Tailwheel endorsement

Once again, we're not discussing acting as pic, only logging. No one in this thread is advocating acting as pic in an aircraft for which one is not rated (or in this case, endorsed).

Edited to add: Upon rereading, I may have missed your point. Please correct me if that's the case.
 
anyway, forgetting the regs a minute. Tailwheel is a great learning experience. I'd suggest it to anyone. Don't do it on a Husky though, give yourself a challenge, find an old Clipper or something squirrelly on the ground.
 
Berkut said:
The "interpretation" does not agree with your assessment.No, because you are not sole manipulator of the controls of an aircraft for which you are rated.Remember, we're not talking about acting as pic, only logging. If you are flying along in an "airplane, single engine land" it does not change into something other than an "airplane, single engine land" just because it enters a cloud.
Click to expand...

Not arguing here, but trying to expand my knowledge base...

My certificate list my ratings as airplane single and multiengine land, instrument airplane.

Considering this, doesn't that suggest that in order to log lole manipulator PIC while under IFR conditions you need the instrument rating? If you can't log sole manipulator PIC of a multiengine airplane without a multi rating then how can you log sole maniplulator PIC under IFR without and instrument rating? I mean, ASEL, AMEL, and Instrument are all listed as ratings issued by the FAA. Only thing I can think of is that ASEL and AMEL are class ratings whereas the instrument rating stands alone.
 
jynxyjoe said:
anyway, forgetting the regs a minute. Tailwheel is a great learning experience. I'd suggest it to anyone. Don't do it on a Husky though, give yourself a challenge, find an old Clipper or something squirrelly on the ground.
Click to expand...

Berkut said:
150 Texas Taildragger conversion. You'll learn to use your feet in that one.
Click to expand...

Agreed. I would suggest any tailwheel aircraft with a narrower undercarriage that does not utilize an oleo or bungee type gear.
 
jynxyjoe said:
anyway, forgetting the regs a minute. Tailwheel is a great learning experience. I'd suggest it to anyone. Don't do it on a Husky though, give yourself a challenge, find an old Clipper or something squirrelly on the ground.
Click to expand...

That would be the Luscombe. That is a fun little plane.
 
sopdan said:
How 'bout this one....

I have 63 hours of PIC (legit PIC by ANY standard) in a tailwheel aircraft, but no tailwheel endorsement. How is that possible?

I'm just wondering how long it'll take for somebody here to figure it out... :)

(and I'm leaving on a 4-day trip tomorrow, so forgive me if I'm not back on here for a little while)
Click to expand...

(2) The training and endorsement required by paragraph (i)(1) of this section is not required if the person logged pilot-in-command time in a tailwheel airplane before April 15, 1991.
 
ctab5060X said:
I would think that "is rated or have privileges" would mean that you would need an instrument rating in order to log "sole manipulator" PIC per 61.51 in this scenario.
Click to expand...

The reg used to read "have privileges" They took it out. It only says "rated" now.

ctab5060X said:
Based on this interpretation of logging PIC in IFR conditions (less than VFR) while not instrument rated leads to the thought that one can log PIC in a multi engine aircraft without a multi rating, no?

Curious as they are both dealing with ratings (i.e. checkride required) needed to act as PIC...
Click to expand...

Multi-Engine is different class of aircraft. An ASEL pilot is not rated to fly a ME aircraft, with respect to the category and class of the aircraft. "Rating", as defined in Part 1, is part of a certificate that grants you certain privileges, ie...instrument rating.

Being "rated" in the aircraft, is with respect to the Category and Class of the aircraft. See the difference?

Berkut already explained, the aircraft you are rated for doesn't change due to the conditions of the flight. If you have a ASEL certificate, you are rated for any Single Engine Land Aircraft, regardless of VMC/IMC.

To reiterate the entire thread: There is a clear difference between acting as PIC and logging PIC. There are multiple situations where you cannot ACT as PIC, but are allowed to LOG PIC, due to 61.51, which again, is the ONLY regulation that addresses pilot logbooks.
 
Well, all my tailwheel time was w/in the last two years. No type rating. I acted as, and logged PIC. Hell, I even did two checkrides in the thing.


....and to the guy who still accused me of trying to hide something from the FAA and questioned my definition of the word "unless".... you had the answer in your post and you didn't even know it.

What is the tailwheel endorsement required for? It's required for tailwheel AIRPLANES! What I flew, and instructed in, was a tailwheel GLIDER! No endorsement required!

For a bunch of guys who seem to take pride in picking apart each word in the FAR/AIM, you sure let that one sneak right through. :)
 
While we're on the topic, I was wondering what y'all thought of getting a TW endorsement in a C140. Because my club has one.

My CFI can do the training, he just believes it's an unholy aberration for a TW airplane to have a yoke instead of a stick. :)
 
killbilly said:
While we're on the topic, I was wondering what y'all thought of getting a TW endorsement in a C140. Because my club has one.

My CFI can do the training, he just believes it's an unholy aberration for a TW airplane to have a yoke instead of a stick. :)
Click to expand...

Do it!! I've seen that CE-140 at McKinney. I'd even split rental cost and fly with ya!
 
killbilly said:
While we're on the topic, I was wondering what y'all thought of getting a TW endorsement in a C140. Because my club has one.

My CFI can do the training, he just believes it's an unholy aberration for a TW airplane to have a yoke instead of a stick. :)
Click to expand...
You will never regret it.
 
BenWlson said:
Do it!! I've seen that CE-140 at McKinney. I'd even split rental cost and fly with ya!
Click to expand...

Heh. I'll keep that in mind. I've got a ways to go before I look at doing that. Here's the short term plan:

1) Finish PPL by the time I turn 34. (3/31 to be exact.)
2) Get checked out on other club airplanes: Archer II, 172s, Warrior II.

Once I do that, I think I'll look at getting the TW while I do some pleasure flying/X-C work for fun and incidental business travel.

THEN it'll be time to start on the IR.

-b
 
mojo6911 said:
The reg used to read "have privileges" They took it out. It only says "rated" now.
Click to expand...

I think you need to check that...

Was going to say more, but I just recently learned that the company I work for lost one last night. Kinda don't have the heart to do much right now.
 
sopdan said:
Well, all my tailwheel time was w/in the last two years. No type rating. I acted as, and logged PIC. Hell, I even did two checkrides in the thing.


....and to the guy who still accused me of trying to hide something from the FAA and questioned my definition of the word "unless".... you had the answer in your post and you didn't even know it.

What is the tailwheel endorsement required for? It's required for tailwheel AIRPLANES! What I flew, and instructed in, was a tailwheel GLIDER! No endorsement required!

For a bunch of guys who seem to take pride in picking apart each word in the FAR/AIM, you sure let that one sneak right through. :)
Click to expand...

Ahhhh, pardon me sir, but before you get out your "For a bunch of guys..." gun, you should read each word:

61.31:
(i) Additional training required for operating tailwheel airplanes.
(1) Except as provided in paragraph (i)(2) of this section, no person may act as pilot in command of a tailwheel airplane unless that person has received and logged flight training from an authorized instructor in a tailwheel airplane and received an endorsement in the person's logbook from an authorized instructor who found the person proficient in the operation of a tailwheel airplane. The flight training must include at least the following maneuvers and procedures:
(i) Normal and crosswind takeoffs and landings;
(ii) Wheel landings (unless the manufacturer has recommended against such landings); and
(iii) Go-around procedures.
(2) The training and endorsement required by paragraph (i)(1) of this section is not required if the person logged pilot-in-command time in a tailwheel airplane before April 15, 1991.
(j) Additional training required for operating a glider.
...
Glider time does not fit this endorsement because tailwheel applies to airplanes. If you are logging glider time as tailwheel time you are mixing apples and oranges.

(Now who had the answer in his post and didn't know it.:D)
 
ctab5060X said:
Just keep this in mind...if tough questions about your PIC time come up, you might want to have more than... "well 61.51 said I could" in your answer.
Click to expand...
Well maybe I haven't gotten the same kind of 'tough questions' that you have but 61.51 has pretty much been good enough for any employer or FAA official who has ever looked at my logbook. And that includes tailwheel time, HP and complex time as well as actual logged during instrument training. No one has ever had a problem with or so much as raised an eyebrow at any of my PIC time.

Legal is legal and 61.51 very clearly makes these log entires legal. No interpretation is required but if it's not enough for someone who asks 'tough questions' there are several letters of interpretation out there which support that the FAA has no problem with sole manipulator logging PIC so long as that sole manipulator is rated in cat and class. If yank my chain airlines has a problem with it, then they can feel free to cross those entries out should they ever have a reason to look at my logbook. If yank my chain airlines wants to not hire me simply because I have completely legal entries in my logbook, then I guess I'm just going to have to work someplace else now aren't I? :rolleyes:
 
I was going to post the Part 61 FAQs, but someone already beat me to it. Personally, I keep two separate PIC columns in my electronic logbook. (I still keep a paper logbook of my civilian time using 61.51 rule). However, when going in to interview for my current job, the PIC time that appears on my resume is only time I was the "A Code" (as we say in the military). Every airline website I've been to specifically states how they want your time (including PIC time) counted, so you have to be careful to follow their instructions. Every single one of them I've seen specifically use the Part 1 definition of PIC for the purposes of meeting flight time requirements for hiring. That's why I created the electronic logbook so I can pick out specifically the time they want to see.

By all means, log your time as permitted by FARs, but know you're only satisfying FAA requirements for applying for advanced certificates, etc (not the requirements of any potential employer). I don't know why they even came up with this scheme for logging PIC time. Under the 61.51 convention, it's possible the legitimate PIC is even screwed out of flight time, when for example you're letting somebody else "manipulate the flight controls". PIC time ought to mean exactly that--the time you're responsible for the flight and calling the shots. But that's the FAA for you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top