA CPL or work permit because I wasn't being paid") is not a defence if the case law (or statute law you have missed) is against you. You'd be wise to get a written answer from responsible local agencies. Bose's comment is not unreasonable, that professional pilot recruiting is not going to favour someone who juggled around the intersect of 3 pretty grey zones to convince themselves what they were doing is fine. A lot of professional flying involves the discipline of not convincing yourself something is fine based on your "reasonable interpretation" without the appropriate degree of rigour.

brgds
421C

ps. bose, just to add a qualification to your comment on the 20hrs training for the FAA PPL. This has to be conducted by an FAA CFI only if the training is done in the USA. Outside the USA, a qualified ICAO instructor can act as an authorised instructor for FAA required training and can sign a log book confirming such training was given. However, he can't do any more - eg. sign any of the required endorsements for a student to take a test

[Tinstaafl]

Forget about it, Bose et al. You'll never convince him that he's wrong.

[B2N2]

For a change (really) I agree with bose-x here.
And unfortunately a letter from the Atlanta FSDO from 5 years ago may not hold up with the local FSDO as they have the authority to interpret things differently. These sorts of things are useless unless you have a letter of authorization from the local FSDO that has jurisdiction over the school in question.

Anyways, back to the original questions.
Back in the day you used to be able to get a FAA CPL based on your foreign license. But..it would read "not valid for Commercial operations"
As of the 1980-ies they do not issue anything but a PPL based on foreign license. This can be done by a UK based examiner if he filed the paperwork with the FAA to get the authorization.

Which means you will have to fly the plane in question under PPL privileges...whatever you understand that to be.

[OpenCirrus619]

I'll admit I don't know chapter and verse of holding 2 licences under EASA rules - all I can speak of is my experience...

I hold a CAA PPL and JAR CPL. When I changed my home addess the UK CAA sent me new pages for both in the same envelope - so they seem to be happy for me to hold both.

I believe that there IS a problem concurrently holding 2 licences of the same "rank" from different EASA states. e.g. If you hold a French PPL and want a UK one you have to surrender the French one. (NOTE: I said "believe" - I'm not 100% sure).

OC619

[S-Works]

Indeed, I also hold both a UK CAA licence and a JAA licence. But at 25 years old our original poster is to young.......