FAA Validation of a UK CAA JAA CPL
 

I need to fly an N Registered aircraft on a non AOC/PT job out of UK and would be interested to hear from anyone who has recently been down the route of validating their UK CPL with the FAA. If so, can they give me any advice and warn me of any pitfalls or limitations they have discovered.

I'm in the final stages of doing the same (FAA PPL off my JAA CPL).

Contact Steve Papi at WillowAir.

It involves:

• Paying the CAA £42 to agree to confirm that you have a licence
• Sending a form to the FAA (no charge) - who will make checks with CAA. Once done they will send you a "Letter of Authorisation"
• Steve will then help you finish off the paperwork and put you in touch with an FAA Examiner (in UK)

If you FAX the forms then the CAA/FAA bit takes 2-3 weeks. Then it's just a matter of arranging to meet the examiner (the bit I've still got to do).

OC619

The FAA no longer validate a CPL. You will get a 61.75 licence that says not for commercial use. If you want to be paid to fly an N Reg you will need to get a proper FAA CPL.

I recently went from UK ATPL to FAA ATP.
The requirement was to pay the UK CAA some money along with a completed licence verification form (FAA do verifications online free of charge....CAA take note!), complete the verification request form with FAA who will then verifly your licence with the UK CAA. When they have done so, they will mail you a document recognising your UK licence. Then you sit the FAA ATP written exam (needs about 12 days study of a GLEIM course to get through quickly, available online; for FAA CPL, you must print out the clearance form to take the test from within the GLEIM software). An FAA medical exam is to be completed, then a flight test in the aircraft type/category that you require. All fairly straight forward, and in general, the FAA are much easier to deal with than the UK CAA. They are even friendly and there was no charge for my ATP licence issue!

Good luck.

The flight review can be done by ant CFI but only an examiner or any body who has the authority will issue your license based on your JAA license.
In that case, only 2 persons can do it in europe and both are examiners.

Can I just point the thread back to the original question and ask for clarification. The original poster was asking about validating a CPL. One would assume that he was expecting to be paid for this work? Therefore if he wants to be paid he will need a full FAA CPL/IR and not a validation. To do this he will need the required training and check ride as specified under the regulations.

If you meet the requirements (such as FAA cross country time, required cross country flights, night etc...) and can accuartely fly chandelles, lazy-8's, 8s on Pylons and can fly to the expected commercial standard as detailed in the practical test standard, then it should be relatively straight forward. You'd probably be looking at 10 hrs to convert the SE CPL as a rough ball park figure.

The CFI is another matter though, you'd have to do the initial CFI flight test with the FAA (NOT a DPE), which is a good 7 hr day. You'd need to pass the FAA writtens, as well as receive the required training and endorsements. Assuming you have all your lesson plans and everything, by virtue of your JAA FI then I'm sure you would find this straight forward, but the FAA would expect you to be competent and things like airspace and procedures (I assume you have not flown in the USA before?) would have to be known extremely well. Again, difficult to put a figure on it, but I reckon you could be looking at 20 hrs - some of which you might be able to do at the same time as the CPL...?

How can you instruct in Florida with no FAA CPl/CFI rating out of interest?

If you are an FI you should have no problem learning the FAA manoeuvres. They are fun but require a bit of practice if you have never done them.

You say you hold a JAA FI but have done instructing in Florida.

It appears you have a UK JAA FI - so therefore how have you managed to isntruct legally in Florida - as it is a requirment to have an instructor rating issued by the country you are flying in by the UK CAA to instruct in another country.

Or was that an uninentional slip? :ok:

You also require a visa - as US Immigration say that having the aircraft rental paid for by the student consitutes work - or daren't I ask that?

since when? Whilst it would be desirable, the CAA have no remit to insist on such a thing. The FAA might have something to say about it though.

There are CAA FIs conducting professional training in Florida with no FAA CFI rating and I have seen a letter issued by the FAA accepting it.

Standards Document 39 Section 3.4 for PPL training :

Thefore if you are giving instruction at a UK FTO and do not hold an FAA CFI you are not qualified to do so.

Heads up to all instructors without the CFI - the CAA mentioned this the other day to our FTO which deals with US Based training.

Also I know a certain FTO which just had an FAA FSDO visit regarding this - which through fear of their over reaching "legal theats" cannot be named. How does the student gain the right to fly solo in US airspace? They can only do this through a student pilot certificate which to fly solo must be endoresed by an FAA CFI. So part 61 does apply because there is no other way - said school was using non FAA CFIs - which meant those students training for a UK JAR PPL could not legally fly solo in US airspace. Cue visit from FAA FSDO, resulting in instructors who were not qualified for the FAA system, and are not qualified for UK CAA either due to the requirements for FTOs training abroad.

Just because the scenario SoCal and other describe been happening as above does not mean it is legal or correct.

The Feds and CAA are aware now and are keeping a beady eye on the goings on at JAA schools in the US now. :suspect:

The trouble is, is that it is the instructor who will get in trouble not the school.

Unfortunately that is not a legal document, it is merely guidance and is simply there to remind FTOs overseas that they should comply with the Law of the State they are operating in. Beyond that, the CAA has no remit to require compliance with foreign laws, any more than it can prevent you from training in a stolen aeroplane so long as it is appropriately certificated.

Some flight school's do not care. There are multiple out there which are employing staff illegally and you only have to ask around to see which one has recently been closed down for doing so. Some management simply bump around from school/company to school/company - or even start new companies/schools after the one their at currently fails.

Insurance companies will be interested post accident, but post (hopefully there never is a post) and if they even catch on to the fact that the instructor wasn't appropriately qualified.

The CAA tend to always "allow" hours when ever there is an issue such as this.

The CAA can make your life very difficult and I would not advocate not complying with a standards document, as stated they can refuse licence issue or to accept a test (ie Standards document 3 / 19 for RT or some other issue there)

I'm guessing these are N reg aeroplanes here?

All sounds well dodgey and sailing very close to the wind if you ask me....

I have a piece of paper in front of me from US Immigration that defines pay - as a student hiring the aircraft for flight training as you the instructor can log the hours. Therefore flight instruction is defined as work and you must have the right to work in the US to provide this. Therefore you cannot legally instruct on a waiver. (Edit : This is under a directors memo regarding flight training)

You would then need to let a lawyer decide whether that requires an FAA CFI/CPL as one part of government defines it as pay - but another may not. (Of course different departments don't talk to each other ;)
I met an FAA FSDO represenative less than 2 weeks ago at a European JAA FTO in Florida investigating schools providing instruction from JAA FIs without relevant FAA qualfications - I do not know the outcome.

The FAA CFI who signs the student of must have found the student proficient in all maneouvres including stalling etc in accordance with Part 61 so as long as they cover that - then there are no problems.

For approval of a UK FTO your staff would technically have to have an FAA CFI if providing JAA PPL instruction.

Again comes down to just because you got away with it does not mean it is right or legal!

I too have seen the letter that Whopity earlier referred to, which was issued by the Atlanta Regional Office about 5 or 6 years ago, agreeing to non-FAA certified flight instructors providing instruction for non-FAA licences and ratings - specifically, as I recall, the letter referred to JAA instructors and JAA professional licences and ratings. The letter did not make any mention of instruction provided to a student (i.e. unlicensed) pilot, nor to any requirements under employment law.

This is no different to the situation in the UK where an FI rating is required only for instruction leading to the issue or renewal/revalidation of a UK or JAA licence or rating.

I see no reason to interpret Article 36(2) of the current UK ANO as being limited to purposes connected with a UK/JAA licence/rating.

That's not what was said, read the sentence again.

Well you could look at it like this....every flight done with you, in the eyes of the FAA, is a flight with just "someone", but NOT a CFI. Therefor the time, in the FAA eyes, does not count for jack with regards to instruction. So then to have an FAA CFI "sign off" this time is sailing very close to the wind - (s)he is effectively lying - stating that the flight was an instructional flight, but in actual fact there was no instructor in the aircraft providing the instruction (in the eyes of the FAA)....

I have come across schools like this before, but the difference being that all the FI's were FAA FI's, with "knowledge of JAR"....rather than they way you are doing it...

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.

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.

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

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..........

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.
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:
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:
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.

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.

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!!!!
:ok:

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

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.

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.

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. ;)

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. ;)

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.

:ok:

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.......
:p:p:p:p

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

Ner ner ner ner!!!!

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

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

15/30..... :ok:

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

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

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.

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

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