Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Banner
Welcome to our forums

First time flying in USA (and going to the USA to do the FAA IR)

I’m not a lawyer so this advice is worth exactly what you pay for, but my understanding is that you can receive training that does not lead to a license or rating. In @Airborne_Again’s example, you would obviously already have a license and need, say, familiarization with a different airplane. A BFR is definitely doable. The IR on the other hand, definitely needs TSA approval (and, I’m pretty sure, the appropriate visa).

you can receive training that does not lead to a license or rating

That is impossible because any training can be logged and thus can count towards some hours requirement. This is obviously true for a BFR.

It thus follows that you could do all training towards any US license or a rating, without any TSA or visa, and eventually accumulate everything required. All that matters is the rate at which you accumulate it, and this is where you get into the grey areas, and eventually into probable illegality.

Especially if (or as) there is no time limit over which e.g. the hours requirement on IR training is accumulated. This isn’t like the EASA PPL CPL or IR where after you sit the exams you have to complete the training within X months.

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

172driver wrote:

my understanding is that you can receive training that does not lead to a license or rating. In @Airborne_Again’s example, you would obviously already have a license and need, say, familiarization with a different airplane. A BFR is definitely doable. The IR on the other hand, definitely needs TSA approval (and, I’m pretty sure, the appropriate visa).

This is certainly what I’ve read many times before. My interpretation would be that enrollment in a course of study pre-planned (or at least very clearly intended) to lead to a new rating requires TSA approval. A Flight Review would not fall into that category.

Peter wrote:

It thus follows that you could do all training towards any US license or a rating, without any TSA or visa, and eventually accumulate everything required. All that matters is the rate at which you accumulate it, and this is where you get into the grey areas, and eventually into probable illegality.

I don’t think many in the US would see it as a probable illegality to the extent of saying that all FAA flight training is illegal without a TSA approval. I believe the TSA requirement is not specific to FAA training conducted within US territory, or is that incorrect? If all were true your next FAA Flight Review in Europe would require TSA approval

Last Edited by Silvaire at 22 Mar 18:44

The point I was trying to make is that since the US system allows wholly freelance training, nothing stops someone doing a bit here and a bit there, and then going for the checkride.

All without TSA or Visa.

It would just take a bit of time, but lots of people visit the US often for other reasons.

The US system is wholly competence based. You don’t need to enroll on a course and you don’t need to do it via an “FTO” or some such.

I believe the TSA requirement is not specific to FAA training conducted within US territory, or is that incorrect?

That is the point of view of a well known player on the FAA checkride scene here It may well be correct, but apart from the fingerprinting hassle, it isn’t hard to comply with. Well… maybe it is hard to comply with because the person doing the training also has to register. That bit is unlikely to be checked; nobody (in the US) who is reading your logbook is going to check if a particular training entry was done by a TSA registered instructor.

If all were true your next FAA Flight Review in Europe would require TSA approval

I think, again, that proposition would collapse on the grounds of the amount of flying being trivial.

On a more general matter I think the biggest limiter on newcomers to the N-reg scene in Europe is the inability to do the written exams in Europe.

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

Peter wrote:

The point I was trying to make is that since the US system allows wholly freelance training, nothing stops someone doing a bit here and a bit there, and then going for the checkride.

I agree, nothing stops it. It is common practice and obviously very helpful and encouraging to the student. It took me about 24 years to get my FAA Private Certificate, and all the time logged over the entire period counted.

Last Edited by Silvaire at 22 Mar 18:54

Peter wrote:

The point I was trying to make is that since the US system allows wholly freelance training, nothing stops someone doing a bit here and a bit there, and then going for the checkride.

All without TSA or Visa.

Any US flight school including a certificated flight instructor who gives flight training to an alien, other than one endorsed by DoD, prior to notifying TSA is in violation of 49 CFR 1552.3. Certificated flight instructors registered as training providers with TSA are subjected to at least two comprehensive annual inspections by TSA inspectors and remedies for violations range from counselling to civil penalties (GAO-12-875 General Aviation Security, pp 25-26, link).

Since 2010 comparison by TSA of the AFSP database with FAA airmen certification records and ICE’s CTCEU and US-VISIT ADIS databases, has identified cases in which foreign nationals either failed to receive the necessary vetting or were in violation of immigration requirements. See the written testimony of ICE HSI National Security Investigations Division Assistant Director John Woods before the Congressional hearing, linked in my last post, for the background on this.

The GAO Report made two recommendations for executive action by DHS and TSA. They were implemented with the following comments. The report and comments are at the link above.

Comments: The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) has developed an automated process for identifying instances where foreign nationals may be receiving an FAA pilot’s license without first undergoing a TSA threat assessment and now examines those instances to identify the reasons for the occurrences and strengthen controls to prevent future occurrences. Specifically, in September 2013, TSA told us that it now receives FAA airman registry data on a monthly basis, and uses an automated process to match FAA data against TSA Alien Flight Security Program (AFSP) data to determine if any foreign nationals received an FAA pilot’s license without first undergoing a TSA threat assessment. TSA then investigates instances where individuals may have circumvented the AFSP requirements to try to better understand the reasons individuals were able to circumvent them. Specifically, TSA will send a letter of investigation to the flight instructor or school to determine why the person was not vetted through AFSP, and is also initiating a process where TSA inspectors in the field will incorporate these types of compliance checks as a regular part of their normal inspection work load. Thus far, TSA has closed most of its investigations with a No Action Letter and some with a Warning Notice. A No Action Letter indicates a legitimate reason was provided by the flight instructor or school, such as the student held dual citizenship, they are an FAA employee, student did not actually receive training, among other things; while a warning notice indicates the school was unaware of the discrepancy, or no response was provided, among other things. We are closing the recommendation as implemented.
Comments: In November 2010, the Transportation Security Administration began working with the Immigration Customs Enforcement’s (ICE) Counterterrorism and Criminal Exploitation Unit (CTCEU) and the U.S. Visitor and Immigrant Status Indicator Technology (US VISIT), to check US VISIT Arrival and Departure Information System (ADIS) against Alien Flight Security Program (AFSP) applicant data to determine applicants that may be in violation of U.S. immigration law. According to TSA, while the initial process was manually intensive, the agency deployed a web services interface tool between the AFSP and ADIS in January 2013, which provided automated daily comparisons to identify potential overstays. AFSP candidates who are identified as a potential “in-country overstay” are referred to ICE-CTCEU for further investigation. Moreover, each approved AFSP applicant is vetted daily against ADIS for 360 days following the training request approval. Regarding “entries without inspection” (EWI) by foreign flight students, TSA said that it is working collaboratively with ICE-CTCEU and US-VISIT, and is continuing to test and evaluate various approaches to better identify AFSP candidates who are potentially in EWI status. For example, TSA tried to use ADIS information to identify anyone in AFSP without an arrival record, but it was difficult to determine if the individual did not have an arrival record because they were actually an EWI, or because they had not actually entered the US yet (applied overseas) or entered the U.S. before ADIS existed (2002 or earlier). The process was also manually intensive and time consuming for the few actionable results. Moreover, TSA also tested comparisons of AFSP data against the CBP Advance Passenger Information System (APIS) to identify individuals in AFSP who did not have an arrival record, but this process yielded similar results to the ADIS concept, was also labor-intensive, and only accounted for individuals who traveled to the US via an aircraft. TSA and ICE continue to have regular discussions to find more effective ways to identify AFSP candidates who are potentially in EWI status. Because TSA piloted and developed a program for assessing AFSP data against information DHS has on an applicant’s immigration and visitor status to help detect and identify violations we are closing this recommendation as implemented.
Last Edited by Qalupalik at 23 Mar 00:09
London, United Kingdom

First I have to thank all of you, especially Qalupalik, for the amazing insight, depth and amount of effort you put into this discussion. Simply amazing. One wouldn’t get this level of involvement if one paid for it! Thank you, thank you, thank you all.

That said, it all looks like a whole new can of worms :) and almost makes sitting the 13 EASA exams look less painful.

So, in my simple little mind I see this as two separate issues:
– the requirement to register with the TSA (simpler for me to understand)
– the requirement to hold an appropriate visa (less simple, and with more conditionals)

Allow me to try to summarize my understanding of the current state of things.

Simple, short tasks, such as a Flight Review don’t need a student visa, nor do they need TSA involvement, the amount of training in those is not significant enough to make them an issue. Hop on the red-eye, pick up the piggyback, get a Flight Review, do the Manhattan tour, or tour the SF Bay, catch a commercial flight back home. All good fun and leisure, under a visa waiver or a tourist B2 visa. Also see AOPA link below.

Getting an endorsement, eg. complex, high performance or tailwheel – that’s usually simple, short and sweet too, right? So, again, no need to get the TSA involved, no specific visa requirements. Actually, AOPA suggests that all training that falls under 14 CFR 61.31 is NOT subject to TSA approval. Yay? The TSA site they refer people to is still down, at least for me.

Getting a whole new rating, such as a PPL, ME, IR, will require TSA involvement, usually a “category 3 request” for typical GA. One would need TSA approval for any training towards the rating, even if done outside the US. Once the TSA approves, one can get (most, if not all of) the training done outside of the US, hence not needing any kind of visa (local CAA issues not being in scope for this thread). So far, so good, so what – can one come to the US on a visa waiver or a tourist visa and take the written? A couple hours of training in local airspace? A checkride? To me, it seems “yes, we can” do it all without student visas, SEVIS approved schools, I20s and all that crap, provided we do it for fun, not profit. I’m looking at FAM 402.5-5(I)(3) – B-2 Visa for Visitor Who Will Engage in a Short Course of Study – it’s short, it’s not academic, it’s not vocational, and is recreational.

Yes, I know, I should ask a lawyer, or at least someone at my consulate. I actually did call the consulate, and they “think” B1/B2 is fine, based on my description, but, of course, referred me to some email address; I haven’t heard back yet, but hope to.

tmo
EPKP - Kraków, Poland

You can do the EASA > FAA license validation.
Then you can act as pic. If you then fly with a flight instructor to familiarize yourself or prepare for a checkride legally that isn’t training. You do need TSA approval (fingerprints etc..). If that works for an IR I don’t know!

If you do a FAA PPL and an IR and fly with an instructor to gain these, it is training and you need TSA approval and a visa.

always learning
LO__, Austria

@tmo. I agree. Taking a checkride doesn’t need a visa in my opinion but a course of study in the US does. TSA is non negotiable.

EGTK Oxford

@jasonC I was also told no visa required for checkride.

always learning
LO__, Austria
Sign in to add your message

Back to Top