Commercial v. Instrument Training

[JeffDG]

OK, this one's going to be a bit strange.

First, I'm an alien. As such, I require approval from our good friends at the TSA in order to receive training for my initial (done), Instrument Rating or multi-engine rating. I don't need clearance for Commercial.

Second, it's a huge PITA if you want to work with multiple instructors. Each of them needs to be "approved" as a separate training request, and each request costs $150.

So...

Could I do most of my instrument training under 61.129(a)(3)(i), technically pursuing my commercial ticket, then once I've built a rapore with a CFII, get the TSA clearance for the Long IFR XC and 3 hours in last 60 days?

 

[Flymeariver]

OK, this one's going to be a bit strange.

First, I'm an alien.

And here my parents always said aliens weren't real

 

[Jaybird180]

 

[poadeleted20]

I think you'd have to be careful how you logged it all, but I don't see why not. Only possible problem I see is that unless you are also receiving training in the other areas for CP (like the takeoffs, landings, and maneuvers), they could see this as a fraudulent end-run around the TSA regulations.

 

[JeffDG]

I think you'd have to be careful how you logged it all, but I don't see why not. Only possible problem I see is that unless you are also receiving training in the other areas for CP (like the takeoffs, landings, and maneuvers), they could see this as a fraudulent end-run around the TSA regulations.

Concur with all that.

I just know that I've flown more than once with CFIIs that I know who said "Do you want me to log that flight as instruction?" (I'm always open to tips and ideas to improve my flying!) and I've always had to say "No, can't because of the AFSP rule...

 

[poadeleted20]

I just know that I've flown more than once with CFIIs that I know who said "Do you want me to log that flight as instruction?" (I'm always open to tips and ideas to improve my flying!) and I've always had to say "No, can't because of the AFSP rule...

If TSA ever catches a CFI giving training covered by that rule but not logging it in order to get around that rule, I think they'd be able to make a violation charge stick, and that might only be the beginning of that CFI's "Imperial entanglements". You definitely won't catch me doing that. There's plenty enough legal recurrent training a CFI could give you and document it appropriately without sticking his/her neck that far out, and that would give you all the opportunity you need to screen one to do the IR training.

 

[StinkBug]

I dont know anything about the ins and outs of this part of the law, but it seems to me the best and safest thing for you to do is to find one or 2 instructors you like and get the proper approval. $150 isn't pocket change, but in the grand scheme of flight training it is. That's less than 1 hour of flight time with an instructor. Would be a shame to blow your legal alien status, as well as your career training over such a small sum of money and some paperwork.

 

[poadeleted20]

I dont know anything about the ins and outs of this part of the law, but it seems to me the best and safest thing for you to do is to find one or 2 instructors you like and get the proper approval. $150 isn't pocket change, but in the grand scheme of flight training it is. That's less than 1 hour of flight time with an instructor. Would be a shame to blow your legal alien status, as well as your career training over such a small sum of money and some paperwork.

I would point out that you have to get approval for each "flight school" with which you train. Outside of the employed instructors of a single organized training provider like an FBO or what we normally think of as a "flight school", each individual CFI is a "flight school" as TSA defines it in 49 CFR Part 1552. That means under your plan, Jeff would have to get the proper TSA approval separately for each different CFI he wants to audition, and that could get expensive in a hurry.

 

[Gucci Pilot]

Didnt like your private instructor?

 

[StinkBug]

I would point out that you have to get approval for each "flight school" with which you train. Outside of the employed instructors of a single organized training provider like an FBO or what we normally think of as a "flight school", each individual CFI is a "flight school" as TSA defines it in 49 CFR Part 1552. That means under your plan, Jeff would have to get the proper TSA approval separately for each different CFI he wants to audition, and that could get expensive in a hurry.

I understood that fully. How many different instructors does one need? In my post I said "find one or 2 instructors you like" going on the $150 a pop number he posted that's $300. I'd say that's worth it compared to getting busted. No reason he cant do a "discovery flight" with a few people to get a feel for them and be kosher as long as he's not logging the hours. The issue as I read it is logging instruction time towards a cert. not riding as a passenger.

 

[MAKG1]

I think Ron's point is that finding one or two instructors is easy. Finding one or two he likes without receiving instruction isn't. Adding $150 plus paperwork for every "discovery flight" would really, really suck.

But, one would think that, being an alien, he could just hitch a ride with the Vogons and let Zaphod teach him. Zaphod was never one for the rules, though he did hold a lot of clout. Plus a really good craft.

 

[eetrojan]

Adding $150 plus paperwork for every "discovery flight" would really, really suck.

I think this is relevant...

I know from another forum that Ron firmly believes that it's risky to give a discovery flight to an alien without prior TSA processing, but most CFI's believe that "discovery flights" are explicitly exempt from the TSA security threat assessment process.

This screen capture is from the "frequently asked questions" page on the TSA's own website:

 

[BigBadLou]

Jeff, I too am an alien with freaking green antennas and have been anally probed and have paid all the dues to be deemed "not a threat". Illogical? Expensive? Mandatory? Yay!

Sorry, back on topic.
You need more than just a long XC and 3 hours in the last 2 calendar months. You need to log 15 hours under the hood or in actual IMC with your CFII. For that, you need TSA's approval.

I would recommend first talking to some instructors face-to-face to get to know them a little and then you could fly some commercial lessons (power-off 180 etc) without having to pay to be checked out for IR training.

 

[poadeleted20]

I think this is relevant...

I know from another forum that Ron firmly believes that it's risky to give a discovery flight to an alien without prior TSA processing, but most CFI's believe that "discovery flights" are explicitly exempt from the TSA security threat assessment process.

This screen capture is from the "frequently asked questions" page on the TSA's own website:

The "discovery flight" in this case is not a discovery flight as defined in that regulation, and thus not exempt from the process.

 

[eetrojan]

Perhaps they could call it an "intro flight" or a "familiarization flight"' then, as referenced on the TSA website above.

 

[poadeleted20]

Perhaps they could call it an "intro flight" or a "familiarization flight"' then, as referenced on the TSA website above.

They could call it that, but it wouldn't be that the way it's defined in the regulation.

Demonstration flight for marketing purposes means a flight for the purpose of demonstrating an aircraft's or aircraft simulator's capabilities or characteristics to a potential purchaser, or to an agent of a potential purchaser, of the aircraft or simulator, including an acceptance flight after an aircraft manufacturer delivers an aircraft to a purchaser.

49 CFR 1552.1(b).

Nothing there about trying out an instructor. While the interpretation quoted may expand the wording in the regulation to include "intro" and "discovery" flights which do not involve any foreseeable potential purchase of the aircraft, instructor shopping has never been what the industry called an "intro" or "discovery" flight. The use of those terms by the industry has always been limited to short flights to interest non-pilots in taking flight training. As an instructor, there's no way I'd be party to an attempt to stretch that interpretation to giving instrument training to a rated pilot just to see if s/he wants me to give them more instrument training with no consideration whatsoever for purchasing the aircraft in which the training flight is conducted.

 

[jnmeade]

Can you do anything on a simulator without logging it that would vet the potential instructors?

 

[JeffDG]

Jeff, I too am an alien with freaking green antennas and have been anally probed and have paid all the dues to be deemed "not a threat". Illogical? Expensive? Mandatory? Yay!

Sorry, back on topic.
You need more than just a long XC and 3 hours in the last 2 calendar months. You need to log 15 hours under the hood or in actual IMC with your CFII. For that, you need TSA's approval.

I would recommend first talking to some instructors face-to-face to get to know them a little and then you could fly some commercial lessons (power-off 180 etc) without having to pay to be checked out for IR training.

Lou,

The thing I'm saying is that the regulations for Commercial (for which you do not need TSA clearance) ALSO requires instrument flight instruction (10 hours minimum).

So, what I'm saying is...could I take the 10 hours of instrument instruction required for Commercial, then put in my AFSP Request to Initiate training for and cover those items that are only applicable to Instrument under that training request.

Now, personally, I'd rather see the AFSP changed to something that would be simpler for both the TSA, Instructors and Students to deal with...

1. Student Applies for BG Check, Pays fee etc.
2. TSA Conducts BG check
3. TSA Issues Student an AFSP Approval "Card" or other evidence of approval
4. Student trains with whatever CFI he likes
5. CFI is required to obtain either proof of US citizenship OR AFSP Approval Card
6. CFI logs the AFSP Approval Card in the same way they log US Citizenship proof today

The process where you have to submit for precisely the same BG check multiple times for multiple instructors or changes of instructors or anything like that is a huge hassle. Plus CFIs often don't really get what their obligations are...took a while on my private to convince my instructor that "No, you don't need to log proof of US Citizenship for me, you have the eMail from AFSP with "Permission to Initiate Training" instead"

 

[asgcpa]

Jeff, I too am an alien with freaking green antennas and have been anally probed and have paid all the dues to be deemed "not a threat". Illogical? Expensive? Mandatory? Yay!

Sorry, back on topic.
You need more than just a long XC and 3 hours in the last 2 calendar months. You need to log 15 hours under the hood or in actual IMC with your CFII. For that, you need TSA's approval.

I would recommend first talking to some instructors face-to-face to get to know them a little and then you could fly some commercial lessons (power-off 180 etc) without having to pay to be checked out for IR training.

I am glad I got my US citizenship long before I got into flying again. Only issue I have is that Canada hassles me at times crossing the border with my US passport since they still consider me as a Canadian citizen.

 

[JeffDG]

I am glad I got my US citizenship long before I got into flying again. Only issue I have is that Canada hassles me at times crossing the border with my US passport since they still consider me as a Canadian citizen.

That's fixable.
http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/citizenship/renounce.asp

You could always enter Canada on a Canadian passport if you wanted to as well. The rule is that you cannot enter the US on anything other than a US passport if you're a US citizen, but there's no requirement to enter any other country on your US passport.

Heck, if you don't want the hassle of maintaining a Canadian passport (less now that they've FINALLY adopted 10 year passports), you can enter Canada from the US on a birth certificate and driver's license. The mandatory passport issue is a US one, so cross the border northbound with your birth certificate, and southbound with a US passport.

 

[poadeleted20]

Can you do anything on a simulator without logging it that would vet the potential instructors?

The TSA regulations define "flight training" as follows:

Flight training means instruction received from a flight school in an aircraft or aircraft simulator. Flight training does not include recurrent training, ground training, a demonstration flight for marketing purposes, or any military training provided by the Department of Defense, the U.S. Coast Guard, or an entity under contract with the Department of Defense or U.S. Coast Guard.
[emphasis added]

First, note that a simulator is the same as an airplane in this regard, so that doesn't help. Second, it says "instruction received", not "instruction logged". So, I don't think that not logging it will avoid an issue with TSA if they catch you at it.

 

[poadeleted20]

The thing I'm saying is that the regulations for Commercial (for which you do not need TSA clearance) ALSO requires instrument flight instruction (10 hours minimum).

So, what I'm saying is...could I take the 10 hours of instrument instruction required for Commercial, then put in my AFSP Request to Initiate training for and cover those items that are only applicable to Instrument under that training request.

Strictly speaking, I don't see why not, as long as you're not enrolled in some sort of formal instrument training program. However, doing some commercial-specific training at the same time (a few chandelles or complex training) would probably make the duck quack less loudly.

 

[Kiddo's Driver]

Strictly speaking, I don't see why not, as long as you're not enrolled in some sort of formal instrument training program. However, doing some commercial-specific training at the same time (a few chandelles or complex training) would probably make the duck quack less loudly.

Or citing the requirement by number in your log book.
"Intercepting and tracking navigational systems per FAR §61.129 (a)(3)(i)"

That way there is no question why that particular training flight was conducted.

Jim

 

[StinkBug]

Sounds like some people take certain things with a much more strict meaning than others. Even reading the definitions above I'd say a discovery flight is just as much about discovering an instructor as it is about discovering flight. Marketing is as much about marketing the company (instructor) as it is about the business (flying). That said, if a CFI is uncomfortable with that definition they are well within their rights to say no. I have a feeling most would not say no though. Regardless, there is nothing that I know of that keeps you from interviewing instructors on the ground. A lot of what makes a person like their instructor is just simply getting along with them, you dont need to fly to find that out.

 

[Kiddo's Driver]

FAR §61.129 states at least 250 hours of total time and then goes on to list the MINIMUMS in each area. As long as you can specifically cite where that flight fits into the FAR §61.129 requirements you should be fine. Use those MINIMUM of 10 hours to fly with a few of CFIIs. Log it as "Per FAR §61.129 (a)(3)(i)" and use that experience to settle on one or two CFIIs to do your instrument training, then get them approved.

BTW, I agree it is a big PITA with little value. Security theater at best. I do like your suggestion of a one time approval process for you and one for your instructor. Kind of like a Transportation Worker Identification Credential card (TWIC card) for each of you.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transportation_Worker_Identification_Credential

Jim

 

[poadeleted20]

Sounds like some people take certain things with a much more strict meaning than others. Even reading the definitions above I'd say a discovery flight is just as much about discovering an instructor as it is about discovering flight.

Then you must have missed the one definition which counts, which is the one in 49 CFR 1552.1(b).

 

[Jim Logajan]

The "discovery flight" in this case is not a discovery flight as defined in that regulation, and thus not exempt from the process.

For the purpose of evaluating instructors rather than logging time, the AOPA disagrees with your claim based on correspondence they say they have had with the TSA. Per their FAQ on http://www.aopa.org/Pilot-Resources...ight-Training-Citizenship-Validation-Rule/FAQ:

Are introductory or "discovery" flights exempt from the requirements of the TSA rule?
Yes. TSA has stated through correspondence with AOPA that introductory, discovery or demonstration flights are exempt from the requirements of the TSA rule. However, AOPA suggests that you not log the flight time in a logbook until the CFI can verify citizenship. Click here to print a first flight certificate.


What is the definition of flight training as it pertains to this rule for the purposes of needing to undergo citizenship verification?
The TSA has further interpreted the definition of " flight training "for aircraft with a maximum certificated takeoff weight of 12,500 pounds or less to only apply to training for a recreational pilot, sport pilot, or private pilot certificate; multiengine rating (at any certificate level — i.e., does not apply to MEI); or instrument rating (does not include recurrent training).


Do the requirements for citizenship verification apply for flight reviews, aircraft checkouts, or instrument proficiency checks?
No, TSA has interpreted the definition of " recurrent training" to NOT include any flight review, proficiency check, or other check required by 14 CFR § 61.57 or § 61.58 whose purpose is to review rules, maneuvers, or procedures, or to demonstrate a pilot's existing skills. The TSA has further interpreted the definition of "flight training" for aircraft with a maximum certificated takeoff weight of 12,500 pounds or less to only apply to training for a recreational pilot, sport pilot, or private pilot certificate; multiengine rating (at any certificate level — i.e., does not apply to MEI); or instrument rating (does not include recurrent training).

 

[eetrojan]

Then you must have missed the one definition which counts, which is the one in 49 CFR 1552.1(b).

He probably just read the above-quoted FAQ from the Transportation Security Agency's own website which clearly indicates that the TSA believes that there is an exemption for "discovery flights," which counts too.

In our other exchange you said that somebody at the "TSA Help Desk" may have published the FAQ's content without approval or review. If that were true, do you also believe that the TSA's Administrator, Chief Counsel, and and all of the other staffers may have negligently ignored its content for the past several years?

 

[RotorAndWing]

Still amazing that people on these forums will listen to "interpretations" by a Flight Instructor with no legal background (other than a few law classes) and take them as the gospel.

 

[JeffDG]

Still amazing that people on these forums will listen to "interpretations" by a Flight Instructor with no legal background (other than a few law classes) and take them as the gospel.

I take no living man's word as "gospel"

 

[RotorAndWing]

I take no living man's word as "gospel"

As I don't take books with deleted chapters, written and rewritten by unknown people as "gospel" either.

 

[poadeleted20]

He probably just read the above-quoted FAQ from the Transportation Security Agency's own website which clearly indicates that the TSA believes that there is an exemption for "discovery flights," which counts too.

The concept of the "Discovery Flight" is well established in the industry as flights for nonpilots considering taking flying lessons leading to an initial pilot rating. Instrument training flights taken to decide if you like an instructor or not are not and never have been called "discovery flights" by anyone in the industry. If you want to make up your own definition of that term to include such flights, mighty fine, but don't delude yourself or anyone else into thinking TSA has ever said such a flight falls within that term.

 

[Jim Logajan]

The concept of the "Discovery Flight" is well established in the industry as flights for nonpilots considering taking flying lessons leading to an initial pilot rating. Instrument training flights taken to decide if you like an instructor or not are not and never have been called "discovery flights" by anyone in the industry. If you want to make up your own definition of that term to include such flights, mighty fine, but don't delude yourself or anyone else into thinking TSA has ever said such a flight falls within that term.

A CFI who provides a discovery flight sees only a person; they initially have no idea what, if any, credentials the person they are taking up may already hold. While the CFI may ask about prior credentials, the answer provided could not change an advertised discovery flight into something else. It still is what it was.

What matters to the CFI is that they are conducting a discovery flight from their prespective. The whole point of the TSA exemption is to allow the CFI to bypass the usual paperwork. After all, I presume any violation would be on the CFI, not the customer.

 

[poadeleted20]

What matters to the CFI is that they are conducting a discovery flight from their prespective.

No, what matters is that they are conducting a discovery flight from TSA's perspective, since it's TSA's regulation. What you or I or any other instructor thinks really doesn't matter.

After all, I presume any violation would be on the CFI, not the customer.

Exactly why I would not have any part of the proposed operation -- ain't worth my ticket.

 

[eetrojan]

The concept of the "Discovery Flight" is well established in the industry as flights for nonpilots considering taking flying lessons leading to an initial pilot rating. Instrument training flights taken to decide if you like an instructor or not are not and never have been called "discovery flights" by anyone in the industry. If you want to make up your own definition of that term to include such flights, mighty fine, but don't delude yourself or anyone else into thinking TSA has ever said such a flight falls within that term.

Thanks for not continuing to argue that there isn't a TSA-endorsed exemption for discovery flights. However, your assertion that discovery flights only apply to nonpilots is pure opinion. If you believe otherwise, please prove it.

ps. calling me “deluded” and “making things up” doesn’t really add much.

pps. It would be less insulting to others if you prefaced most of your posts with "In my opinion,..." rather than contend that you speak on behalf of the TSA or the entire aviation industry.

 

[Jim Logajan]

No, what matters is that they are conducting a discovery flight from TSA's perspective, since it's TSA's regulation. What you or I or any other instructor thinks really doesn't matter.
Exactly why I would not have any part of the proposed operation -- ain't worth my ticket.

If you do discovery flights, then by your response you seem to imply that you are requiring everyone you take up to first divulge both their nationality and any licenses they may hold.

Your claims basically nullify, and are contrary to, the whole point of the TSA exemption.

 

[Jaybird180]

Anyone remember the story of the CFI that posed as a non-pilot for "industry research"? He eventually was found out, but how many CFIs gave him a discovery flight?

I don't think it would be that hard to afford the CFI in this situation plausible deniability.

 

[Kiddo's Driver]

Anyone remember the story of the CFI that posed as a non-pilot for "industry research"? He eventually was found out, but how many CFIs gave him a discovery flight?

I don't think it would be that hard to afford the CFI in this situation plausible deniability.

So the suggestion now is to commit a lie of omission? Why not do the instrument training required for your CPL, log it, and include a note that it is being done per FAR §61.129 (a)(3)(i)? It is perfectly legal, involves no streching of the facts, and even meets the spirit of the law.

Jim

 

[poadeleted20]

Thanks for not continuing to argue that there isn't a TSA-endorsed exemption for discovery flights. However, your assertion that discovery flights only apply to nonpilots is pure opinion. If you believe otherwise, please prove it.

The TSA interpretation to which you refer (it's not really an "exemption" since it didn't go through the rulemaking process) is self-contradictory in its language, since it refers back to the "demonstration and marketing flights" term which is defined in 1552.1 in a way which excludes what we call "discovery" or "intro" flights. That's bad staff work at TSA. Further, there is no definition at all of the terms "discovery" or "intro" flight in any FAA or TSA document. The best we have is the historic industry use, which is strictly for a 30-60 minute flight for those considering taking primary flight training (and I've been in this business for over 40 years, so I have a pretty good idea how those terms are and have been used). Even assuming what we have always called "intro" or "discovery" flights are covered by that TSA interpretation (not "exemption"), if you think you can sell an instrument training flight as an "intro" or "discovery" flight, I think you're going well beyond what that TSA interpretation says, and I certainly wouldn't risk my ticket on that.

 

[poadeleted20]

Anyone remember the story of the CFI that posed as a non-pilot for "industry research"? He eventually was found out, but how many CFIs gave him a discovery flight?

I don't think it would be that hard to afford the CFI in this situation plausible deniability.

Assuming the TSA interpretation really does cover what we have always called "intro" or "discovery" flights, I agree. However, if the person comes to me and says, "I'm starting on my instrument training, and I'd like you to give me an instrument training flight to see if you're the instructor with whom I want to fly," then that plausible deniability goes out the window. OTOH, if someone comes to me and says as Jim suggests, "I want to start on my Commercial, and I'm auditioning instructors, so can you give me a 61.129(a)(3)(i) lesson to see if I want to hire you permanently)?", I'm off the hook and happy to do it without further ado (and you can bet it will be logged appropriately when we're done). If they come back after that and say, "Well, I've decide to do my IR first," we can at that point take care of whatever 49 CFR Part 1552 paperwork is appropriate before going further.

Yeah, it may be picky, but it's what I as an instructor need to do to be sure TSA stays off my back.