BFR without tailwheel
- Thread starter wayway8
- Start date
KSCessnaDriver
Well-Known Member
Who is acting PIC? I would assume your question assumes said instruction is taking place in a tailwheel equipped aircraft.
:yeahthat:. I would think that as long as the persons flight review date has not expired you could do it. But without reading into the regs, it sounds like a slippery slope. So, uhhh, I'm not to sure either.
tgrayson
New Member
As long as the CFI does not have to ACT as PIC, then the regulations do not forbid it. The old Part 61 FAQs said that a CFI couldn't do it, but there really isn't the regulatory support for that interpretation. They had opined that the regulation was going to be changed, but it never has. I'm not aware of any FAA LOI that rules on the issue.
Why can't you log the time? You are rated in that plane. Did you log PIC when you were getting trained for your complex? If so what is the difference?
msmspilot
Well-Known Member
Dude. Category and class. You don't have to have any endorsements to log the time.
As long as the guy has a current flight review (they dropped biennial out of the name a couple of years ago), a current medical, and he's willing to be PIC for the flight, there's nothing illegal about it. You have to ask yourself if you're safe for the operation, but legally, no problem, either with doing the FR or with logging the time.
lhornaday
Well-Known Member
Change the tense and this could be copied and pasted right into the NTSB report
Now to continue the thread hijack...
Ohhhhh boy here we go.opcorn: :beer:
PS: Brian is right.
Wasn't that because of the sole manipulator rule though?
14 CFR Part 61.51 states that a certificated flight instructor may log pilot in command flight time for all flight time while serving as the authorized instructor in an operation if the instructor is rated to act as pilot in command of that aircraft. The instructor can't do it according to this.
MidlifeFlyer
Well-Known Member
You're right. That's the problem. Not only the NTSB report but the FAA inquiry, "The regs say I can" is not necessarily a satisfactory answer to "So, you thought you were qualified to teach in this airplane because...?" Tailwheel aside, my personal rule is that I won't teach in an airplane I wouldn't be comfortable flying myself.Change the tense and this could be copied and pasted right into the NTSB report
No it was because of the CFI rule.
This was one of the "clarifications" of 61.51 that went in without explanatory material. And the rule is probably less clear in the new version than the old.
But even so, the tailwheel endorsement is not a rating. The CFI with a Airplane-Single Engine rating is rated for instruction in single engine airplanes where the CFI also has a pilot certifciate with the appropriate category and class ratings.
To interpret the revised rule to require that the CFI be qualified in fact to act as PIC on that day in that aircraft order to instruct would also reverse the rules on CFI currency and medical certificates without explanation, so I'm pretty comfortable that wasn't the intent.
lhornaday
Well-Known Member
Yeah, you're right. Of course a CFI can fly without being the PIC.
The complex flying he was referring to was as the student, so I do think it is the sole manipulator rule.
Callador
New Member
I think you are legal, but I don't think I would do it if I wasn't comfortable landing the airplane. Some students can be a little "rusty", and there is no way I would let us wipe out, I would have to feel confident that I could save a bad landing.
Even though I have a tail-wheel endorsement, I wouldn't just jump into any tail dragger with at least some experience in that specific airplane. I might be ok with a C 185, but if someone showed up with a Steerman, I think I would want a little time in that type of aircraft from a qualified instructor before I started doing a BFR for a random student I haven't flown with before. Again, this could just be me, since I don't fly tail draggers at all (right now).
Even though I have a tail-wheel endorsement, I wouldn't just jump into any tail dragger with at least some experience in that specific airplane. I might be ok with a C 185, but if someone showed up with a Steerman, I think I would want a little time in that type of aircraft from a qualified instructor before I started doing a BFR for a random student I haven't flown with before. Again, this could just be me, since I don't fly tail draggers at all (right now).
MidlifeFlyer
Well-Known Member
Having that kind of personal policy also has some benefits. I have a fried with an RV-6A who wanted me to do a flight reveiw. "You need to teach me to fly your plane first" was my response
Blackhawk
Well-Known Member
As others have written you would be legal. But there are more than a few smoking holes that were made by CFIs "legal" to fly airplanes on Flight Reviews- the recent Cirrus crash that was made into a video comes to mind. A Mooney stall/spin crash where the CFI had no Mooney time (they did stalls at 1500' AGL), also comes to mind.
I am not saying you would be unsafe doing this flight review, just something to consider.
I am not saying you would be unsafe doing this flight review, just something to consider.
drunkenbeagle
Gang Member
Just do it in a tricycle gear aircraft.
Callador
New Member
Having that kind of personal policy also has some benefits. I have a fried with an RV-6A who wanted me to do a flight reveiw. "You need to teach me to fly your plane first" was my response
Very true
nosehair
Well-Known Member
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.