EASA/UK approved ATOs outside Europe, and acceptance of EASA/UK training done outside Europe

The visa requirement applies to a course of study. It is irrelevant whether it results in the grant of a certificate or rating.

DOJ memorandum of 12 Apr 2002 refers http://www2.gtlaw.com/practices/immigration/news/2002/04/17INSMemo.pdf

Thanks Qualupalik.
Here is the text I am referring to :

It comes from PPL/IR but I guess the regulation is based from this.
IIUC, an US CFII falls in the ii) point for 15 hours max creditable for a CB IR.
I will ask my local IRI and will report. I hope he’s open to this stuff.

Jujupilote wrote:

If not an EASA IRI, I understand only 15 hrs can be credited but can anyone confirm ?

That’s correct and your post 40 is an exact copy of the rule. Note instrument ground time is excluded. The rule is made at point Aa.6 of appendix 6 to Part-FCL. See p 1208 of the current Easy Access edition (pdf).

Point Aa.6(a)(ii) on “prior instrument flight time under instruction” done with other than a [Part-FCL] IRI/FI deserves attention.

In your case experience with a US CFII counts however the rule fails to specify how the person giving the instruction should be qualified. For example the privileges of a Canadian CPL include giving instruction in flying (regulation 401.30 of the Canadian Aviation Regulations). A person seeking a Canadian IR needs only to acquire 5 hours of dual instrument flight time from the holder of a Canadian flight instructor rating. The remainder may be done with a CPL/IR or ATPL holder (without an FI rating) who has, for the most part, at least 500 hours of experience as PIC. Standards 421.46 and 425.21 refer.

Peter wrote:

The Visa requirement states 15hrs/week, IIRC.

It’s 22 hours per week and the requirement is made at 8 CFR 214.2(m)(9)(iii). DHS interprets “shop or laboratory work” as including flight training (see here).

8 CFR 214.2(m) Students in established vocational or other recognized nonacademic institutions, other than in language training programs—

…

(9) Full course of study. Successful completion of the course of study must lead to the attainment of a specific educational or vocational objective. A “full course of study” as required by section 101(a)(15)(M)(i) of the [Immigration and Nationality] Act means—

…

(iii) Study in a vocational or other nonacademic curriculum, other than in a language training program except as provided in §214.3(a)(2)(iv), certified by a designated school official to consist of at least eighteen clock hours of attendance a week if the dominant part of the course of study consists of classroom instruction, or at least twenty-two clock hours a week if the dominant part of the course of study consists of shop or laboratory work; or

…

Peter wrote:

Another approach is to get the UK IMC Rating

It remains to be seen whether this will continue beyond April.

So you need to study at least 22 hrs /week to get an M1 visa. And you can’t do flight training without one.
Damn, it’s much harder than I thought.
I found the list of SEVIS approved flight schools on the studyinthestates website. I guess I’ll go from there.

Peter wrote:

BTW, you don’t need to study 22hrs to apply for the Visa. It just becomes mandatory at 22hrs.

What the visa requires, and when one is needed, are separate matters.

Aliens pursuing a non-trivial course of study must be admitted under a suitable visa such as the M-class. Although other visa classes are sufficient, eg H or TN, flight training will most likely be done under an M-class visa which is restricted to a full course of study (except for border-commuter students) and in turn there is an attendance requirement of 18 or 22 hours per week depending on the mode of study. Some schools, eg Hillsboro, use CCTV cameras and a booking in/out system to show compliance.

Peter wrote:

Then, after I finished doing my stuff in Arizona in 2006, I heard (unverified) they linked the TSA stuff to the Visa stuff so you could not do one and not the other

That obviously only applies to aliens seeking admission to the US. Category 3 flight training given to aliens by a US-certificated flight instructor requires notification in accordance with 49 USC 44939(c) regardless of where the training occurs because, as of late 1998, it has been possible to do flight training towards a US rating or certificate outside the US notwithstanding the recent closure of FlightSafety’s exam centre at Farnborough. See 65 Fed Reg 2022 (link):

Background
On October 5, 1998, the FAA
published a final rule titled ‘‘Licensing
and Training of Pilots, Flight
Instructors, and Ground Instructors
Outside the United States’’ (63 FR
53531). That final rule removed
language from the FAA regulations that
restricted the licensing of foreign pilots,
flight instructors, and ground
instructors outside of the United States.
In addition, that final rule removed
language from the FAA regulations that
restricted the operation of pilot schools
and training centers located outside of
the United States. The FAA concluded
that the restrictive language should be
removed after it determined that the
administrative concerns for the
restrictive language were no longer
applicable and after the restrictive
language was identified during
harmonization efforts between the FAA
and the European Joint Aviation
Authorities (JAA) as an obstruction to
harmonization. The FAA determined
that a failure to remove the restrictive
language on licensing and training
could be detrimental to FAA pilot
schools and training centers seeking to
train students from JAA member States.
Further, the FAA removed the
restrictive language as part of a
commitment to reducing restrictions
that are not safety driven.
This document addresses comments
received on the above final rule.

Peter wrote:

… a CPL could be done without TSA approval – there was a specific exemption. For the PPL, the IR and possibly the ATP you had to get TSA approval.

If a standard US private pilot certificate is held then no security threat assessment is normally required by aliens pursuing a higher level of certificate. The security threat assessment, and participation in the Alien Flight Student Program, is normally only required for the first US airman certificate which does not include a US restricted foreign-based private pilot certificate (the so-called 61.75). The latter satisfies a pre-requisite for a US commercial pilot certificate in which case the assessment and AFSP participation is necessary. See 69 FR 56324 (alternative link) or docket no. TSA-2004-19147 of 19 Oct 2004 (pdf).

On the other hand if an alien seeks a US airman certificate by converting a Canadian pilot licence in pursuance of the BASA–IPL between US and Canada then, while a TSA security threat assessment will still be carried out in the background, participation in the Alien Flight Student Program is not necessary. Neither is a visa. I have absolutely no idea why Europeans rush off to the US for US airman certificates and ratings when they could simply enter Canada without waiting weeks for a visa and a threat assessment, do training that is far more closely aligned with British/European syllabuses (ie the Gosport System), and ultimately convert those to US equivalents afterwards if needed.

Peter wrote:

with the current guy demanding an FAA CFI/CFII for all training (i.e. disregarding the foregoing) and TSA approval

The Administrator clearly intends otherwise because of 14 CFR 61.41. Have you contacted the New York IFO or the Designee Quality Assurance Branch (AFS-650)?