BFR without tailwheel

[Blackhawk]

The regulations do require that the CFI act as an Instructor. The slippery slope here is the term "authorized instructor".

If a CFI without a tailwheel endorsement gives "authorized instruction" in chandelles to an acting PIC of a tailwheel airplane pilot who then crashes on landing, then the instructor is giving authorized instruction, and is not instructing during the landing, and cannot, because he is not authorized.

But..if the CFI without the tailwheel endorsement is giving dual instruction, as required by the FR rule, for the purpose of a FR, and this instruction should include some landings, and the pilot acting-as-PIC crashes, who do you think the judge will hold responsible?

And if you hold that you do not have to include take-offs and landings in your FR, then how do you think the judge will respond to that?

I'm just sayin'...it doesn't pass the "walks like a duck" test.

I would not be too concerned about an NTSB judge in a hearing. After all, the CFI would not even need a medical in this case.
I would, however, be concerned about 12 of my "peers" who know nothing about aviation deciding on such a case in a lawsuit.

 

[tgrayson]

I'm just sayin'...it doesn't pass the "walks like a duck" test.

I agree that if there were an accident, the instructor would look like an idiot and the FAA might very well invoke the "authorized instructor" reference; I belief that was the justification the old FAQs used to deny the non-endorsed instructor the privilege of providing the instruction.

But the FAA use of the term is somewhat dishonest; we go to the regulations to find who is an "authorized instructor", but the FAA wants it to mean whatever they retroactively say it means.

 

[nosehair]

But the FAA use of the term is somewhat dishonest; we go to the regulations to find who is an "authorized instructor", but the FAA wants it to mean whatever they retroactively say it means.

The use of the term has been selectively controlled by the best looking lawyer on whoever's side had to go to court to get a "legal reading" of a common sense word.

Originally, the word was simply "instructor". By implication, the "instructor" is the one who is best qualified to determine his or her "qualifications", in an area where regulating each and every "qualification" would lead to a...well, something like a bunch of people on an internet, or something, arguing over the "legal authorizations" of another particular "instructor" who is not certain of his own qualifications.

The FAA added the "authorized" in an attempt to emphasize the necessity of being fully qualified, but this word has been reduced to whatever printed regulation the word can be found in.

Admittedly, this is still poor regulatory wording, but I still believe the title "Flight Instructor" assumes full responsibility, just like a jury of our peers will.

The add-on qualifier does help in reducing, or specifying, that responsibility, such as giving specific airwork or instrument instruction, to a qualified pilot, but a Flight Review is supposed to be a good review of a full range of maneuvers, including landings.

So,...as I am attempting to communicate, it is up to the "authorized instructor" to determine, in this case, as it is in most all cases.

If you, the original poster, know the flight reviewee, and know him to be solid as a rock and you're just making the required legal checkmark, you have that legal power and authority - do it.

If you are not sure, dang sure, well then, go ahead,...do you feel lucky?