Tailwheel PIC

[ppragman]

How short on PIC time are you that you want to log the 4hrs that its going to take to get your tail wheel sign off. If you couldn't take the airplane and legally act as PIC, then don't log PIC. That's my take on it. For example, when I was getting my high performance sign off, yeah I was sole manipulator of the controls, the CFI didn't even touch the controls the entire time, he just talked, but did I log it as PIC? No.

So, let's digress a little bit, lets look at what was mentioned before.


61.31 says this:
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:

Can you legally act as PIC of that airplane? No, then why log it as such? Even though you are moving the controls just fine, and working the airplane alright, you are not responsible for the safety of flight, the CFI is. So even though there may be a loop hole that alows you to get away with logging 95% of your flying with your CFI, why? Just relax and log it as dual received until you're rated in the airplane, then log all of it.

 

[exleardriver]

How short on PIC time are you that you want to log the 4hrs that its going to take to get your tail wheel sign off. If you couldn't take the airplane and legally act as PIC, then don't log PIC. That's my take on it. For example, when I was getting my high performance sign off, yeah I was sole manipulator of the controls, the CFI didn't even touch the controls the entire time, he just talked, but did I log it as PIC? No.

So, let's digress a little bit, lets look at what was mentioned before.


61.31 says this:
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:

Can you legally act as PIC of that airplane? No, then why log it as such? Even though you are moving the controls just fine, and working the airplane alright, you are not responsible for the safety of flight, the CFI is. So even though there may be a loop hole that alows you to get away with logging 95% of your flying with your CFI, why? Just relax and log it as dual received until you're rated in the airplane, then log all of it.

i understand your stance very well. as stated, that's how i've handled it for 15 years. further reading of the reg allowed me to see the 'loophole' you mention. and you're right..don't think it's going to really matter either way it's chosen to be handled by the cfi. i do think now per mine and some other posts above, that it's legal. 61.31 refers to 'act as pic'..for me, the already-certificated pilot receiving training is not 'acting as', but is able to log his few hours of pic as 'sole manipulator' per 61.51, provided he is receiving dual. he is 'logging as pic', but not 'acting as' in this case, as he's receiving dual from the 'acting pic'. fwiw, i do agree with you in the spirit of flight training. it seems a little silly perhaps, but the regs seem clear enough when read very closely.

 

[nosehair]

you're saying that like i had 'traditionally' done, you logged all tailwheel time for the student as dual-received only with no pic time for them. this was my prior mind-set

Hello exlear. Yeah, when I came onto these boards a lifetime ago (pre-9/11), I had always used the 'solo-ability' as the standard for logging PIC for any dual with a Private or higher. Mostly, it was never an issue. Also, I had the idea that where the regulation 61.51 says "rated, or has privileges" meant endorsed. The privileges part. And I'm still not sure that isn't true. I don't think there is a legal opinion or definition of the word "privileges" as used in that reg.

But, anyway, I used the endorsement as the mark to allow logging PIC when an endorsement was required, and I used solo proficiency as the mark when an endorsement was not required.

But after seeing the interpretation by others on these boards, I came to understand that might be a little high to hold the mark, but it is still not a "freebie". From what I can see, too many folks interpret the reg as though it says "all time touching the controls of any cat/class on your cert can be logged PIC. It is your logbook, and you get to decide what you log in it".
That's where I have the heatburn. Not so much because of the logging of time, but because it undermines the instructor's authority. And responsibility.

It is still the instructor's responsibility to determine when the student is "sole-manipulator" capable. In a normal 152 to a 172, or even to a 210 or a 172RG or a 182, or even a tricycle Piper or Moony, in most cases, there won't be enough "hand's on" or "constantly telling" to disallow logging the whole flight as Dual/PIC.

But I have flown with too many types who cannot find their rear-end with both hands, who want to "log" PIC time to qualify for a position or insurance, and that is not ethical.

Proper application of regulations also requires ethics. It seems that has been ignored in our society in general, and is now becoming a part of aviation. Find a loophole and jump theough it. Safety be damned.

 

[ppragman]

Proper application of regulations also requires ethics. It seems that has been ignored in our society in general, and is now becoming a part of aviation. Find a loophole and jump theough it. Safety be damned.

:yeahthat:

You're exactly right, just because you can do it because of a loop hole doesn't mean you should. For example, let's say you just get your IR, then don't fly again for 5 months and 25 days. You're five days away from not being current, so go ahead and launch into the night on an IFR in IMC night cross country...I don't think so.

 

[exleardriver]

Hello exlear. Yeah, when I came onto these boards a lifetime ago (pre-9/11), I had always used the 'solo-ability' as the standard for logging PIC for any dual with a Private or higher. Mostly, it was never an issue. Also, I had the idea that where the regulation 61.51 says "rated, or has privileges" meant endorsed. The privileges part. And I'm still not sure that isn't true. I don't think there is a legal opinion or definition of the word "privileges" as used in that reg.

But, anyway, I used the endorsement as the mark to allow logging PIC when an endorsement was required, and I used solo proficiency as the mark when an endorsement was not required.

But after seeing the interpretation by others on these boards, I came to understand that might be a little high to hold the mark, but it is still not a "freebie". From what I can see, too many folks interpret the reg as though it says "all time touching the controls of any cat/class on your cert can be logged PIC. It is your logbook, and you get to decide what you log in it".
That's where I have the heatburn. Not so much because of the logging of time, but because it undermines the instructor's authority. And responsibility.

It is still the instructor's responsibility to determine when the student is "sole-manipulator" capable. In a normal 152 to a 172, or even to a 210 or a 172RG or a 182, or even a tricycle Piper or Moony, in most cases, there won't be enough "hand's on" or "constantly telling" to disallow logging the whole flight as Dual/PIC.

But I have flown with too many types who cannot find their rear-end with both hands, who want to "log" PIC time to qualify for a position or insurance, and that is not ethical.

Proper application of regulations also requires ethics. It seems that has been ignored in our society in general, and is now becoming a part of aviation. Find a loophole and jump theough it. Safety be damned.

i do understand and side with your frustrations, particularly in the area of 'safety be damned' just to get the endorsement, rating, insurance requirement, etc.

i think the insurance checkout requirement is a big area of potential abuse, particularly when the company simply requires just so many hours of dual and the individual is not ready. in my way of thinking, if in this scenario, the person received the required number of hours and i didn't find them competent in the aircraft checkout, but insisted that they were, it would behoove me to let them know that i would be personally calling the insurance company to let them know that in my opinion this person needs more dual than they require. i'd want a record with them stating so. if they go with my recommendation, we continue, if not, i've covered my ass to the best of my ability and would do my best to let the person know my personal feelings on the matter. i had a case of this recently. fortunately, the individual let me know he needed more time..i didn't have to 'go there'.. :bandit:

 

[exleardriver]

:yeahthat:

You're exactly right, just because you can do it because of a loop hole doesn't mean you should. For example, let's say you just get your IR, then don't fly again for 5 months and 25 days. You're five days away from not being current, so go ahead and launch into the night on an IFR in IMC night cross country...I don't think so.

you're right - huge difference between being 'legal' and being 'proficient'. hopefully this instrument-rated pilot had a good instructor, knows his/her limitations and understands the difference. :bandit:

 

[MidlifeFlyer]

How short on PIC time are you that you want to log the 4hrs that its going to take to get your tail wheel sign off.

For the most part, pilots doing transitions, complex, high performance and to a lesser extent, tailwheel, are either low-time or heading toward advanced certificates or ratings, most of which require X hours of PIC something-or-another. They may have hours of PIC issues for rentals, insurance, etc. If nothing else, logging PIC, especially in something new, is exciting and gives "bragging rights" in hangar flying discussions.

If you don't want to put the time in =your= logbook, no one is forcing you to. But why shouldn't someone else choose to log the time that the rules allow them to legitimately log?

Maybe it's just me, but I don't consider something that's been in the regs (this or anything else for that matter) for a long time and that has been the subject of consistent FAA interpretation for more than 25 years (with plenty of opportunities to close it) a "loophole." Of course, if your definition of "loophole" is "something in the regs I personally don't like..." then I guess it is a loophole.

 

[butt]

My point is for those folks who cannot control the airplane throughout the take-off and initial climb, or get it aligned and configured for final or initiate a flare or hold it off or keep it aligned with the runway and so on and on and on.

Where does it say the pilot has to be able to "keep it aligned with the runway" to log PIC? I know of some pilots who can't keep a C152 aligned with the runway, should they not be able to log PIC? Regardless of your opinion, where does it say that in the regulations?

More importantly, for this discussion, do you think they have the capability of determining when they were sole manipulator, and make their own decision as to how to log it?

Again, you seem to be under the impression that only a CFI can determine who can log PIC and who can't. The regs say nothing of the kind. All the regs say is that if you are rated in category/class and are sole manipulator, you can log PIC.

"Sole manipulator" is only meant to prohibit two private pilots from trying to both log PIC by claiming they are sharing the controls. It's not meant to prohibit students from not logging when their instructor is instructing to them.

...aaand now that you got me started, I'll say that, in those conditions, where you are constantly having to tell the "student" every little thing, even though he may be the only one "touching" the controls, he is still not the sole manipulator. If you didn't tell him, he wouldn't do it, so you would wind up being on the controls anyway. He's still not the sole manipulator.

If thats the case, then logging PIC while under instruction is impossible, because you're almost always "constantly having to tell the student every little thing".

Take the case of the autopilot. The PIC "causes" the autopilot to manipulate the controls, so the PIC is able to log that as sole manipulator because he is causing it to happen. So the instructor is causing it to happen - not the student touching the controls. Merly touching the controls, but not making the correct inputs unless told by the instructor is not sole manipulator.

...so you're saying students can't log PIC when the auto pilot is on? I doubt you'll find anyone who agrees with you on that.

CFI's are the leaders in Aviation skills and knowledge. Students don't get to make the decision on when he/she can log PIC time, except within the regulations, and clearly, the regulation supports what I am saying.

We aren't doing a very good job of "leading" if we can't even properly read the regulations. By "we" I man you, of course.

I have not thought too much about it, but I am now thinking that one of the reasons our pilot population's aircraft control skills has decreased

Huh?

 

[butt]

Maybe it's just me, but I don't consider something that's been in the regs (this or anything else for that matter) for a long time and that has been the subject of consistent FAA interpretation for more than 25 years (with plenty of opportunities to close it) a "loophole." Of course, if your definition of "loophole" is "something in the regs I personally don't like..." then I guess it is a loophole.

It's not just you. I've noticed people around here like to play the "I'm a safer pilot than you" card by trying to characterize your argument as either illegal, or a dubiously-legal "loophole".

For instance:

Proper application of regulations also requires ethics. It seems that has been ignored in our society in general, and is now becoming a part of aviation. Find a loophole and jump theough it. Safety be damned.

This is not a safety issue. It is a logging of flight time issue. No one is implying it's OK to solo a plane you can't handle, or anything like that. You are making up facts to further your harebrained ideas.

If you don't think a pilot is ready to solo a plane, then suggest to him he needs more time. Don't try to pretend you have the authority to keep him from logging PIC, because you can't. If you don't like the idea of someone logging PIC when they "aren't ready" (whatever "ready" may entail), then take it up with the FAA and the insurance companies. You can't just make up your own rules.

 

[exleardriver]

More importantly, for this discussion, do you think they have the capability of determining when they were sole manipulator, and make their own decision as to how to log it?

well, the instructor should be the one 'guesstimating' any and all of the flight times to record in his/her logbook, no matter which column, if they're receiving dual. the instructor must sign this logbook entry, it isn't the responsibility of the student.

...aaand now that you got me started, I'll say that, in those conditions, where you are constantly having to tell the "student" every little thing, even though he may be the only one "touching" the controls, he is still not the sole manipulator. If you didn't tell him, he wouldn't do it, so you would wind up being on the controls anyway. He's still not the sole manipulator.

i think we'd all agree that this 'sole manipulator guesstimate' is just that,an estimated time and i'd likely err on the side of the conservative, but that's my decision to make as the instructor. this isn't easy to figure in this example (tailwheel)..it's pretty much just a close guess.

We're not robots as CFI's. We are thinking, controlling, influencing, making judgements and decisions about the student's performance, and it should reflect in the records, ie., a logbook.

yes, and if we're discussing how much pic to log in that logbook for a student in which we're giving dual, this responsibility lies with us,not the student on instructional flights.

This is the CFI Corner - I'm addressing CFI responsibilities. It is the responsibility of each instructor to insure adequate instruction is being received by a student - that he is safe and proficient, and skilled.

and she.. no argument there.

CFI's are the leaders in Aviation skills and knowledge. Students don't get to make the decision on when he/she can log PIC time, except within the regulations, and clearly, the regulation supports what I am saying.

same thing..it's not the student's responsibility to determine how much pic was logged by him/her..it falls on the instructor's best guesstimate. and again, only an already-certificated pilot receiving tailwheel instruction may log any pic time in the aircraft under the 'sole manipulator' clause while receiving dual..a pure student pilot would have to be 'sole occupant', an important distinction of far 61.51.

I have not thought too much about it, but I am now thinking that one of the reasons our pilot population's aircraft control skills has decreased is this mindset that a student can dictate when he is the sole manipulator.

a student may dictate nothing to an authorized instructor. recorded flight times are the responsibility of the cfi.

 

[t-cart]

Hey guys,Dont want to hijack the thread but i have a question about the tw endorsement.(I really dont know much about this endorsement).When did pilots start having to have this endorsement, and my case,I am a high time tw pilot,and never recieved an endorsement. Was i "automatically" grandfathered in,or am i legally supposed to have an endorsement? I have been flying tailwheels since the seventies ,and wondering if i have been illegal all this time,although the feds have looked at my logbook on several occasions,and i have taken several checkrides along the way. Like i said,not trying to hijack the thread,just curious Thanks FLY SAFE T.C.

 

[exleardriver]

Hey guys,Dont want to hijack the thread but i have a question about the tw endorsement.(I really dont know much about this endorsement).When did pilots start having to have this endorsement, and my case,I am a high time tw pilot,and never recieved an endorsement. Was i "automatically" grandfathered in,or am i legally supposed to have an endorsement? I have been flying tailwheels since the seventies ,and wondering if i have been illegal all this time,although the feds have looked at my logbook on several occasions,and i have taken several checkrides along the way. Like i said,not trying to hijack the thread,just curious Thanks FLY SAFE T.C.

you're safe. see far 61.31(i)(2):
'the training and endorsement required by paragraph (i)(1) of this section is not required if the person logged pic time in a tailwheel airplane before april 15, 1991.'

 

[USMC-SSGT]

t-cart, you are all set

providing you logged as little as .1 of tailwheel pic before April 15th, 1991 (far 61.31 (i)(2))

I have given a few tailwheel endorsements and providing they are single engine land licensed then I always log it as PIC in their books. Why? Because they have a single engine land rating, the airplane is single engine land with the only different being the third wheel on the back instead of the front. I dont log it to score them the extra 3 hours of pic or any of the other crazy reasons I have read. I dont see it as a liability. I think people read too far into these things.

 

[t-cart]

Thanks guys. I apreciate it. Thats what i like about this site.Ask a question and someone is going to get you an answer. Thanks FLY SAFE T.C.

 

[ppragman]

For the most part, pilots doing transitions, complex, high performance and to a lesser extent, tailwheel, are either low-time or heading toward advanced certificates or ratings, most of which require X hours of PIC something-or-another. They may have hours of PIC issues for rentals, insurance, etc. If nothing else, logging PIC, especially in something new, is exciting and gives "bragging rights" in hangar flying discussions.

First off, you talk as if I don't know, I just got my commercial back in april, believe me I know how much you want to add any type of time in the book, however, that doesn't mean that you have to cheat your way into more hours. If you can't act as Pilot in Command, then don't log pilot in command. Then you're true to yourself aswell. I don't know about anyone else here, but when I look in my log book, I'd rather think that I had shorted myself somewhere rather than given myself too much time. I don't want to think I'm too good at something when I'm not.

If you don't want to put the time in =your= logbook, no one is forcing you to. But why shouldn't someone else choose to log the time that the rules allow them to legitimately log?

Put whatever you want in your log book, but if I were going to hire that guy, and I happened to flip past that in the log book, I might start asking questions.

Maybe it's just me, but I don't consider something that's been in the regs (this or anything else for that matter) for a long time and that has been the subject of consistent FAA interpretation for more than 25 years (with plenty of opportunities to close it) a "loophole." Of course, if your definition of "loophole" is "something in the regs I personally don't like..." then I guess it is a loophole.

There are plenty of things that have been arround "forever" that aren't exactly good judgement or good policy or even valid. Often times, these things are brought about by cronyism. Examples abound in politics, but in aviation one thing comes to mind to me, increased gross weights in Alaska. If you look in the fars, there are some parts specific to Alaska that are rediculous: 91.323 (why?), 135.173e (we get thunderstorms too, just not as big). Additionally, why can I take off part 91 zero zero? Doesn't that seem unsafe?

 

[Ian_J]

Put whatever you want in your log book, but if I were going to hire that guy, and I happened to flip past that in the log book, I might start asking questions.

But it would be pretty easy to answer your questions.

"I logged that PIC time per FAR 61.51, sir."

 

[USMC-SSGT]

I cant imagine ever going to an interview and having the person sitting across from me going "WHOA hold the train...what is this 6 hours of PIC all about?!!" after noticing the PIC and then flipping to the back and comparing it to the endorsement. Maybe it could happen but i am sure it would be unlikely.

In my limited experience people have looked at my tailwheel hours/pic and said "wow, how did you like the stearman/cessna 195/swift/extra?" or any of the other interesting planes I have flown.

I would think they are looking more closely at your 100 hours of multi time building safety pilot time wondering if the other pilot was truly under the hood for all 100 hours or so, not whether or not you logged correctly the hours preceding your signoff

 

[MidlifeFlyer]

that doesn't mean that you have to cheat your way into more hours.

That's the part I just don't understand about people who don't like a rule and feel the need to impose their so-called "morality" on others (note the posts here that have sounds like "I get to decide whether you are sole manipulator" and "I get to dictate to you what is written in your logbook"):

What the heck is "cheating" about =following= a regulation, not by looking for hidden meanings to find a way to make it say what you want it to, but in accordance with the guidance of the the agency that wrote it?

We're =not= talking about flying off into IMC 5.5 months after the last time you let your autopilot do 6 identical approaches into your home base.

We're =not= talking about piling the wife and kids into your airplane for a "red-eye" vacation cross country at 10 PM when the only night flying you did in the past 10 years were the 3 stop & goes you did just before you left.

We =are= talking about writing numbers on a piece of paper to count it toward the requirements for FAA certificates and ratings the way the FAA says you should do it.

You may say that's "cheating." I say you have a weird sense of priorities.

 

[MidlifeFlyer]

But it would be pretty easy to answer your questions.

"I logged that PIC time per FAR 61.51, sir."

To which the obvious response it:

"Oh yeah? Well, we're a company that chooses what FAA regulations we will follow and which ones we won't. We don't like that rule and won't hire anyone who follows it."

At which point you leave, feeling yourself incredibly lucky that didn't get hired.

 

[ppragman]

To which the obvious response it:

"Oh yeah? Well, we're a company that chooses what FAA regulations we will follow and which ones we won't. We don't like that rule and won't hire anyone who follows it."

At which point you leave, feeling yourself incredibly lucky that didn't get hired.

No, the obvious response is:

"Oh yeah? Well, how much of your actual instrument time was really in actual, how much of your other PIC was as a safety pilot, how much of that... ad nauseum."

Listen, I'm not imposing in moral code on anyone, like I said, log what you wanna log, however, be true to yourself. The biggest question of all is "why?" "Because you can," isn't a valid answer. There are plenty of things that the regs allow you to do that aren't necessary the best (e.g. scud running). The reg also says that the pilot "May," not "shall" so sure you can but again, I'm advising against it, not saying it's forbidden.