How do you account for tailwheel proficiency on a PPL endorsement?

IK04

IK04

En-Route
PoA Supporter
Joined
Nov 6, 2018
Messages
3,425
Location
Copperas Cove, Texas
Display Name
LNXGUY
Home Airfield
KILE
Howdy All,

Since we as pilots have forgotten how to fly real airplanes and need an endorsement from an instructor to comply with part 61, how is tailwheel proficiency accounted for during student pilot training?

I'll look it up and try to find the answer myself, but I expect one of our POA scholars has an answer!
 
Provide the endorsement just like you would with any other pilot. It doesn't matter that they're a student.
 
I'm not sure what you are asking, but if it's can you do your primary training in a tailwheel aircraft, the answer is yes. You'll need the endorsement required by 61.31(i) before you can solo. Which is sort of a tautology.
 
Just an additional endorsement at first solo, thats it was done at my first solo, and later as a CFI how I inked others first solos.
 
What's already been said - write the endorsement for the student like any other pilot. I've gotten to do that a couple of times. It's fun.
 
I feel left out...

I don't have any of those endorsements because of the effective dates.

I thought I would try to get the pressurized aircraft endorsement to cover every paragraph in 61.31, but then I realized I have P-210 time logged before 1991.
 
IK04 said:
I feel left out...

I don't have any of those endorsements because of the effective dates.

I thought I would try to get the pressurized aircraft endorsement to cover every paragraph in 61.31, but then I realized I have P-210 time logged before 1991.
Click to expand...

could get your glider tow pilot, banner towing, and some of the other oddball ones
 
midlifeflyer said:
Glider towing: 61.69. Not aware of an FAA endorsement requirement for banners.
Click to expand...
No endorsement, but a waiver is required, I believe.

IK04 said:
I thought I would try to get the pressurized aircraft endorsement to cover every paragraph in 61.31, but then I realized I have P-210 time logged before 1991.
Click to expand...
Does the P210 go above 25k?
 
I had a long discussion with my DPE about this topic on my CFI ride, and he had an interesting interpretation of the regs.

He was of the opinion that when you endorse a student pilot to solo, the endorsement includes listing a *specific make and model*, and if that make and model happens to be tailwheel, that you *don't* need to give the student a tailwheel endorsement in addition. The logic is: the specification of the "make and model" kind of "implies" tailwheel inherently, and the separate tailwheel endorsement is redundant. (The same would be true for complex, high-performance, etc.)

I had never thought of it this way before, or heard it thought of this way before... But my DPE pointed out that a *solo* endorsement only lasts 90 days, whereas the tailwheel endorsement lasts *forever*. So you can do it this way to effectively issue a tailwheel endorsement with an expiration date on it. A CFI *might* want to use a strategy like this with a student pilot, because what if they solo in a tailwheel, but then switch to some other kind of plane for the rest of their certificate...? You might not want to have your signature on something that carries such permanence.

It still seems a little weird to me. But I heard this from a DPE on a CFI checkride! So there's some food for thought...
 
MauleSkinner said:
No endorsement, but a waiver is required, I believe.


Does the P210 go above 25k?
Click to expand...

The Q and R models do. 27,000 ft. Service Ceiling. The turbo system on the previous models was slapped together junk and could not reliably hold cabin pressure above 16-18K feet...
 
kath said:
I had a long discussion with my DPE about this topic on my CFI ride, and he had an interesting interpretation of the regs.

He was of the opinion that when you endorse a student pilot to solo, the endorsement includes listing a *specific make and model*, and if that make and model happens to be tailwheel, that you *don't* need to give the student a tailwheel endorsement in addition. The logic is: the specification of the "make and model" kind of "implies" tailwheel inherently, and the separate tailwheel endorsement is redundant. (The same would be true for complex, high-performance, etc.)

I had never thought of it this way before, or heard it thought of this way before... But my DPE pointed out that a *solo* endorsement only lasts 90 days, whereas the tailwheel endorsement lasts *forever*. So you can do it this way to effectively issue a tailwheel endorsement with an expiration date on it. A CFI *might* want to use a strategy like this with a student pilot, because what if they solo in a tailwheel, but then switch to some other kind of plane for the rest of their certificate...? You might not want to have your signature on something that carries such permanence.

It still seems a little weird to me. But I heard this from a DPE on a CFI checkride! So there's some food for thought...
Click to expand...

That was my point. Before this endorsement silliness, I simply complied with the "specific make and model" solo endorsement and was done with it. I would often put my C-150 students into a C-120 to see how they would make the transition to the "different" dynamics of the tailwheel gear. They all flew it just fine with complete control during the takeoffs and landings. The only thing they thought was weird was not having flaps...
 
IK04 said:
The Q and R models do. 27,000 ft. Service Ceiling. The turbo system on the previous models was slapped together junk and could not reliably hold cabin pressure above 16-18K feet...
Click to expand...

The P210 not a good pressurized airplane because of too many leaks.
 
kath said:
I had a long discussion with my DPE about this topic on my CFI ride, and he had an interesting interpretation of the regs.

He was of the opinion that when you endorse a student pilot to solo, the endorsement includes listing a *specific make and model*, and if that make and model happens to be tailwheel, that you *don't* need to give the student a tailwheel endorsement in addition. The logic is: the specification of the "make and model" kind of "implies" tailwheel inherently, and the separate tailwheel endorsement is redundant. (The same would be true for complex, high-performance, etc.)

I had never thought of it this way before, or heard it thought of this way before... But my DPE pointed out that a *solo* endorsement only lasts 90 days, whereas the tailwheel endorsement lasts *forever*. So you can do it this way to effectively issue a tailwheel endorsement with an expiration date on it. A CFI *might* want to use a strategy like this with a student pilot, because what if they solo in a tailwheel, but then switch to some other kind of plane for the rest of their certificate...? You might not want to have your signature on something that carries such permanence.

It still seems a little weird to me. But I heard this from a DPE on a CFI checkride! So there's some food for thought...
Click to expand...
I would hesitate to follow guidance that gives qualification by implication when an endorsement is specifically required.
 
(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:
 
Juliet Hotel said:
Yep. Need a waiver. How you get it varies depending on FSDO but all regions require a waiver.
Click to expand...

I used to fly a C-150 with a O-360 180HP engine that was a banner tow plane. We also had a stock C-150 (O-200) equipped with a NIGHT SIGN system:

plane.jpg


The aircraft had RESTRICTED airworthiness certificates and required training to operate safely(!) I don't remember any paperwork and I had no endorsement in my logbook. I guess things were simpler then...
 
kath said:
I had a long discussion with my DPE about this topic on my CFI ride, and he had an interesting interpretation of the regs.

He was of the opinion that when you endorse a student pilot to solo, the endorsement includes listing a *specific make and model*, and if that make and model happens to be tailwheel, that you *don't* need to give the student a tailwheel endorsement in addition. The logic is: the specification of the "make and model" kind of "implies" tailwheel inherently, and the separate tailwheel endorsement is redundant. (The same would be true for complex, high-performance, etc.)

I had never thought of it this way before, or heard it thought of this way before... But my DPE pointed out that a *solo* endorsement only lasts 90 days, whereas the tailwheel endorsement lasts *forever*. So you can do it this way to effectively issue a tailwheel endorsement with an expiration date on it. A CFI *might* want to use a strategy like this with a student pilot, because what if they solo in a tailwheel, but then switch to some other kind of plane for the rest of their certificate...? You might not want to have your signature on something that carries such permanence.

It still seems a little weird to me. But I heard this from a DPE on a CFI checkride! So there's some food for thought...
Click to expand...
If you are in touch with that DPE, you might suggest he check his opinion against the Chief Counsel's in the 2010 Grayson letter (the endorsements are required). That's pretty consistent with other official interpretations showing a distaste for implied endorsements.

That aside, sometimes a student pilot takes the private checkride at an airport away from home. If the endorsement is implied for the student pilot, how does the successful brand new holder of a private pilot certificate with no endorsement get home?
 
IK04 said:
I used to fly a C-150 with a O-360 180HP engine that was a banner tow plane. We also had a stock C-150 (O-200) equipped with a NIGHT SIGN system:

plane.jpg


The aircraft had RESTRICTED airworthiness certificates and required training to operate safely(!) I don't remember any paperwork and I had no endorsement in my logbook. I guess things were simpler then...
Click to expand...
Every region does it different. In NJ, someone from the FSDO had to come out and watch you do three pick ups and three drops. You were then given a 1-page certificate of waiver which had to be with you in the airplane when you were towing. I've heard of other regions where the owner of the company is authorized to issue the waiver. Stands to reason there could be a region out there where the company issues the waiver and its kept on file in the office so the pilot never sees it or even knows that it exists.

Then again we're talking about banner operators. It shouldn't shock anyone to learn there could be companies out there that simply operate illegally.
 
midlifeflyer said:
If you are in touch with that DPE, you might suggest he check his opinion against the Chief Counsel's in the 2010 Grayson letter (the endorsements are required). That's pretty consistent with other official interpretations showing a distaste for implied endorsements.
Click to expand...
That's a good resource - thanks. I will likely see this DPE again, and will definitely mention it...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top