FARs Regarding Tailwheel Endorsement (is it required?)

birdus

Line Up and Wait
Joined
Aug 26, 2017
Messages
606
Display Name

Display name:
Jay Williams
Which FARs clarify whether or not a tailwheel endorsement is required if one gets their Private Pilot Certificate in a tailwheel airplane? There is disagreement among some regarding whether or not the endorsement is required in this case.
 
61.31(i)
(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.
there is no provision for “I got my Private Certificate in a tailwheel”.

also, you need the endorsement before you solo in it.
 
Which FARs clarify whether or not a tailwheel endorsement is required if one gets their Private Pilot Certificate in a tailwheel airplane? There is disagreement among some regarding whether or not the endorsement is required in this case.
You would have an endorsement to solo. Or you would be grandfathered.
 
You would have an endorsement to solo. Or you would be grandfathered.

So you're saying the endorsement to solo is the tailwheel endorsement?
 
So you're saying the endorsement to solo is the tailwheel endorsement?
No, in order to act as pilot in command of a tail wheel aircraft you have to have a tail wheel endorsement. When you solo in an aircraft as a student pilot you are pilot in command. So in addition to the endorsements necessary to solo, you would have had a endorsement to fly a tailwheel aircraft.
 
So you're saying the endorsement to solo is the tailwheel endorsement?
Did your training include the required maneuvers and procedures? Does the everywhere say the instructor found you proficient in the operation of a tailwheel airplane? The rules don't say the endorsement has to call out the specific FAR or that it can't be combined with another endorsement. But it's still required. As a matter of good practice, most CFIs, IME, include a reference to the reg in their endorsements.
 
So you're saying the endorsement to solo is the tailwheel endorsement?
No. As @Brad Z said, If you got your solo endorsement in a tailwheel, your CFI should have also given you the tailwheel endorsement (unless you are grandfathered). Basucally, the FAA does not recognize implied endorsements.
 
No. As @Brad Z said, If you got your solo endorsement in a tailwheel, your CFI should have also given you the tailwheel endorsement (unless you are grandfathered). Basucally, the FAA does not recognize implied endorsements.
Which doesn't mean that one endorsement can't meet both requirements, but that the requirements of both endorsements must be explicitly satisfied.

This is the FAA's template solo endorsement:

I certify that [First name, MI, Last name] has received the required training to qualify for solo flying. I have determined [he or she] meets the applicable requirements of § 61.87(n) and is proficient to make solo flights in [make and model].

The training requirements of 61.31(i) are subsumed in the requirements of 61.87(d) for pre-solo flight training. If any modification is necessary, it's not much.
 
Just curious....

How would a person provide evidence of being grand fathered into tail wheels before the endorsement was required.?? Logbook.??
 
Back in the day before an endorsement requirement, I did my CFI spin training in a tailwheel. So, according to “the flow chart” I can log the airborn time as PIC. Never touched controls for TO or lndg. But, since I have PIC time, I’m grandfathered.
Yeah that makes sense.
 
Just curious....

How would a person provide evidence of being grand fathered into tail wheels before the endorsement was required.?? Logbook.??
The reg requires you to have "logged pilot-in-command time in a tailwheel airplane before April 15, 1991." So either your logbook or some other evidence you actually logged PIC time. So your logbook.
 
The reg requires you to have "logged pilot-in-command time in a tailwheel airplane before April 15, 1991." So either your logbook or some other evidence you actually logged PIC time. So your logbook.

Thanks, I learned something today.!!!

Time for a BPR...
 
Is there data to show that the endorsement requirement has had any effect on reported accidents involving tailwheel airplanes?
 
Is there data to show that the endorsement requirement has had any effect on reported accidents involving tailwheel airplanes?

I don't think there is any collection of data that would tell us that, since there is no requirement to report receiving a tailwheel endorsement, we don't even know what percentage of pilot are tailwheel qualified. Let alone when they became qualified or how much tailwheel time they have. Surveys would be about the only way to track this, and possibly NTSB reports, they again rarely report when or even if the pilot has a tailwheel endorsement.
 
Just curious....

How would a person provide evidence of being grand fathered into tail wheels before the endorsement was required.?? Logbook.??
Of course. If it ain't logged, it don't meet the requirement to "document and record the following time in a manner acceptable to the Administrator."
 
If it’s not written it didn’t happen.
 
I don't think there is any collection of data that would tell us that, since there is no requirement to report receiving a tailwheel endorsement, we don't even know what percentage of pilot are tailwheel qualified. Let alone when they became qualified or how much tailwheel time they have. Surveys would be about the only way to track this, and possibly NTSB reports, they again rarely report when or even if the pilot has a tailwheel endorsement.
And, of course, it’s more confusing because an endorsement has been required since 1978, but there are pilots who logged PIC in their buddy’s taildragger between 1978 and 1991 who couldn’t act as PIC at the time, but are now grandfathered.
 
Is there data to show that the endorsement requirement has had any effect on reported accidents involving tailwheel airplanes?
Even though I sign endorsements, this is a good question. My bet is that if the endorsement requirement was dropped, there would still be plenty of business - and more attrition in the used airplane market.
 
Is there data to show that the endorsement requirement has had any effect on reported accidents involving tailwheel airplanes?
Good question. My guess is the insurance companies would be in the best position to answer that. Because landing accidents—particularly those resulting from ground loops—are much less likely to result in serious injuries or death, they don’t get the same attention in aviation safety circles as other phases of flight.
 
Which FARs clarify whether or not a tailwheel endorsement is required if one gets their Private Pilot Certificate in a tailwheel airplane? There is disagreement among some regarding whether or not the endorsement is required in this case.

I got my high-performance endorsement as a student pilot for solo. Seems like a tailwheel endorsement is just different ink.

All you need is the proper endorsement(s) for PPL checkride.
 
Which doesn't mean that one endorsement can't meet both requirements, but that the requirements of both endorsements must be explicitly satisfied
Of course. While I suspect most instructors prefer the "purity" and safe harbor of the recommended endorsements of the AC 61-65 Appendix, there's nothing I know of to prevent combining them to save your wrist and a few milliliters of ink, or making up your own wording. I do that with a preprinted label when I endorse a combined flight review and IPC in a paper logbook.
 
I'm just guessing that the FAA would accept an endorsement to solo as a tailwheel endorsement ONLY if it specifically addressed all of the requirements of the tailwheel endorsement:
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.

As with many other requirements, even if it was done it only counts if it is logged.
 
Last edited:
???? I never heard of that, certainly I didn't have or need one when flying tailwheel aircraft in the early 1980s.
The magic date for being grandfathered in (even if you don't actually have grandchildren, or even children) and not requiring an endorsement was April 15, 1991. But I don't know when the reg actually changed.

And, what I can't seem to find is the regulation that lets you operate a nosewheel aircraft without an endorsement if you have logged time before some date. :)
 
???? I never heard of that, certainly I didn't have or need one when flying tailwheel aircraft in the early 1980s.
You are correct…I was confusing it with the high performance/complex endorsements.
 
Good question. My guess is the insurance companies would be in the best position to answer that. Because landing accidents—particularly those resulting from ground loops—are much less likely to result in serious injuries or death, they don’t get the same attention in aviation safety circles as other phases of flight.

And because ground loops and similar landing accidents are much more likely to go unreported (if a report was required) due to just pushing it into the hangar without anybody seeing anything, the numbers may be very hard to come by in any useful amount.
 
I'm just guessing that the FAA would accept an endorsement to solo as a tailwheel endorsement ONLY if it specifically addressed all of the requirements of the tailwheel endorsement:
I think the FAA would accept it if it incorporated at least the content of the current AC 61-65 tailwheel endorsement:

I certify that [First name, MI, Last name], [grade of pilot certificate], [certificate number], has received the required training of § 61.31(i) in a [make and model] of tailwheel airplane. I have determined that [he or she] is proficient in the operation of a tailwheel airplane​

At this point There are two basic student solo logbook endorsements at this point. The completion of the required training endorsement which used to be on the student certificate, and the appropriate 90-day endorsement. It's certainly possible to combine those two and add the language of the tailwheel endorsement, and make them all one endorsement. Not difficult. Just requires a little creativity and an evaluation that the risk of being wrong or at least questioned (which affects both student and instructor) is less than the value of using less ink.
 
You are correct…I was confusing it with the high performance/complex endorsements.
Yeah. The tailwheel endorsement came along in 1991.
Is there data to show that the endorsement requirement has had any effect on reported accidents involving tailwheel airplanes?
Dunno. I know that the FAA said the endorsement requirement was based on the prevalence of tricycle gear, on recommendations made in a 1980 NTSB study/report and on other accident data supporting the conclusion "that tailwheel airplanes have proportionately more takeoff and landing accidents than tricycle gear airplanes."
 
???? I never heard of that, certainly I didn't have or need one when flying tailwheel aircraft in the early 1980s.

This is what I recall. I got my PPL in Sept 1979, and started flying tailwheel shortly afterwards. And no endorsement was required.
 
I am so old I don't have a complex, high performance, or tail wheel endorsement and my MEI was also grandfathered. :)

You beat me. I did not grandfather an MEI. When was that a thing?

I do need to get the Glider Ground Tow endorsement. When I got my Comm G, your certificate stated Glider - Aero (or Ground) Tow Only. You had to do an FAA checkride to get the restriction removed.
 
I do need to get the Glider Ground Tow endorsement. When I got my Comm G, your certificate stated Glider - Aero (or Ground) Tow Only. You had to do an FAA checkride to get the restriction removed.
self-launch as well.
 
I got my high-performance endorsement as a student pilot for solo. Seems like a tailwheel endorsement is just different ink.

All you need is the proper endorsement(s) for PPL checkride.

I taught one guy got to fly in a Bellanca Cruisemaster, he had about 20 hours in a C-172 prior to purchasing the Cruisemaster. He finished up his Private License in the Cruisemaster.
was interesting because he needed his Tailwheel, High Performance and Complex Endorsements to Solo.

Brian
CFIIG/ASEL




cruisemaster_left_front_quarter.jpg
 

Attachments

  • upload_2023-1-19_11-7-46.png
    upload_2023-1-19_11-7-46.png
    226.8 KB · Views: 3
And because ground loops and similar landing accidents are much more likely to go unreported (if a report was required) due to just pushing it into the hangar without anybody seeing anything, the numbers may be very hard to come by in any useful amount.


1-8-37.png
 
I think the FAA would accept it if it incorporated at least the content of the current AC 61-65 tailwheel endorsement:

I certify that [First name, MI, Last name], [grade of pilot certificate], [certificate number], has received the required training of § 61.31(i) in a [make and model] of tailwheel airplane. I have determined that [he or she] is proficient in the operation of a tailwheel airplane​

I'm pretty sure that works as well - point being is that the endorsement needs to be clear that the requirements of the tailwheel endorsement have been met.
 
Back
Top