Regulation question regarding tailwheel

[cleared4theoption]

Okay, so I understand the whole category/class/type thing.
From what I believe to understand, a tailwheel plane like a J-3, for example is Category: Airplane, Class: Single Engine Land(SEL), I don't believe it has a Type rating because it isn't big enough and doesn't have a turbine engine...so it doesn't require a type rating. I was trying to find the actual regs in the FAR where it spells out the requirement for an endorsement and came up empty...is there such a regulation?

 

[DaleB]

14 CFR Part 61.31(i)

 

[cleared4theoption]

14 CFR Part 61.31(i)

Ah there it is...skimmed past it because I thought it was just about type ratings..thanks

 

[DaleB]

I'm not really that smart... I looked for the tailwheel endorsement block ion the back of my logbook.

 

[Mike I]

...I don't believe it has a Type rating because it isn't big enough and doesn't have a turbine engine...

Just to clarify, the regs don't require a T.R. just because it's a turbine... it requires it for specifically "turbojet" engines. There are some aircraft like the Pilatus PC12, Piper Meridian, and KingAir 200 that are turboprops, that only require HP+Complex endorsements (and pressurized if service ceiling is over 25,000', and Multi rating for KA).

There are Turbojet aircraft under 12,500lbs that require a T.R. such as a Citation 1 (CE500), but they're rare.

 

[KSCessnaDriver]

There are Turbojet aircraft under 12,500lbs that require a T.R. such as a Citation 1 (CE500), but they're rare.

There are lots of jets under 12,500. The CJ1, CJ2, Premier, Eclipse, any of the VLJ's, and many of the privately owned military jets. And then there are piston planes that require a type too

 

[Skylane81E]

So this is one that I've always wondered, from a type rating standpoint is there a difference between a turbojet and a turbofan?

 

[Inverted]

Yes. Some airlines including Southwest require turbofan specific time. So from that standpoint they are different. They are also different from an operational standpoint. If your question is with regards to type ratings then no, the FAA includes both turbojet and turbofan for its type requirement.

 

[poadeleted20]

There are some aircraft like the Pilatus PC12, Piper Meridian, and KingAir 200 that are turboprops, that only require HP+Complex endorsements (and pressurized if service ceiling is over 25,000', and Multi rating for KA).

Actually, it's a "high altitude" endorsement, and it's required if either its service ceiling or maximum operating altitude is above 25,000 MSL whether the plane is pressurized or not.

 

[poadeleted20]

So this is one that I've always wondered, from a type rating standpoint is there a difference between a turbojet and a turbofan?

Not to the FAA.

 

[poadeleted20]

Yes. Some airlines including Southwest require turbofan specific time. So from that standpoint they are different. They are also different from an operational standpoint.

That's an internal Southwest issue only.

If your question is with regards to type ratings then no, the FAA includes both turbojet and turbofan for its type requirement.

Correct -- they all fall in the same FAA bucket.

 

[gismo]

Actually, it's a "high altitude" endorsement, and it's required if either its service ceiling or maximum operating altitude is above 25,000 MSL whether the plane is pressurized or not.

JOOC, would a "high altitude" endorsement be required to take an airplane with a service ceiling (@MGW) of 19,000 above 25,000? Several years ago I attempted to do just that in my B55 (no max op alt AFaIK) but although was still getting about 150 FPM approaching FL250 when ATC said they couldn't let me go any higher due to traffic in the area (I didn't have a destination, was just climbing on a vector).

 

[poadeleted20]

JOOC, would a "high altitude" endorsement be required to take an airplane with a service ceiling (@MGW) of 19,000 above 25,000?

Nope. The regulation clearly states what aircraft it covers, which, interestingly enough, includes unpressurized as well as pressurized aircraft because the definition of "pressurized aircraft" in that section does not include pressurization, just "an aircraft that has a service ceiling or maximum operating altitude, whichever is lower, above 25,000 feet MSL." And yes, I asked -- that is the way Flight Standards applies it, so some V35TC Bonanza pilots without high altitude endorsements may be surprised to find they are flying illegally.

 

[BillTIZ]

Nope. The regulation clearly states what aircraft it covers, which, interestingly enough, includes unpressurized as well as pressurized aircraft because the definition of "pressurized aircraft" in that section does not include pressurization, just "an aircraft that has a service ceiling or maximum operating altitude, whichever is lower, above 25,000 feet MSL." And yes, I asked -- that is the way Flight Standards applies it, so some V35TC Bonanza pilots without high altitude endorsements may be surprised to find they are flying illegally.

Interesting, so if the aircraft is capable / certified / has a listing of max service ceiling, to go above 25,000 ft MSL, even if you never personally take it above 17,500 ft MSL, then you need the endorsement.

(Yes, I have mine, part of my Multi training. Flying right seat in King Airs at the time.)

 

[Greg Bockelman]

Nope. The regulation clearly states what aircraft it covers, which, interestingly enough, includes unpressurized as well as pressurized aircraft because the definition of "pressurized aircraft" in that section does not include pressurization, just "an aircraft that has a service ceiling or maximum operating altitude, whichever is lower, above 25,000 feet MSL." And yes, I asked -- that is the way Flight Standards applies it, so some V35TC Bonanza pilots without high altitude endorsements may be surprised to find they are flying illegally.

You know, that is so counter intuitive as to be absurd. If "pressurized aircraft" does not include pressurization, how can it possibly be called "pressurized"?

 

[Greg Bockelman]

The regulation clearly states what aircraft it covers, which,

It is only clear if you think in FAA legalese. You would think that since it said "Pressurized Aircraft", it would only apply to airplanes that have pressurization.

 

[timwinters]

I'm not really that smart... I looked for the tailwheel endorsement block in the back of my logbook.

I'm sure it was easy to find too since it was one of very few that wasn't scratched out.

 

[Skip Miller]

You know, that is so counter intuitive as to be absurd. If "pressurized aircraft" does not include pressurization, how can it possibly be called "pressurized"?

So if you took a P-210 above 25,000 without the endorsement, if you dumped the pressure and went on the cannulas or a face mask, would you be suddenly legal?

And then there is Bruce Bohannon: he attained 46,919 ft on November 15, 2003 by Bruce Bohannan flying his Bohannon B-1, which I believe was a modified RV-? without pressurization. I assume that was in the experimental category. I assume he had the endorsement, but did he need it?

-Skip

 

[Henning]

JOOC, would a "high altitude" endorsement be required to take an airplane with a service ceiling (@MGW) of 19,000 above 25,000? Several years ago I attempted to do just that in my B55 (no max op alt AFaIK) but although was still getting about 150 FPM approaching FL250 when ATC said they couldn't let me go any higher due to traffic in the area (I didn't have a destination, was just climbing on a vector).

No problems, they gave me an open block to the top for a test climb I did to 33,1xx.

 

[Greg Bockelman]

So if you took a P-210 above 25,000 without the endorsement, if you dumped the pressure and went on the cannulas or a face mask, would you be suddenly legal?

Don't be absurd.

I assume he had the endorsement, but did he need it?

-Skip

The way I had always interpreted it, by a literal reading of the regulation, no. What is pressurized about an RV-7 or -8, or whatever it is he flies?

 

[Henning]

Don't be absurd.



The way I had always interpreted it, by a literal reading of the regulation, no. What is pressurized about an RV-7 or -8, or whatever it is he flies?

I too was informed by the FSDO when I asked (it really was convenient having the FSDO right next door in the days when you could just walk in and ask a question of a live human, I miss that) they told me the endorsement was not required for non pressurized aircraft.

An interesting placquard on my panel read "This aircraft not evaluated for flight above 25,000'".

 

[j1b3h0]

I could be wrong, but I think there are airplanes that can be flown up to 12,499lbs -without a type rating, but if you are typed you can fly them up to max GTOW. Some models of the Swearingen Merlin have a 14,000lb MGTOW, but can be flown by a pilot without a type so long as it's not above 12,500lbs. Incidently, this type of airplane requires an experienced person in the herochair...especially if flown single pilot.

 

[MBDiagMan]

If you read that closely, it allows people who solo'd in a tailwheel plane before a date in 1990 or so to be grand fathered in. I was ready to solo my instructors Champ not long before that date and he decided to not buy insurance for students to solo in it and moved me to a 150. Had he decided to buy the insurance, I would have never had to get the endorsement. Of course, I would still have had to learn to fly the taildragger when I started my training again last year.

I'm almost as proud of my tailwheel endorsement as I am my PPL, although they are both of the same date. The DPE told my instructor after my checkride that he needed to add the TW endorsement to my logbook.

 

[poadeleted20]

Interesting, so if the aircraft is capable / certified / has a listing of max service ceiling, to go above 25,000 ft MSL, even if you never personally take it above 17,500 ft MSL, then you need the endorsement.

That is correct.

 

[poadeleted20]

You know, that is so counter intuitive as to be absurd. If "pressurized aircraft" does not include pressurization, how can it possibly be called "pressurized"?

I didn't write the rule, and I will not attempt to defend it, only to let folks know what it says.

 

[poadeleted20]

It is only clear if you think in FAA legalese. You would think that since it said "Pressurized Aircraft", it would only apply to airplanes that have pressurization.

One might think that, but I checked with Flight Standards, and it means what it says, not what one might think it says.

 

[poadeleted20]

So if you took a P-210 above 25,000 without the endorsement, if you dumped the pressure and went on the cannulas or a face mask, would you be suddenly legal?

No.

And then there is Bruce Bohannon: he attained 46,919 ft on November 15, 2003 by Bruce Bohannan flying his Bohannon B-1, which I believe was a modified RV-? without pressurization. I assume that was in the experimental category. I assume he had the endorsement, but did he need it?

yes, he did.

 

[poadeleted20]

I too was informed by the FSDO when I asked (it really was convenient having the FSDO right next door in the days when you could just walk in and ask a question of a live human, I miss that) they told me the endorsement was not required for non pressurized aircraft.

They are wrong, and if they did as they are required and checked with HQ instead of giving an interpretation without authorization, they would learn that,

 

[poadeleted20]

If you read that closely, it allows people who solo'd in a tailwheel plane before a date in 1990 or so to be grand fathered in.

If you read it closely, you would see that one must have logged PIC time. It is not necessary that one have solo time.

 

[Greg Bockelman]

I didn't write the rule, and I will not attempt to defend it, only to let folks know what it says.

No, what you are telling us is what someone else has interpreted it to say. Because what it says is not how it is being interpreted.

 

[Greg Bockelman]

One might think that, but I checked with Flight Standards, and it means what it says, not what one might think it says.

Ok, explain to me how it is possible to interpret it in such a way that a "pressurized" airplane does not need "pressurization". I truly don't understand.

 

[Everskyward]

Nope. The regulation clearly states what aircraft it covers, which, interestingly enough, includes unpressurized as well as pressurized aircraft because the definition of "pressurized aircraft" in that section does not include pressurization, just "an aircraft that has a service ceiling or maximum operating altitude, whichever is lower, above 25,000 feet MSL." And yes, I asked -- that is the way Flight Standards applies it, so some V35TC Bonanza pilots without high altitude endorsements may be surprised to find they are flying illegally.

But 61.31(g) clearly states "pressurized aircraft". Are you referring to some other regulation?

(g) Additional training required for operating pressurized aircraft capable of operating at high altitudes. (1) Except as provided in paragraph (g)(3) of this section, no person may act as pilot in command of a pressurized aircraft (an aircraft that has a service ceiling or maximum operating altitude, whichever is lower, above 25,000 feet MSL), unless that person has received and logged ground training from an authorized instructor and obtained an endorsement in the person's logbook or training record from an authorized instructor who certifies the person has satisfactorily accomplished the ground training. The ground training must include at least the following subjects:

(i) High-altitude aerodynamics and meteorology;

(ii) Respiration;

(iii) Effects, symptoms, and causes of hypoxia and any other high-altitude sickness;

(iv) Duration of consciousness without supplemental oxygen;

(v) Effects of prolonged usage of supplemental oxygen;

(vi) Causes and effects of gas expansion and gas bubble formation;

(vii) Preventive measures for eliminating gas expansion, gas bubble formation, and high-altitude sickness;

(viii) Physical phenomena and incidents of decompression; and

(ix) Any other physiological aspects of high-altitude flight.

(2) Except as provided in paragraph (g)(3) of this section, no person may act as pilot in command of a pressurized aircraft unless that person has received and logged training from an authorized instructor in a pressurized aircraft, or in a flight simulator or flight training device that is representative of a pressurized aircraft, and obtained an endorsement in the person's logbook or training record from an authorized instructor who found the person proficient in the operation of a pressurized aircraft. The flight training must include at least the following subjects:

(i) Normal cruise flight operations while operating above 25,000 feet MSL;

(ii) Proper emergency procedures for simulated rapid decompression without actually depressurizing the aircraft; and

(iii) Emergency descent procedures.

(3) The training and endorsement required by paragraphs (g)(1) and (g)(2) of this section are not required if that person can document satisfactory accomplishment of any of the following in a pressurized aircraft, or in a flight simulator or flight training device that is representative of a pressurized aircraft:

(i) Serving as pilot in command before April 15, 1991;

(ii) Completing a pilot proficiency check for a pilot certificate or rating before April 15, 1991;

(iii) Completing an official pilot-in-command check conducted by the military services of the United States; or

(iv) Completing a pilot-in-command proficiency check under part 121, 125, or 135 of this chapter conducted by the Administrator or by an approved pilot check airman.

 

[Henning]

That was the rule the FSDO guys were reading when they told me I didn't need one for my Travelair and that the 25,000' tag on my panel was not a limitation and that I was good to climb as high as I wanted (pre RVSM).

 

[poadeleted20]

No, what you are telling us is what someone else has interpreted it to say. Because what it says is not how it is being interpreted.

By whom? I'm giving you the exact wording of the regulation with no intpretation at all. If someone is saying it only applies to aircraft with pressurization, they are making their own interpretation beyond e actual wording of the reg, and unless that someone is the Chief Counsel, their interpretation has no legal weight.

 

[poadeleted20]

Ok, explain to me how it is possible to interpret it in such a way that a "pressurized" airplane does not need "pressurization". I truly don't understand.

Read the reg -- the definition of "pressurized aircraft" in that section, which applies to that section, does not include pressurization. The only way to interpret the reg as applying only to aircraft with pressurization is to assume the definition goes beyond the wording in the reg. As I said, it seems bizarre, but that is what the reg plainly says. Anything else is an interpretation, which only the Chief Counsel is authorized to make, not some FSDO inspector.

 

[RotorAndWing]

They are wrong, and if they did as they are required and checked with HQ instead of giving an interpretation without authorization, they would learn that,

Ron,

You are constantly harping on how a field Inspector cannot make interpretations and that somehow on every issue, no matter how small, that said Inspector must consult HQ in DC first.

Please show us in guidance where this is procedure. If you were well versed on FAA procedures as you try to lead people into believing you would note the flaws in your logic.

You are under an assumption that the FAA is structured and operates like the USAF. I can assure you it doesn't.

 

[Greg Bockelman]

Read the reg

I have

-- the definition of "pressurized aircraft" in that section, which applies to that section, does not include pressurization.

You are going to have to explain to me how that is possible. How the hell can you have a pressurized airplane without pressurization? I truly don't understand.

The only way to interpret the reg as applying only to aircraft with pressurization is to assume the definition goes beyond the wording in the reg.

Well, I am just interpreting it the way it reads to me, not the way some lawyer interprets it.

As I said, it seems bizarre, but that is what the reg plainly says.

Sorry, the reg does not plainly say that. Unless I am reading it wrong. If you have the patience you might highlight the appropriate part because I am not seeing it.

Anything else is an interpretation, which only the Chief Counsel is authorized to make, not some FSDO inspector.

Exactly. So lets see a link to that.

 

[poadeleted20]

Ron,

You are constantly harping on how a field Inspector cannot make interpretations and that somehow on every issue, no matter how small, that said Inspector must consult HQ in DC first.

Please show us in guidance where this is procedure. If you were well versed on FAA procedures as you try to lead people into believing you would note the flaws in your logic.

You are under an assumption that the FAA is structured and operates like the USAF. I can assure you it doesn't.

As an inspector yourself, you know full well that you are expressly prohibited from giving interpretations of the regulations other than to quote interpretations already issued by the Chief Counsel's office. If asked to provide an interpretation, and there is no written guidance on point, you are required to elevate it for an official reading, not give your own personal opinion.

 

[RotorAndWing]

As an inspector yourself, you know full well that you are expressly prohibited from giving interpretations of the regulations other than to quote interpretations already issued by the Chief Counsel's office. If asked to provide an interpretation, and there is no written guidance on point, you are required to elevate it for an official reading, not give your own personal opinion.

Show me the guidance that backs up your assertion.

 

[poadeleted20]

I have

Then you know that the definition of a "pressurized aircraft" in that reg does not include pressurization.

You are going to have to explain to me how that is possible. How the hell can you have a pressurized airplane without pressurization? I truly don't understand.

Neithere do I, but that is the way the reg is written.

Well, I am just interpreting it the way it reads to me, not the way some lawyer interprets it.

Then please tell me what part of "An aircraft that has a service ceiling or maximum operating altitude, whichever is lower, above 25,000 fewt MSL" means the aircraft must be pressurized to fall within that definition.

Exactly. So lets see a link to that.

No, you need to show me the interpretation which says that regulation only applies to aircraft with pressurization when that isn't included in the definition in that reg. IOW, I'm not the one assuming things that aren't written.