Adventures in TSA land

Today is October 19, and it's starting to look like 49 CFR Part 1552,
which covers flight training for aliens and security procedures for
flight schools, is going to become effective tomorrow, unchanged. For
the full text, check out
http://www.tsa.gov/interweb/assetlib...onGuidance.doc

If you're a US citizen looking for flight training in an aircraft of
less than 12,500 lbs, or a flight school providing such training, only
one aspect of this rule actually affects you starting tomorrow. But
first, what's a flight school? If you provide flight training, you're
a flight school – even if you're a solo part-time freelancer. Check
out p.20.

The aspect that kicks in on the 20th is the requirement to establish
citizenship. That means you as a student must present proof of
citizenship to your flight school, and the flight school must make a
copy of it and keep it for 5 years. What constitutes acceptable
proof? Well, at least the TSA is specific here. The full list is on
p.37-38.

So far, not too bad. But it gets worse. Within 90 days of the
effective date, which is tomorrow, all flight school employees (and
again, that means everyone including contractors, freelancers,
independents – and even the people working behind the desk – see
p.47-48) must receive initial security awareness training. New hires
only have 60 days from date of hire, so be careful about hiring anyone
in the next 30 days.

Why? Because while TSA has promised to develop the initial security
awareness training program, it's not here yet but will be ready "real
soon now." Watch this space – or, rather, watch
http://www.tsa.gov/public/display?theme=180
for updates. They're promising to be ready no later than October 30.

Of course you need not use their training program – you can develop
your own, and the TSA lays down some guidelines (see p. 49-51). What
the TSA will NOT do is evaluate your program for compliance. Instead,
it reserves the right to audit your program at a later date.

What happens if you're found not to be in compliance? Expect civil
penalties (p.54) You can get a good idea of what to expect by
examining the TSA document on civil penalties (remember, these can be
assessed without judge or jury) by checking out
http://www.tsa.gov/interweb/assetlib...onGuidance.doc
Pay special attention to Page 7, which discusses penalties for flight
training providers failing to comply with any requirement of the alien
pilot training rules. You're looking at up to $10,000 per violation
if you're not an aircraft operator, and can expect civil penalties in
the maximum range. If you are an aircraft operator, you can be liable
for up to $25,000.

A year after you complete the initial security awareness training, you
need recurrent security awareness training – that year and every year.
The TSA will NOT be developing it – you are on your own. They also
will not evaluate it. See above – how lucky are you feeling?

So how about if you are an alien looking for flight training or a
flight school looking to train an alien? It's substantially worse.

For the alien, you're looking at being photographed, fingerprinted,
background-checked – all at your own expense of course. There will
be, as a minimum, a $130 fee. It may go up later (p. 46). That
doesn't include the photographs or fingerprints (p.47). The flight
school will need to keep a copy of all this stuff too – except the
fingerprints. The fee is waived for recurrent training – but that's
for people operating under a certificate only. No operations under
Part 91 (except subpart K) are recognized as recurrent training. The
cost and hassle of BFR's, IPC's, and aircraft/FBO checkouts has just
gone up...

You will need to register through a special TSA web site, and your
flight school will need to verify that registration. Don't count on
them being able to do that any time soon, though.

A flight school needs to have a user id and password issued to access
the web site and verify the registration of alien students. The way
to get that user id and password is to register with the local FSDO
(see p. 24). Since I trained an alien student last year, and expect
that I may train another soon, I called the FSDO. Remember, the
deadline is tomorrow; I called last week. This caught the FSDO
totally by surprise. I was the first person in the Houston FSDO to
call. They had no idea they were supposed to register anyone. The
matter is being escalated to Washington. I still haven't gotten a
call back.

A careful reading of the document (which includes both the text of
1552 and the official explanation) indicates that there is no
grandfather clause – the fact that an alien is already taking flight
training does not mean said training can continue without meeting the
new TSA requirements.

Michael

On 19 Oct 2004 13:17:10 -0700,
(Michael) wrote:

New hires
only have 60 days from date of hire, so be careful about hiring anyone
in the next 30 days.


New hires have until Jan 18, 2005 per the link you provided:
snip
For current employees (those employees employed by the flight school
as of January 18, 2005), initial training must be completed no later
than January 18, 2005. For employees hired after January 18, 2005,
initial training must be completed no later than 60 days after the
date of hire. Recurrent training must be provided to employees each
year in the same month as the month they received initial training.

z

"Michael" wrote in message
om...
Today is October 19, and...

a *great* summary of the TSA IFR, but:

A careful reading of the document (which includes both the text of
1552 and the official explanation) indicates that there is no
grandfather clause - the fact that an alien is already taking flight
training does not mean said training can continue without meeting the
new TSA requirements.

A letter written yesterday, and added to the docket today, by the TSA chief
counsel says that it can continue. The letter doesn't use the same
terminology as the IFR, but hey. It says "flight students" who are already
"enrolled" in such flight training are not subject to the regulation. I
support it's up to us whether we regard the guy who takes 6 years for his
Part 61 instrument rating and goes through three instructors continues to be
enrolled in the training.

They don't say how they justify that opinion, but here's my attempt. The
definition of candidate is "an alien... who *applies for* flight
training...". This definition thus provides the context for everything else.
(The definition, by omission, excludes citizens, which can make it easy to
misinterpret the rest of the rule.) My emphasis on "applies for", not
"undergoes". If you are already in flight training, i.e. you already
applied, you are not defined as a candidate.

The Category 3 rule says "A flight school may not provide training... to a
*candidate*... unless...".

The Category 4 rule (which covers BFRs) says "Prior to beginning recurrent
training for a *candidate*..."

-- David Brooks

I wrote in message
...
I
support it's up to us whether we regard the guy who takes 6 years for his
Part 61 instrument rating and goes through three instructors continues to
be
enrolled in the training.

support - suppose. Sorry.

"David Brooks" wrote
A letter written yesterday, and added to the docket today, by the TSA chief
counsel says that it can continue.

Yeah, that showed up after I posted.

They don't say how they justify that opinion

Irrelevant, really. It's the chief counsel opinion, so it's official.

The Category 4 rule (which covers BFRs)

No, it does not. It does not cover ANY recurrent training under Part
91 except subpart K (which isn't us). See specifically:
http://dmses.dot.gov/docimages/pdf90/296897_web.pdf
Refer to p.36: Only those getting recurrent training under Part 121,
125, 135 or Subpart K of Part 91 (fractrionals) are covered.

Michael

"Michael" wrote in message
om...
"David Brooks" wrote


The Category 4 rule (which covers BFRs)

No, it does not. It does not cover ANY recurrent training under Part
91 except subpart K (which isn't us). See specifically:
http://dmses.dot.gov/docimages/pdf90/296897_web.pdf
Refer to p.36: Only those getting recurrent training under Part 121,
125, 135 or Subpart K of Part 91 (fractrionals) are covered.

As I pointed out in my submission, and AOPA pointed out in their submission
filed today, the document in the Federal Register contains a clear mistake.
The legal document is the IFR itself, not its preamble. In the rule itself,
definitions section, recurrent training includes training required under
Part 61, without qualification.

However, there's a flurry of "clarifications" by TSA on the docket today.
One of them affirms that Part 61 is included in "recurrent training", but
then goes on to exempt flight reviews etc, and specifically 61.56 and 61.57.
There is no logic provided; it is clearly an attempt to use a hastily
written counsel opinion to put a band-aid on a poorly researched regulation.

Another "clarification" grants a 60-day extension for aliens who already
have a pilot certificate.

Sorry, I have work to do, and I can't read any more. It's all on the docket.

-- David Brooks

Sorry, I have work to do, and I can't read any more. It's all on the
docket.

Could someone please provide links to where I can see this "docket" for
myself?


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.778 / Virus Database: 525 - Release Date: 10/15/2004

http://dms.dot.gov/search/searchResu...hTy pe=docket,
and hit "Reverse Order" to see the last few days' postings from TSA.

As I just posted in r.a.s, one clarification is to narrow the definition of
training to that taken in pursuit of a certificate or rating. That answers
the protests around safety/currency, but is still a major burden on flight
training. No new alien students, and citizens in training still have to
provide proof of citizenship.

-- David Brooks

"Geoffrey Barnes" wrote in message
ink.net...
Sorry, I have work to do, and I can't read any more. It's all on the
docket.

Could someone please provide links to where I can see this "docket" for
myself?


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.778 / Virus Database: 525 - Release Date: 10/15/2004

"David Brooks" wrote
As I pointed out in my submission, and AOPA pointed out in their submission
filed today, the document in the Federal Register contains a clear mistake.

It may be clear, but it's authoritative. Same as the letter exempting
current students.

However, there's a flurry of "clarifications" by TSA on the docket today.

They're coming fast and furious now. And they're all authoritative -
straight from the chief counsel's office. In a way, the TSA is better
than the FAA - at least they're willing to tell us exactly what the
rule means, from an authoritative source, rather than intentionally
keeping it vague so they can bust us later.

Michael

"Michael" wrote in message
om...
"David Brooks" wrote
As I pointed out in my submission, and AOPA pointed out in their
submission
filed today, the document in the Federal Register contains a clear
mistake.

It may be clear, but it's authoritative. Same as the letter exempting
current students.

I was referring to the contradiction between the preamble comments and the
actual text of the rule. They can't both be authoritative, and I was working
on the belief the rule overrides its own commentary

However, there's a flurry of "clarifications" by TSA on the docket
today.

They're coming fast and furious now. And they're all authoritative -
straight from the chief counsel's office. In a way, the TSA is better
than the FAA - at least they're willing to tell us exactly what the
rule means, from an authoritative source, rather than intentionally
keeping it vague so they can bust us later.

Well, in a legal sense they are telling us what it means. Less kind
observers will say they are just plain changing the rule, wholesale, with
zero comment period. At the very least the rulings amount to a rewrite of
the Definitions section.

-- David Brooks
Believe!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!