Alien training rule

re read the post.. I believe it said the US ATP rating was for helicopters,
not fixed wing.
BT

"Emily" wrote in message
...
Robert M. Gary wrote:
Emily wrote:
That doesn't make my sense, if he had an FAA ATP. What kind of club
doesn't accept an ATP? Mine did.

My guess is that he didn't have a US certificate and he needed to take
an FAA checkride to gain US privs.

-Robert

But he said he had a "US airline transport rating". Unless that means
something else...

Of course, I had a club try to make me produce my complex endorsement
once. It was locked in a safety deposit box out of state, and try as I
might, I couldn't convince them that because I was joining as a CFI
member, that meant I had a complex endorsement. I think sometimes the
people who make club/FBO rules have no grasp of the FARs.

Joe Feise wrote:
Emily wrote on 07/12/06 15:58:
snip


My FSDO says yes, it's another rating. Then again, they might not know
what they're talking about.


Yup. That was what my FBO said when I inquired before becoming a citizen: any
new rating needs this.
As if I was any less trustworthy as Permanent Resident than as US citizen...

Don't bring logic into this.

Since he has a USA ATP rotorcraft certificate he no longer
qualifies to use the Canadian certificate to get a USA
private based on the Canadian certificate. The easiest path
to fly USA airplanes in the USA is to add the category and
class rating to the ATP, no more written is required, just
an oral and flight test. Using a CFI and getting the
required 61.31 endorsements is necessary, but the CFI does
not have to recommend for the ATP additional rating.

General rule... A US certificate holder must have the
category, class and type ratings but can fly any aircraft
registered any where in the world within the USA. They can
fly a US registered aircraft anywhere in the world. A
Canadian can fly a US registered aircraft in Canada or any
other within Canada or possibly in international airspace,
except within the USA.


The holder of an ATP can choose to add a rating at a lower
level to the certificate, but in that case needs to have the
appropriate knowledge test and all the endorsements and
signatures. Their certificate would be ATP rotorcraft [this
example] helicopter and the ASEL IR commercial privileges.


--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

"BTIZ" wrote in message
news:_Kktg.12010$6w.1684@fed1read11...
|a Canadian with a canadian fixed wing rating cannot fly a
US regisistered
| airplane
| He needs should have just been able to get the US
equivalent based on his
| Canadian fixed wing rating.
|
| The US ATP in helo would have no merit in this case.
|
| BT
|
| "Don Tuite" wrote
in message
| ...
| Couple years ago, a buddy of mine, a Canadian landed
immigrant had to
| jump through the hoops. He had a US airline transport
rating, but in
| helicopters and a canadian fixed wing rating. He wanted
to buy into
| the club and fly its pipers.
|
| He had to go through the TSA stuff AND take post-solo
PPL training.
| What was particularly wacky was that he had to do all
the solo hours
| as well. Why? Because while he had hundreds of
fixed-wing hours in
| his Canadian logbooks, he'd generally flown with
friends, and he'd
| always noted their names in the remarks column. FSDO
said those hours
| didn't count because he wasn't SOLO.
|
| Also, it was hard fo find a freelance instructor who
wanted the grief
| of making sure he'd crossed his Ts and dotted his Is.
|
| Makes buying stamps at an Italian Post Office seem like
childs' play.
|
| Don
|
|

Emily wrote:
You misunderstood. They claimed this was because of the TSA rule.
Clearly, the rule doesn't apply to rentals.

Today even the person behind the counter at the FBO is required to take
TSA training. In that training they spend a lot of time talking about
the risks of new renters. They give yuo several scenarios and ask you
how do you react. After sitting through all that training I could
easily see how an FBO would be concerned enough to ask for
documentation for all renters. TSA is basically saying the person
behind the counter is responsible for determining if a new renter is a
terrorist or not.

On Thu, 13 Jul 2006 00:00:05 +0000, Don Tuite wrote:

FSDO said those hours didn't count because
he wasn't SOLO.

Well, at least they're consistent. The commercial rating has a solo XC
requirement, for example, and flying with friends - even if completely
aviation-ignorant - doesn't count as "solo".

- Andrew

Robert M. Gary wrote:
Emily wrote:
You misunderstood. They claimed this was because of the TSA rule.
Clearly, the rule doesn't apply to rentals.

Today even the person behind the counter at the FBO is required to take
TSA training. In that training they spend a lot of time talking about
the risks of new renters. They give yuo several scenarios and ask you
how do you react. After sitting through all that training I could
easily see how an FBO would be concerned enough to ask for
documentation for all renters. TSA is basically saying the person
behind the counter is responsible for determining if a new renter is a
terrorist or not.


My point was, it's not legally required. And I get ****y when someone
asks me for something that's not legally required - at least when it's a
ridiculous legal requirement to begin with. If that made sense.

And believe me, I've taken the TSA training. It's so not applicable to
freelance CFI's. Every answer seemed to be "Check with your supervisor".

On Thu, 13 Jul 2006 17:15:28 -0500, Emily
wrote:

My point was, it's not legally required. And I get ****y when someone
asks me for something that's not legally required - at least when it's a
ridiculous legal requirement to begin with. If that made sense.

I'm with you.

And believe me, I've taken the TSA training. It's so not applicable to
freelance CFI's. Every answer seemed to be "Check with your supervisor".

Isn't that the truth! When I was taking it I just shook my head
through the whole thing.

z

Emily wrote:
Paul Tomblin wrote:
The AOPA "Guide to TSA's Alien Flight Training/Citizenship Validation
Rule" http://www.aopa.org/tsa_rule/ says that validation is required for
training for "recreational pilot, sport pilot, or private pilot
certificate; multiengine rating; or instrument training". If I've got an
PP-ASEL-IA, does going for my ASES (float rating) constitute going for
another private pilot certificate, or is it just an add-on to my existing
certificate?


My FSDO says yes, it's another rating. Then again, they might not know
what they're talking about.

Ask them to show you where it says that. The only two ratings that need
TSA approval are the instrument and multi-engine ratings. The TSA
document is very clear despite its insanity.

Emily wrote:
And believe me, I've taken the TSA training. It's so not applicable to
freelance CFI's. Every answer seemed to be "Check with your supervisor".

I agree. It was actually much worse before AOPA informed the TSA that
indi CFIs exist. However, in some sense this just shows how spoiled we
are with the FAA. The FAA regs are written in "plain english" (in the
legal sense) and rules are mostly very black and white. The rest of the
fed gov't is not so straight foward and many rules are written by
intention. The TSA rules are a perfect example. They gave us vague
rules and then said "enforcement is not our objective, compliance is".
In other words "do as we want, not as we say".
-Robert

Andrew Sarangan wrote:
Emily wrote:
Paul Tomblin wrote:
The AOPA "Guide to TSA's Alien Flight Training/Citizenship Validation
Rule" http://www.aopa.org/tsa_rule/ says that validation is required for
training for "recreational pilot, sport pilot, or private pilot
certificate; multiengine rating; or instrument training". If I've got an
PP-ASEL-IA, does going for my ASES (float rating) constitute going for
another private pilot certificate, or is it just an add-on to my existing
certificate?


My FSDO says yes, it's another rating. Then again, they might not know
what they're talking about.

Ask them to show you where it says that. The only two ratings that need
TSA approval are the instrument and multi-engine ratings. The TSA
document is very clear despite its insanity.

I really prefer to associate with them as little as humanly possible.
This was a conversation that came up when I *had* to go in there. We
were just shooting the breeze, so i wasn't looking for references or
anything.