Can a sport pilot instructor...

[EdFred]

...give a tailwheel gear endorsement to a private/commercial pilot as long as it is done in a light sport pilot aircraft?
61 Subpart K doesn't give an explicit answer.
Or is the sport pilot instructor considered "authorized" under 61.31 ?

 

[dmspilot]

I would say no, ref 61.413(a).

 

[dmspilot]

(5) Sport pilot privileges;

I believe a sport instructor can only give a sport pilot a tailwheel endorsement under 61.413(a)(2) — or a student sport pilot seeking a sport pilot certificate under (a)(1).

 

[Dana]

A SP-CFI I know says he has it in writing from the FSDO that he can do flight reviews and tailwheel endorsements for private pilots in a LSA. Kind of like getting a flight review or additional rating in one category of plane, you're good for two years in any other category you're rated in.

 

[Half Fast]

I believe you’ll be limited to LSA tailwheels, though. Get endorsed in a Cub by a CFI-S and you’re fine to fly a Luscombe light sport, for example, but you’re not blessed to fly a Cessna 170.

 

[MauleSkinner]

I believe you’ll be limited to LSA tailwheels, though. Get endorsed in a Cub by a CFI-S and you’re fine to fly a Luscombe light sport, for example, but you’re not blessed to fly a Cessna 170.

Not correct. A tailwheel endorsement is a tailwheel endorsement. A Sport Pilot instructor can only give the endorsement in a Light Sport airplane, but it’s valid for any tailwheel airplane that the holder is authorized to fly.

 

[dmspilot]

Heck, even reading 413 strictly the way you seem to interpret it, a sport pilot can't even get a tailwheel endorsement from a sport pilot CFI after getting his certificate because the training is no longer towards the certificate.

That is not what I said and I would not interpret it like that. I never used the word "towards". The phrases used are "required by" and "related to". Nothing like "towards the issuance of" such as used in the instrument instructor privileges reg.

 

[Half Fast]

Not correct. A tailwheel endorsement is a tailwheel endorsement. A Sport Pilot instructor can only give the endorsement in a Light Sport airplane, but it’s valid for any tailwheel airplane that the holder is authorized to fly.

I checked into it for a seaplane endorsement a few years ago. I was told I could get it from a Sport instructor in an LSA seaplane, but that’s what I’d be limited to flying.

I don’t believe a Sport CFI can endorse you to fly anything other than a light sport.

 

[MauleSkinner]

That's an interesting take,
But where is that exception in the regs? 61.31(i) only says tailwheel, and nothing in part K says that.

Similarly, an instructor without a multi engine instructor rating cannot give a tailwheel endorsement in a Beech 18, but the tailwheel endorsement he gives in a Cub is valid for a Beech 18.

 

[MauleSkinner]

I checked into it for a seaplane endorsement a few years ago. I was told I could get it from a Sport instructor in an LSA seaplane, but that’s what I’d be limited to flying.

I don’t believe a Sport CFI can endorse you to fly anything other than a light sport.

Seaplane is a “rating” not an “endorsement” at the Private Pilot level and above. It’s a different thing altogether. (Cue Airplane! Joke)

 

[dmspilot]

A Sport Pilot instructor can only give the endorsement in a Light Sport airplane, but it’s valid for any tailwheel airplane that the holder is authorized to fly.

Reference? Which privilege listed in 61.413 allows a sport instructor to issue a tailwheel endorsement to a private pilot?

 

[MauleSkinner]

Reference? Which privilege listed in 61.413 allows a sport instructor to issue a tailwheel endorsement to a private pilot?

Which privilege listed in 61.413 allows a sport instructor to issue a tailwheel endorsement to a Sport Pilot?

 

[dmspilot]

Similarly, an instructor without a multi engine instructor rating cannot give a tailwheel endorsement in a Beech 18, but the tailwheel endorsement he gives in a Cub is valid for a Beech 18.

That is not similar. The former is prohibited by 61.195(b). The latter is permitted because 61.193(a)(2) allows a CFI to perform any training (within their limitations) for any kind of pilot certificate. Sport instructors operate under an entirely different set of rules, they aren't comparable.

 

[dmspilot]

Which privilege listed in 61.413 allows a sport instructor to issue a tailwheel endorsement to a Sport Pilot?

61.413(a)(2)

 

[dmspilot]

But a tailwheel endorsement (after one has already gotten the Sport Pilot Certificate) is no longer related to nor required for anything in 61.413(a)

If a sport pilot wants to fly a tailwheel airplane, then the endorsement is required. A sport instructor can issue endorsements related to sport pilots. How are they not related?

 

[dmspilot]

Because it's not required for (a)(2). A sport pilot certificate can be obtained in a trike.

What isn't required? 61.413(a)(2) is a privilege of a sport pilot instructor, not a requirement of a sport pilot certificate.

 

[dmspilot]

A tailwheel endorsement is not a "sport pilot privilege"; those are contained in Subpart K. So you can't claim the sport instructor could give the endorsement under 61.413(a)(5) because a tailwheel endorsement is not in Subpart K. I believe a sport instructor can only give a sport pilot a tailwheel endorsement under 61.413(a)(2) — or a student sport pilot under (a)(1).

I might change my mind on one thing, and that is that the FAA could interpret a tailwheel endorsement for a sport pilot as a "sport pilot privilege"; in that case, a sport instructor could give a tailwheel endorsement to a private/commercial pilot under 51.413(a)(5); but that endorsement would only apply when that pilot is acting as a sport pilot in accordance with Subpart J. It could not apply to a Cessna 170, for example.

 

[Cloudhound]

Is there any language that limits a tailwheel endorsement to sport or private?

Sport is sport, and private is private.

Isn't a tailwheel endorsement, just that, a tailwheel endorsement? Regardless of sport/private?

 

[rhkennerly]

I read a lot of ambiguity regarding private pilots exercising sport pilot privileges on the FAR anyway.

For instance, since flying a 50 miles xC & flying in controlled airspace are part of the required experience for the ppl certificate, Is a ppl without a current 3rd class medical operating as a sport pilot still required to have separate endorsements for sport cross countries over 50 miles and/or controlled airspace?

Seems like it’s all in the same tail wheel & SE Seaplane kind of question. ‘Tis a muddle to me.

 

[dmspilot]

See my post #22. Tailwheel isn't listed anywhere in Subpart K, so it should have to defer to 61.31(i)

I don't think tailwheel needs to be itemized in Subpart K because if a sport pilot wants to fly a tailwheel airplane they need an endorsement, therefore a sport instructor can issue the endorsement under (a)(2) or (a)(5).

 

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

endorsements for sport cross countries over 50 miles

That's a recreational pilot thing - not sport.

 

[MauleSkinner]

61.413(a)(2)

Ok…so where does it say that a tailwheel endorsement is a Sport Pilot privilege or limit?

 

[dmspilot]

But subpart K doesn't authorize tailwheel endorsements.

Why should it have to? 61.413(a)(2) and (a)(5) doesn't require an itemized list of endorsements, just that the sport instructor can issue of them if they are related to a sport pilot or sport privilege.

 

[dmspilot]

Ok…so where does it say that a tailwheel endorsement is a Sport Pilot privilege or limit?

Is the tailwheel endorsement not related to a sport pilot if it is a sport pilot getting one?

How do you support your argument that a sport instructor can issue a tailwheel endorsement for ~anyone~, where is that in 61.413?

 

[MauleSkinner]

Why should it have to? 61.413(a)(2) and (a)(5) doesn't require an itemized list of endorsements, just that the sport instructor can issue of them if they are related to a sport pilot or sport privilege.

But he is still issuing a tailwheel endorsement, not a Sport Pilot tailwheel endorsement. There’s no difference in the requirements or the verbiage of the endorsement.

 

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/AC_61-65H.pdf

A.71 To act as pilot in command in a tailwheel airplane: § 61.31(i). This endorsement may
be given in a sport pilot aircraft by a sport pilot instructor, or in an airplane by a flight
instructor with a rating other than a sport pilot rating.
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.

 

[dmspilot]

Tailwheel isn't related to the certificate or privileges though. The ones related to the certificate and privileges are itemized and listed in Subpart K. Even you said so in your second post.

That's like saying pilots aren't related to airplanes. I don't know how to the FAA would interpret it. Why don't you ask the CC?

 

[dmspilot]

Looks like the AC answered the question.

An AC is not a regulation.

And you're being purposely obtuse.

Really, who wrote "Because it (the endorsement) is not required for (a)(2)"? That was you. A sport instructor does not require a tailwheel endorsement in order to have privileges? I don't know what that means. You wrote a nonsense statement.

Subpart K specifically calls out the endorsements related to sport pilot certificate.

No, it doesn't list any endorsements except those that instructors need, unless you meant Subpart J, which contains the sport pilot rules. And then, it is not limited to only those in Subpart J.

Otherwise, a sport instructor could not give an test endorsement under 61.35(a)(1) (for example) because that is not under Subpart K or J. You are being purposely obtuse.

 

[Clip4]

So let me see if I understand the logic. A sport instructor may give flight training and endorse for solo a student operating a Piper Cub, but he can’t endorse a sport pilot for tail wheel in the Cub?

Sorry guys, that defies logic.

 

[Half Fast]

So let me see if I understand the logic. A sport instructor may give flight training and endorse for solo a student operating a Piper Cub, but he can’t endorse a sport pilot for tail wheel in the Cub?

Sorry guys, that defies logic.

Of course he can. That’s not the question.

When the Sport CFI endorses a PP in that Cub, does the endorsement also apply to non-LSA taildraggers, like a 170?

The question has been debated before on POA as well as on Sport Pilot Talk, but I don’t recall a convincing answer either way.

 

[X3 Skier]

To add some additional information that may or may not be helpful, I have a private Pilot Certificate and was interested in Seaplanes.

Last year I took Seaplane Training in an SES LSA from a CFI. At the end of the training, I had two choices, a “proficiency check” from a different CFI or a Check Ride from a DPE. Being cheap and not needing a full rating, I chose the first option and received a new Certificate with the following of the reverse side, “Sport Endorsement(s) Airplane Single Engine Sea”.

If I had chosen the second, DPE, I would had a ASES Rating, assuming I passed the Ride, and not been limited to LSA Seaplanes.

No clue if something like the tail wheel follows the same logic since there are not similar Rating and Endorsement things for Tail Wheel.

Cheers

 

[dmspilot]

A tailwheel endorsement is NOT required for the sport pilot certificate

It is not required for the issuance of a sport pilot certificate. 61.413(a) does not say "for the issuance of" ... it says required for, and related to. That means a sport instructor can give endorsements to a person who already has a sport pilot certificate, if additional endorsements are required for additional privileges. Is English your first language?

And a sport Instructor can't give an endorsement for a test under K? Try reading 413(a)(8) Oh look, a test endorsement. You can't even support your own position correctly

You can't argue your position correctly. 61.413 grants privileges to sport pilot instructors. It is not a list of the endorsements required for people applying for sport pilot certificates. 61.413(a)(8) is not a test endorsement. It is a privilege allowing one to give endorsements for knowledge test if they are required or related to sport pilots. A knowledge test endorsement is required by 61.35(a)(1). A tailwheel endorsement is required by 61.31(i)(1).

 

[dmspilot]

§ 61.307 What tests do I have to take to obtain a sport pilot certificate?

So I could have picked a better example, that does not refute my point. 61.413(a)(7) allows a sport instructor to give training and endorsements required for a flight review for a sport pilot. What regulation requires a sport pilot to have a flight review (or an endorsement for a flight review)? There isn't one in Subpart J. So that means there isn't one?

What are you trying to argue anyway? Is your conclusion both that a sport instructor can't issue a tailwheel endorsement because it's not related to sport pilot, while at the same time, claiming they can issue a tailwheel endorsement to anyone? Where is that privilege in 61.413?

 

[MauleSkinner]

So I could have picked a better example, that does not refute my point. 61.413(a)(7) allows a sport instructor to give training and endorsements required for a flight review for a sport pilot. What regulation requires a sport pilot to have a flight review (or an endorsement for a flight review)? There isn't one in Subpart J. So that means there isn't one?

What are you trying to argue anyway? Is your conclusion both that a sport instructor can't issue a tailwheel endorsement because it's not related to sport pilot, while at the same time, claiming they can issue a tailwheel endorsement to anyone? Where is that privilege in 61.413?

Are you then saying that a flight review given by a SP instructor is not bald for Private Pilot privileges?

 

[rhkennerly]

61.303 says a rec/private/commercial/ATP doesn't need any of those endorsements.

. Wow. Now I know who reads the FAR while in the head. That is convoluted. The Embry-Riddle trained instructor I did an LSA BFR with recently, insisted I do a flight into a class c airport so he could give me a towered airport endorsement. It was only 10 minutes away, so I didn’t beef. But I thought he was wrong. Tnx.

 

[rhkennerly]

This discussion reminds me of my Navy days. There are three kinds of sailors when it comes to rule books:

submariners say, “if it is not specifically permitted by regulations, it is prohibited.”
Skimmers say, “if is not specifically prohibited by regulations, then it is permitted.”
Airedale’s ask, “what’s a rule book?”

 

[dmspilot]

Are you then saying that a flight review given by a SP instructor is not valid for Private Pilot privileges?

Why would it be valid? 61.56 requires a flight review from an authorized instructor. 61.413 only authorizes sport instructors to give flight reviews to sport pilots.

 

[MauleSkinner]

Why would it be valid? 61.56 requires a flight review from an authorized instructor. 61.413 only authorizes sport instructors to give flight reviews to sport pilots.

61.193 only authorizes a flight instructor with an ASE rating to give a flight review to a single engine pilot. But the flight review is still good for any aircraft the pilot is otherwise qualified to fly.

 

[dmspilot]

61.193 only authorizes a flight instructor with an ASE rating to give a flight review to a single engine pilot. But the flight review is still good for any aircraft the pilot is otherwise qualified to fly.

That's an apples and oranges comparison. It's good for any aircraft, firstly, because the flight review required by 61.56 is not aircraft/cat/class/type-specific, and secondly, because 61.193 authorizes a conventional instructor to give a flight review to any pilot.

A sport pilot instructor is specifically only authorized to give flight reviews to sport pilots. 61.413. It seems pretty black and white to me.

 

[MauleSkinner]

That's an apples and oranges comparison. It's good for any aircraft, firstly, because the flight review required by 61.56 is not aircraft/cat/class/type-specific, and secondly, because 61.193 authorizes a conventional instructor to give a flight review to any pilot.

A sport pilot instructor is specifically only authorized to give flight reviews to sport pilots. 61.413. It seems pretty black and white to me.

Seems pretty black and white to me, too. An ATP getting instruction from a SP instructor is exercising SP privileges. I can get a flight review or tailwheel endorsement from a SP instructor and go out and fly a Beech 18.