BFR Tailwheel Question...

[penQuin]

I have a friend *We'll call him Peter* is a current CFI. Peter has a friend (Jimmy) with a taildragger and is current until next Wednesday.

Can Peter give Jimmy a BFR in a taildragger when Peter himself does NOT have a taildragger endorsement?

I would "assume" Peter could since the PIC "Jimmy" who is legally flying the airplane does the nesscessary requirements to meet the BFR. Jimmy is a commercially rated pilot who flys nearly everyday.

If you answer this post and know which FAR to look in can you give me that as well. Thank you so much.

PQ

 

[TMetzinger]

If "Jimmy" is current to act as PIC and carry passengers in a conventional airplane, I don't see any FAR limitation on "Peter" giving him a BFR in a conventional airplane.

FAR 61.195 says:
(b) Aircraft ratings. A flight instructor may not conduct flight training in any aircraft for which the flight instructor does not hold:
(1) A pilot certificate and flight instructor certificate with the applicable category and class rating; and
(2) If appropriate, a type rating.

Nothing in that section (or anywhere else I can find) requires the CFI to have an endorsement for the aircraft being used. The five hours make and model requirement in 61.195(f) is for a multiengine, helo, or powered lift.

==============================================
That seems to be the legal side of it. The more practical side is that if Peter and Jimmy come to grief in the airplane, there is precedent that Peter will be determined to be acting as PIC since he's the CFI (perhaps not if Jimmy has substantially more experience than Jimmy).

 

[Greg Bockelman]

That seems to be the legal side of it. The more practical side is that if Peter and Jimmy come to grief in the airplane, there is precedent that Peter will be determined to be acting as PIC since he's the CFI (perhaps not if Jimmy has substantially more experience than Jimmy).

Just where is that precedent? Examples? Peter is in no way LEGAL to ACT as PIC because he does not have the endorsement. Only Jimmy can act as PIC. There may be other issues addressed, such as why is Peter giving a FR in a plane he is not qualified to actually fly, (which, in this case is technically legal) but who is legal PIC isn't going to take much more than a casual glance.

 

[kinoav8r]

I've seen this elsewhere and I think the issue is that neither of these guys are "passengers". i.e., when a CFI is giving instruction, and the student is the only other sole on the airplane, there aren't any passengers on board.

 

[Greg Bockelman]

I've seen this elsewhere and I think the issue is that neither of these guys are "passengers". i.e., when a CFI is giving instruction, and the student is the only other sole on the airplane, there aren't any passengers on board.

Why is this an issue, given the original post? The only time I have seen that addressed was doing night training when neither the "student" nor the CFI were night current. Otherwise, SOMEONE has to be legal PIC. In the example given, the CFI can't be.

 

[KennyFlys]

In Don's example, it's an issue of currency. In the OP, it's an issue of appropriately endorsed in order to act as PIC. I'd say no, you must be endorsed to act as PIC.

But, that doesn't keep the CFI from providing instruction though I'd wonder about the validity of that instruction in this scenario, particularly if landings were involved. It brings up other questions such as where does the instructor's liability come into play in a landing gone wrong? CFIs in the backseat have been held responsible in a similar circumstance.

 

[Richard]

Are CFIs always acting PIC when giving a flight review to an applicant who is current and appropriately rated in type, class, and category for the aircraft being used?

 

[Greg Bockelman]

In the OP, it's an issue of appropriately endorsed in order to act as PIC. I'd say no, you must be endorsed to act as PIC.

I am confused. Does that mean you think the CFI must be tailwheel endorsed to provide a flight review in a TW airplane? Care to source a reference for that?

But, that doesn't keep the CFI from providing instruction though I'd wonder about the validity of that instruction in this scenario, particularly if landings were involved.

Obviously a CFI that is not TW endorsed cannot give credible instruction in the landing of a TW airplane, but it is my contention that a CFI does not need to be TW endorsed to be able to tell when a three point or wheel landing is done well. Especially if said TW pilot has many hours of TW time. Frankly, as long as both the CFI and the FR pilot are OK with it, that should be ok.

It brings up other questions such as where does the instructor's liability come into play in a landing gone wrong? CFIs in the backseat have been held responsible in a similar circumstance.

Again, how about a relevant reference? I have heard such things too, but I have pretty much decided that they fall under the OWT category.

 

[Greg Bockelman]

Are CFIs always acting PIC when giving a flight review to an applicant who is current and appropriately rated in type, class, and category for the aircraft being used?

I believe that was a rhetorical question. :smile: But the answer is "No".

 

[KennyFlys]

I am confused. Does that mean you think the CFI must be tailwheel endorsed to provide a flight review in a TW airplane? Care to source a reference for that?

No, I was referring to "acting" as PIC. He can still give a flight review.

Again, how about a relevant reference? I have heard such things too, but I have pretty much decided that they fall under the OWT category.

The reference would be one Ron has posted in the past. He probabaly knows the name of the NTSB case off the top of his head.

 

[Greg Bockelman]

The reference would be one Ron has posted in the past. He probabaly knows the name of the NTSB case off the top of his head.

I could be wrong, but I think that involved a very specific set of circumstances.

 

[TMetzinger]

And to make the matter riskier - leave the FAA out of it and think of what would happen in a civil suit. A plaintiff would try and make the case that the CFI clearly failed in his duties by instructing in an airplane he himself was not qualified to fly.

It's certainly legal on it's face. But both the potential civil liability AND the fact that the FAA and NTSB have CFIs accountable when everyone who was in the airplane at the time swore that another pilot was acting as PIC makes it one of those things that falls into my "legal but stupid" category.

Perhaps the fact that the CFI is absopositively not qualified to act as PIC might shield him from FAA actions (unless they go for careless/reckless), but I wouldn't bet on it.

 

[Greg Bockelman]

Time for me to hang up the CFI if I take that view.

Hmm. Maybe that is why I am not an active CFI.

 

[poadeleted20]

According to the man who wrote the rule...

QUESTION: The situation is a flight instructor has asked the question whether he can give a flight review in a tailwheel airplane and yet he has not previously met the additional training requirements for operating a tailwheel airplane [i.e., § 61.31(i)].

ANSWER: Ref. § 61.1(b)(2); § 61.56(c)(1); No, a flight instructor cannot give a flight review in a tailwheel airplane unless he has complied with § 61.31(i). Per § 61.56(c)(1), it states, in pertinent part, “. . . by an authorized instructor . . . .” Per § 61.1(b)(2)(ii), it states, in pertinent part, “. . . in accordance with the privileges and limitations of his or her flight instructor certificate . . . .” The flight instructor would not be considered an “authorized instructor” for giving a flight review in a tailwheel airplane.
{Q&A-551}

This answer constitutes only the thinking of Flight Standards about the rule as they intended it to apply; it has not been reviewed by the Chief Counsel so it is not a binding legal interpretation. However, if you choose to go against it, be aware that the Chief Counsel can find you in violation if they decide after the fact that Flight Standards is correct about its legal meaning.

 

[Greg Bockelman]

According to the man who wrote the rule...
This answer constitutes only the thinking of Flight Standards about the rule as they intended it to apply; it has not been reviewed by the Chief Counsel so it is not a binding legal interpretation. However, if you choose to go against it, be aware that the Chief Counsel can find you in violation if they decide after the fact that Flight Standards is correct about its legal meaning.

Ron, can you see the contradiction in that Q&A answer?

Per § 61.1(b)(2)(ii), it states, in pertinent part, “. . . in accordance with the privileges and limitations of his or her flight instructor certificate . . . .”

Absolutely nowhere on my certificate is there a limitation that allows or prohibits me from instructing or doing a FR in a TW airplane. If this is Lynch's doing, this is one time where I agree with Guthrie about Lynch.

 

[stingray]

Ron, can you see the contradiction in that Q&A answer?



Absolutely nowhere on my certificate is there a limitation that allows or prohibits me from instructing or doing a FR in a TW airplane. If this is Lynch's doing, this is one time where I agree with Guthrie about Lynch.

Are you saying Greg that I can go to my personal CFI who is not TW endorsed and get signed off if I can do all the manuvers. (That would cover the instructing) I agree about the flight review, because the same pilot could get it done in a 150 and still not have to land the tailwheel. Same goes for HP and complex.

Dan

 

[TMetzinger]

Are you saying Greg that I can go to my personal CFI who is not TW endorsed and get signed off if I can do all the manuvers. (That would cover the instructing) I agree about the flight review, because the same pilot could get it done in a 150 and still not have to land the tailwheel. Same goes for HP and complex.

Dan

Not quite - SOMEBODY has to be PIC. I don't see how a CFI who doesn't have a tailwheel endorsement can give instruction to a student who doesn't have a tailwheel endorsement.

In the case under discussion, the student does have a tailwheel endorsement and can act as PIC. Even if it's not a flight review, a CFI can give instruction (in commercial manuevers, for instance) in a tailwheel airplane as long as one of the folks at the controls is legally PIC.

 

[alaskaflyer]

Are you saying Greg that I can go to my personal CFI who is not TW endorsed and get signed off if I can do all the manuvers. (That would cover the instructing) I agree about the flight review, because the same pilot could get it done in a 150 and still not have to land the tailwheel. Same goes for HP and complex.

Dan

Someone taking tailwheel instruction (in contrast to a flight review)in a tailwheel airplane, is presumably not endorsed for tailwheel operations, and therefore cannot act as PIC. This means the CFI must be PIC. To be PIC you must be endorsed. See?

Edit: Doh! Tim beat me to it.

 

[Greg Bockelman]

Are you saying Greg that I can go to my personal CFI who is not TW endorsed and get signed off if I can do all the manuvers. (That would cover the instructing) I agree about the flight review, because the same pilot could get it done in a 150 and still not have to land the tailwheel. Same goes for HP and complex.

Dan

Well, no. That isn't what I am saying. To say a not TW endorsed CFI can give an endorsement to a pilot is silly.

The discussion revolves around the OP and the FR. In that case the FR pilot is already endorsed and the CFI is just evaluating the pilot.

The argument that that isn't legal is flawed with the references given.

 

[ScottPA]

I received my FR on 8-18-2008 in a J-3 Cub and got my TW endorsement on 8-19-2008.

 

[kgruber]

the CFI is just evaluating the pilot.

Well, that's how it USED to be. Now the FR is FLIGHT INSTRUCTION.

 

[TMetzinger]

I received my FR on 8-18-2008 in a J-3 Cub and got my TW endorsement on 8-19-2008.

And I hope your instructor had the TW endorsement on 8-18!

 

[ScottPA]

Oops, disregard... I should read the question more closely.

 

[rottydaddy]

I see no need to question or re-interpret the FAR regarding this issue... IF the "review-ee" has not passed the 2-year mark and cannot ACT as PIC. Then you have a situation where neither pilot can legally act as PIC... the CFI because he is not endorsed for TWs, and the pilot under review, because he has missed the deadline to continue acting (and logging) as PIC. Assuming a profient, tailwheel-endorsed, legal PIC pilot, it should be acceptable as well as legal.

It's not unusual for CFIs to give BFRs in unfamiliar types; taildraggers are different to fly and land but not much more different than the various trikes. Assuming light winds, a proper 3-pointer in a TW plane is pretty much the same as your average trike. Taking off in a TW plae for the first tim is only a problem if you forget what the rudder's for... unlikely for an instructor.

But there are wise reasons a good CFI might decline doing such a BFR... a smart CFI should be leery of doing a BFR with someone who's very new with taildraggers, or a particular airplane, or someone who may not be proficient to any reasonable degree, even if they're still legally PIC-qualified in a taildragger... even a very seasoned CFI may be in an awkward spot if he or she has to take over to land, say in difficult winds, wihout any prior tailwhel experience.

 

[gismo]

I see no need to question or re-interpret the FAR regarding this issue... IF the "review-ee" has not passed the 2-year mark and cannot ACT as PIC. Then you have a situation where neither pilot can legally act as PIC... the CFI because he is not endorsed for TWs, and the pilot under review, because he has missed the deadline to continue acting (and logging) as PIC.

I assume you meant "has passed".

Assuming a profient, tailwheel-endorsed, legal PIC pilot, it should be acceptable as well as legal.

As Ron posted, there is a standing (albeit, removed from publication) reply from John Lynch that says otherwise. It might still be legal as John's opinions aren't legally binding but I'd get a revised opinion from FAA Regional or Chief Counsel before taking that risk if I were you.

It's not unusual for CFIs to give BFRs in unfamiliar types; taildraggers are different to fly and land but not much more different than the various trikes. Assuming light winds, a proper 3-pointer in a TW plane is pretty much the same as your average trike. Taking off in a TW plae for the first tim is only a problem if you forget what the rudder's for... unlikely for an instructor.

I'd be rather surprised if the majority of CFIs who've never been in a taildragger before could make a successful landing on their first attempt in a docile taildragger like a SuperCub let alone something a bit touchier.

 

[Greg Bockelman]

As Ron posted, there is a standing (albeit, removed from publication) reply from John Lynch that says otherwise. It might still be legal as John's opinions aren't legally binding but I'd get a revised opinion from FAA Regional or Chief Counsel before taking that risk if I were you.

And I have pointed out that that opinion is directly contradictory to what the regulations ACTUALLY say. If he wants his "intepretation" to be what is meant, a rewrite of the appropriate FAR's needs to be done.

 

[KennyFlys]

And I have pointed out that that opinion is directly contradictory to what the regulations ACTUALLY say. If he wants his "interpretation" to be what is meant, a rewrite of the appropriate FAR's needs to be done.

Troublemaker.

 

[poadeleted20]

As Ron posted, there is a standing (albeit, removed from publication) reply from John Lynch that says otherwise. It might still be legal as John's opinions aren't legally binding but I'd get a revised opinion from FAA Regional or Chief Counsel before taking that risk if I were you.

That's the key, because right now, Flight Standards says it isn't what they want, and until the Chief Counsel says otherwise, you're at the mercy of any Flight Standards official who chooses to write you up. You may prevail in the end, but not without incurring legal expenses, and as I said elsewhere, I can count on my fingers the number of times the Chief Counsel has said one of John's nearly 700 FAQ's was wrong. Your best bet if you think John's wrong is to ask for an official interpretation from the Chief Counsel -- ask now, and you should have it in May.

 

[stingray]

I assume you meant "has passed".
I'd be rather surprised if the majority of CFIs who've never been in a taildragger before could make a successful landing on their first attempt in a docile taildragger like a SuperCub let alone something a bit touchier.

That's what everyone told me before I went out and took my first lesson in a Citabria. It was not an issue, if a CFI cannot land a taildragger like a Citabria I would not want him or her instructing me in anything. Rolling out is more of a problem if you are not paying attention. Then again My Bellanca Viking will bite you faster if you do not pay attention.

I did forget about the PIC for instruction.

Dan

 

[Tom-D]

That's the key, because right now, Flight Standards says it isn't what they want, and until the Chief Counsel says otherwise, you're at the mercy of any Flight Standards official who chooses to write you up. You may prevail in the end, but not without incurring legal expenses, and as I said elsewhere, I can count on my fingers the number of times the Chief Counsel has said one of John's nearly 700 FAQ's was wrong. Your best bet if you think John's wrong is to ask for an official interpretation from the Chief Counsel -- ask now, and you should have it in May.

To take this a step farther, Let's assume you are giving me a BFR in the F-24 you have a tailwheel endorcement but as I understand you are not current in tailwheel, and during the flight you deside I'm not safe. but My 2 year date is 2 months from today.

What now? What do you do?

 

[gismo]

To take this a step farther, Let's assume you are giving me a BFR in the F-24 you have a tailwheel endorcement but as I understand you are not current in tailwheel, and during the flight you deside I'm not safe. but My 2 year date is 2 months from today.

What now? What do you do?

Bail out?

 

[Greg Bockelman]

To take this a step farther, Let's assume you are giving me a BFR in the F-24 you have a tailwheel endorcement but as I understand you are not current in tailwheel, and during the flight you deside I'm not safe. but My 2 year date is 2 months from today.

What now? What do you do?

You are still legal to fly, because you can't "fail" a flight review. You have a couple of options. They range from working on the perceived deficiencies to getting another instructor to do the review.

If you are going to bring currency to the equation, that opens a whole other can of snakes. Venomous ones at that.

 

[rottydaddy]

I assume you meant "has passed".

Correct assumption.

As Ron posted, there is a standing (albeit, removed from publication) reply from John Lynch that says otherwise. It might still be legal as John's opinions aren't legally binding but I'd get a revised opinion from FAA Regional or Chief Counsel before taking that risk if I were you..

Good advice... if something went wrong on the flight portion of such a BFR, there might be more regulatory trouble than usual, because of the controversy

But I'll wager there have been such BFRs performed and signed off, uncontested, without notifying those parties, including John Lynch.

I'd be rather surprised if the majority of CFIs who've never been in a taildragger before could make a successful landing on their first attempt in a docile taildragger like a SuperCub let alone something a bit touchier.

I was rather surprised when I managed to land a Champ reasonably well on my first try (after 200+ hrs flying only trikes), but then again I'm not an instructor.

Assuming friendly winds, it's really not all that different, as long as you remember to use the rudder. The airspeed relative to Vs, the sight picture, and A of A in a 3-pointer is essentialy the same as with a mains-first landing in any high-wing nosewheel-equipped plane.

I did better on that first tailwheel landing than my first time landing a PA-32, which, in terms of the FARs regarding gear configuration, is the same thing as the Cessna 172s and 150s I've done most of my landings in (fixed; nosewheel).

But it sure is different to fly and land, between the gear/wing geometry and the weight.
The Champ, on final and when landing, felt more like an underpowered 150... not that strange to me.

FWIW, I'd be equally surprised if a CFI with only trike time would do a whole lot better landing any trike which is new to him or her, despite it being legally "the same".
In such a case, a small measure of common sense would go a long way ("can I handle this strange new type if this leagl-PIC pilot turns out to not be so proficient?"), just as it would in the tailwheel scenario.

 

[midlifeflyer]

To take this a step farther, Let's assume you are giving me a BFR in the F-24 you have a tailwheel endorcement but as I understand you are not current in tailwheel, and during the flight you deside I'm not safe. but My 2 year date is 2 months from today.

What now? What do you do?

What does being current have to do with the answer?

 

[Tom-D]

What does being current have to do with the answer?

Nothing,,,,,, don't get hung up on my wording, I only ment to imply that Ron Probably isn't at his best with the wheel in the back.

 

[poadeleted20]

Nothing,,,,,, don't get hung up on my wording, I only ment to imply that Ron Probably isn't at his best with the wheel in the back.

Not a problem -- as long as we're not taking off or landing. But, of course, that's part of the flight review, which is why I won't give one in a TW airplane right now.

 

[Greg Bockelman]

Not a problem -- as long as we're not taking off or landing. But, of course, that's part of the flight review, which is why I won't give one in a TW airplane right now.

That is your prerogative, Ron, and I applaud that. But let me ask you a quesiton? Do you feel that you have enough Tailwheel experience, albeit not current, to be able to EVALUATE landings of a proficient and current tailwheel pilot? I suspect that if something were to go wrong, current or not, you wouldn't be able to save the day.

 

[bbchien]

I'd be rather surprised if the majority of CFIs who've never been in a taildragger before could make a successful landing on their first attempt in a docile taildragger like a SuperCub let alone something a bit touchier.

The owner of the Legacy FBO here (the owner) was grandfathered; brought home a luscomb 8a and ground looped it on the first landing. Pretty embarassing.

 

[poadeleted20]

That is your prerogative, Ron, and I applaud that. But let me ask you a quesiton? Do you feel that you have enough Tailwheel experience, albeit not current, to be able to EVALUATE landings of a proficient and current tailwheel pilot?

No, I don't.

I suspect that if something were to go wrong, current or not, you wouldn't be able to save the day.

If I can't, I shouldn't be giving training in that airplane. Which is why I won't give that sort of training in TW airplanes until I get my TW proficiency up to a much higher level.

 

[Greg Bockelman]

Which is why I won't give that sort of training in TW airplanes until I get my TW proficiency up to a much higher level.

Fair enough. Just asking.