BFR and tailwheel

Dana

Dana

En-Route
Joined
Oct 19, 2016
Messages
4,450
Location
CT & NY
Display Name
Display name:
Dana
No, not another logging question...

Can a CFI who does not have a tailwheel endorsement give a flight review in a tailwheel aircraft? This assumes that the pilot getting the review does have the endorsement or is grandfathered, and it's less than 24 months since his last review, and he's current in the aircraft, so he's still legal to be PIC.
 
Dana said:
No, not another logging question...

Can a CFI who does not have a tailwheel endorsement give a flight review in a tailwheel aircraft? This assumes that the pilot getting the review does have the endorsement or is grandfathered, and it's less than 24 months since his last review, and he's current in the aircraft, so he's still legal to be PIC.
Click to expand...
One of the all-time questions without a clear answer. If one looks at the regulation, there is nothing requiring the endorsement unless the CFI is acting as PIC. On the other hand, there have been a number of FAA guidance strongly suggesting it would look askance at the practice. The old, orphaned Part 61 FAQ, for example, took the position that an "authorized instructor" must have the applicable endorsements. Whether that actually represents FAA policy is conjecture, but I wouldn't be surprised if it did.

On the third hand, even though I have the endorsement, I don't fly one regularly and would not do a flight review in a tailwheel except for a good friend with whom I have flow with many times and in whom I already have a lot of confidence.
 
Last edited:
If the pilot is past his 2 years since last flight review, or is not current with 3 landings in a taildragger, then there is a clear answer of no, is there not? Just for clarity sake.
 
Salty said:
If the pilot is past his 2 years since last flight review, or is not current with 3 landings in a taildragger, then there is a clear answer of no, is there not? Just for clarity sake.
Click to expand...
Well, yes on the flight review, but the OP says the reviewee is FR current.

No on the 3 takeoff and landing currency. As an instructional flight neither the trainee or the CFI is required to be passenger-current.
 
This is a common scenario asked around here on a flight instructor checkride. As pointed out, the textbook answer is yes, a flight instructor could give a flight review without having the tailwheel endorsement if the student is current.

One thing I’ve always questioned with this approach is, who is really responsible for the outcome of the flight and who is going to get into trouble if the outcome isn’t good? I’d venture to guess that it isn’t going to be the student, regardless of what prior arrangements were made on who is going to be “PIC”.
 
mondtster said:
This is a common scenario asked around here on a flight instructor checkride. As pointed out, the textbook answer is yes, a flight instructor could give a flight review without having the tailwheel endorsement if the student is current.

One thing I’ve always questioned with this approach is, who is really responsible for the outcome of the flight and who is going to get into trouble if the outcome isn’t good? I’d venture to guess that it isn’t going to be the student, regardless of what prior arrangements were made on who is going to be “PIC”.
Click to expand...
That's a good guess. The NTSB has said in more than one case that

"Regardless of who is manipulating the controls of the aircraft during an instructional flight, or what degree of proficiency the student has attained, the flight instructor is always deemed to be the pilot-in-command."​

While that's a regulatory inaccuracy, the real point is that CFIs are held to a high standard of responsibility for flights when they are giving instruction, equivalent to that of the pilot in command, regardless of the qualifications of the trainee.
 
I see it as something that would be OK if the CFI was already familiar with the pilot and his flying ability, at least by reputation, but it would be irresponsible on the part of the CFI if the pilot was a stranger of unknown ability.
 
Dana said:
No, not another logging question...

Can a CFI who does not have a tailwheel endorsement give a flight review in a tailwheel aircraft? This assumes that the pilot getting the review does have the endorsement or is grandfathered, and it's less than 24 months since his last review, and he's current in the aircraft, so he's still legal to be PIC.
Click to expand...

Yes.

But a good CFI probably wouldn’t put himself in that situation.


It’s kinda like how in Pt91 you can takeoff 0/0, or shoot a approach even though the weather reporting says it is below mins.
Or how the first amendment says you could start off every conversation with “go F’ yourself”

Even in today’s world, one still needs to exercise judgement even where the state hasn’t completely made it paint by numbers
 
James331 said:
It’s kinda like how in Pt91 you can ...shoot a approach even though the weather reporting says it is below mins.

Even in today’s world, one still needs to exercise judgement even where the state hasn’t completely made it paint by numbers
Click to expand...
So what's inherently wrong/unsafe/poor judgment with shooting an approach that's reported below minimums?
 
MauleSkinner said:
So what's inherently wrong/unsafe/poor judgment with shooting an approach that's reported below minimums?
Click to expand...

Because you know you’re not going to break out, you’re getting yourself lower to the rocks in zero visibility where your flight is going to see the most risk and for what reward?

It would be like practicing rejected takeoffs on a runway you know is too short to take off on.

The juice isn’t worth the squeeze.
 
Walboy said:
What if the flight review is for another CFI who is current and has the endorsement?
Click to expand...
In theory no difference and no reason it should. .

I have given flight reviews and IPCs to pilots with ATP certificates flying their own airplane. They can typically fly their airplane much better than I and definitely know its quirks better. The understanding between us is that they are PIC. I make clear they can say "no" to any suggested tasks if they feel it is beyond their capabilities and their aircraft. But, there is no question in my mind that, as an instructor, the trainee is not expecting me to do something dangerous and I find most (not all) those same aircraft owners defer to my judgment during a lesson. If we have a problem in flight, I expect the FAA to say I have very high responsibilities as an instructor and will look at my conduct. Cal it "instructor responsibility" rather than "deemed PIC" (I do). The result is the same.

These principles do not automatically lead to a black and white result. There is no "always" or "never" when it comes to ultimate responsibility. The result in a specific situation, like PIC responsibility itself, depends on who was involved, what happened and how it happened. In one of the cases applying the principle, the 1995 Stroebel case, the CFI was held to not be responsible for a landing accident.
 
James331 said:
Because you know you’re not going to break out, you’re getting yourself lower to the rocks in zero visibility where your flight is going to see the most risk and for what reward?

It would be like practicing rejected takeoffs on a runway you know is too short to take off on.

The juice isn’t worth the squeeze.
Click to expand...
So it's all about risk/reward, not inherently unsafe...if it was, it would be inherently unsafe to shoot the approach to anything approaching minimums as well.
 
MauleSkinner said:
So it's all about risk/reward, not inherently unsafe...if it was, it would be inherently unsafe to shoot the approach to anything approaching minimums as well.
Click to expand...

“unsafe” no
Unwise yes

And circling is a bad argument, I it’s in the wild and you’re going in for landing and the approach is good and above mins, makes sense, shooting it in the wild in IMC when you know there is zero chance of successfully breaking out, I’ll leave that to the sims

Is it “unsafe” to practice taking FMJ rounds to the chest with a vest on during shooting drills?


Or


Not if done right, BUT is the juice worth the squeeze, IMO not really, just like shooting approaches in IMC to mins knowing you’re going to go around, or CFIing in a plane you arnt comfy PICing yourself.

Everyone has to make those calls for their self, perhaps there are legal things I do that you wouldn’t feel comfy doing and vise versa, to each their own.
 
Last edited:
mondtster said:
This is a common scenario asked around here on a flight instructor checkride. As pointed out, the textbook answer is yes, a flight instructor could give a flight review without having the tailwheel endorsement if the student is current.
Click to expand...

This was a scenario posed on my CFI checkride. The examiner happens to be a P-51 pilot. I hold all necessary endorsements for the aircraft, tailwheel, high performance, complex, even high altitude if you wanted to split hairs. So could I give a BFR to him in a Mustang? According to the FARs, yes. Would it be smart to? Nope.

Remember, what is safe isn't always legal, and what is legal isn't always safe.
 
midwestpa24 said:
This was a scenario posed on my CFI checkride. The examiner happens to be a P-51 pilot. I hold all necessary endorsements for the aircraft, tailwheel, high performance, complex, even high altitude if you wanted to split hairs. So could I give a BFR to him in a Mustang? According to the FARs, yes. Would it be smart to? Nope.

Remember, what is safe isn't always legal, and what is legal isn't always safe.
Click to expand...

Pretty sure we had the same DPE (seriously).
 
James331 said:
“unsafe” no
Unwise yes

And circling is a bad argument, I it’s in the wild and you’re going in for landing and the approach is good and above mins, makes sense, shooting it in the wild in IMC when you know there is zero chance of successfully breaking out, I’ll leave that to the sims

Is it “unsafe” to practice taking FMJ rounds to the chest with a vest on during shooting drills?


Or


Not if done right, BUT is the juice worth the squeeze, IMO not really, just like shooting approaches in IMC to mins knowing you’re going to go around, or CFIing in a plane you arnt comfy PICing yourself.

Everyone has to make those calls for their self, perhaps there are legal things I do that you wouldn’t feel comfy doing and vise versa, to each their own.
Click to expand...
While there are pilots who definitely shouldn't be in the clouds, I guess I don't agree that merely being in the clouds equates to an emergency. But as you said, to each his own.
 
MauleSkinner said:
While there are pilots who definitely shouldn't be in the clouds, I guess I don't agree that merely being in the clouds equates to an emergency. But as you said, to each his own.
Click to expand...

Who said that?

Think you might be overreaching a wee bit
 
I would think most CFIs would be able to land a tail dragger without much difficulty. Hec most pilots could. I think when I got my tailwheel endorsement I only recall one landing probably in the first 4 or 5 where I was like, "help". The instructor had rudder peddles but no brakes on his side.
 
DFH65 said:
I would think most CFIs would be able to land a tail dragger without much difficulty. Hec most pilots could. I think when I got my tailwheel endorsement I only recall one landing probably in the first 4 or 5 where I was like, "help". The instructor had rudder peddles but no brakes on his side.
Click to expand...

giphy.gif
 
MauleSkinner said:
So engine failures and being shot at are normal in your world?
Click to expand...

Well lest we live a life of mediocrity ;)

Semantics, but is it a engine failure when you go to cutoff/feather with the condition lever?

For me, no, I dont like getting shot at, shutting down engines for no good reason or shooting approaches in IMC, outside of a sim, when I know its below mins.

In my book the juice is just not worth the squeeze
 
DFH65 said:
I would think most CFIs would be able to land a tail dragger without much difficulty.
Click to expand...

Counter-example right here!
I'm only an hour and a half in, but I can tell, I'm going to have to learn some new skills.
 
DFH65 said:
I would think most CFIs would be able to land a tail dragger without much difficulty. Hec most pilots could. I think when I got my tailwheel endorsement I only recall one landing probably in the first 4 or 5 where I was like, "help". The instructor had rudder peddles but no brakes on his side.
Click to expand...
Depends a lot on which taildragger. Some are relatively tame, others not so much. A Cessna 170 or 180 is a completely different beast than a Citabria.
 
mondtster said:
Pretty sure we had the same DPE (seriously).
Click to expand...

It's possible. He is quite well known. ;)

James331 said:
Most P51s also only have one seat, so theres that
Click to expand...

Actually most P-51s today have at least a back seat, if not dual controls as well. I have only see a few that are more historically restored and have not added a back seat.

DFH65 said:
I would think most CFIs would be able to land a tail dragger without much difficulty. Hec most pilots could. I think when I got my tailwheel endorsement I only recall one landing probably in the first 4 or 5 where I was like, "help".
Click to expand...

I doubt it. I've seen some that have trouble even in a trike! :eek:

DFH65 said:
The instructor had rudder peddles but no brakes on his side.
Click to expand...

Why did he needs brakes? :cool:
 
DFH65 said:
He didn't but it is one more tool in the tool kit.
Click to expand...
I’d rather have the tool that disconnects the student’s brakes when they apply them incorrectly.

Unfortunately that tool is probably a chainsaw running right behind their Achilles’ tendons.:eek:
 
Is a BFR an “instructional” flight or a check ride?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top