Logging approaches in a tailwheel without endorsement

TimRF79

TimRF79

Pre-takeoff checklist
Joined
Dec 10, 2017
Messages
352
Location
Houston, TX
Display Name
Tim
Home Airfield
KAXH
I am not clear on the regs with this one.
Per FAR you can not "ACT as PIC" in a TW without the endoresement, however for IFR currency you only need to fly/log 6 approaches (plus a hold).
This sounds to me that if in VFR, with a safety pilot that has a TW rating you can:
TW pilot takes-off
IFR pilot puts on hood and operates the controls
IFR pilot flys approaches
TW pilot lands plane

And this way IFR pilot is instrument current.

Is this correct? Anyone knows?
 
Acting as PIC is defined in 14 CFR 1.1, but logging PIC time is define in 14.CFR 61.51. They're two different concepts. (I also don't see anything in 61.57(c) that requires you to log PIC time in order to log instrument time that you have flown.)

It looks to me like your scenario would work as long as the two pilots agree that the TW pilot is the pilot-in-command throughout the flight. If the TW pilot is not instrument rated and current, or if the airplane is not IFR-legal, then the instrument approaches must be flown under visual flight rules.

There could be insurance issues.
 
Last edited:
Are you rated for the aircraft? (Tailwheel is not a rating.)
Why not do the takeoff / landing as well (assuming the PIC / owner does not object)?
 
I take it here is a consensus that this would work.
Take Off and landing for insurance reason.
A TW flys like any other plane, but T/O and Landing are different
 
Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe said:
Are you rated for the aircraft? (Tailwheel is not a rating.)
Why not do the takeoff / landing as well (assuming the PIC / owner does not object)?
Click to expand...
Under the wording of 61.51(g), if he wanted to log instrument time without logging PIC time, I'm not even sure he would have to be rated for the aircraft.

By the way, here is EdFred's "The Definitive PIC Thread" (which is a sticky in the Flight Following section of the forum):

https://www.pilotsofamerica.com/community/threads/the-definitive-pic-thread.90574/
 
Last edited:
Palmpilot said:
Under the wording of 61.51(g), if he wanted to log instrument time without logging PIC time, I'm not even sure he would have to be rated for the aircraft.
Click to expand...
Good point...unlike PIC, instrument currency logging requirements don’t even have to be in an aircraft, and makes no mention of the pilot being rated for the aircraft when an aircraft is used.
 
Why does everyone add wording that doesn't exist to regulations?

It's the equivalent of asking what's the regulation on logging time while wearing an orange shirt.
 
EdFred said:
Why does everyone add wording that doesn't exist to regulations?
Click to expand...
I think there are two reasons:

The main one is, for the uninitiated, the distinction between acting as pilot in command and logging pilot in command time is not exactly the most intuitive concept. Just look at the number of times a thread begins with, "I understand the difference between logging and acting, but..." followed by a question demonstrating they don't really understand the difference. Yes, the rules are really easy, once one really accepts the concept; but accepting the concept is difficult for some.

The other one, of course, is that the FAA itself sometimes adds wording that doesn't exist to regulations. It's much rarer than some think but it can lead to both regulitis and regaphobia.
 
I was pretty sure that I understood that it can be done legally.
However since the FAA can be weird with their rules and draconian with their measures, I wanted to verify.
 
EdFred said:
Why does everyone add wording that doesn't exist to regulations?

It's the equivalent of asking what's the regulation on logging time while wearing an orange shirt.
Click to expand...

It only becomes a problem when we start to explore the fuzzy edges of the regulations. 95% of the time, the regulations are pretty clear. It is easy to say if you are flying a tailwheel airplane get the endorsement. But then the OP is looking for the loophole for a very specific flight. Its like all the people that think they have found a way around Part 135. At the end of the day, the FAA is the judge and jury and can interpret the boundaries as they have seen fit.
 
The edges only become fuzzy when you have idiots in the CC office who make up their own interpretation of "compensation" and "for hire."
 
I flew taildraggers back in the 70s before there was an endorsement, I assume I was grandfathered in. Do I need to do anything today to be legal???????
 
ksandrew said:
I flew taildraggers back in the 70s before there was an endorsement, I assume I was grandfathered in. Do I need to do anything today to be legal???????
Click to expand...
61.31(i)(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."​
 
ksandrew said:
I flew taildraggers back in the 70s before there was an endorsement, I assume I was grandfathered in. Do I need to do anything today to be legal???????
Click to expand...
Three takeoffs and three landings to a full stop. No slow and goes. That’s the legal part. The reality is enough dual for you and your CFI to be comfortable turning you loose.

The caveat is that you must have been the legal PIC before.
 
Greg Bockelman said:
Three takeoffs and three landings to a full stop. No slow and goes. That’s the legal part. The reality is enough dual for you and your CFI to be comfortable turning you loose.

The caveat is that you must have been the legal PIC before.
Click to expand...
Note the reg says “logged”, not “acted as”.
 
What is considered a "stop" ?

Say I roll off the runway at the first taxiway (because I'm clearing way for an airplane on 100 mile final) taxi back to the numbers roll out onto the runway and take off, without ever coming to a 0fps velocity. Is it full stop? What if I say on the runway and the airspeed shows 0? What if....Hold on, I have more combustible material that needs to be ignited.
 
Greg Bockelman said:
Yeah, so I’ve been told. I could have sworn it used to.
Click to expand...
I checked a guy out once in his new Mauled who didn’t need any endorsements because he logged as PIC when one buddy let him take the stick in his Champ for an hour (flight only, no takeoffs or landings) and another buddy did the same with his Bonanza. (Both prior to the cutoff date on the current reg, although if you recall, high performance still required an endorsement prior to the current version.)

so he was legally qualified to act as PIC in his new high performance taildragger because of a couple of logbook entries, and when he made the entries, he wouldn’t have been able to act as PIC in the Bo.
 
Greg Bockelman said:
Well, yeah. Seems like most currency regs deal with passengers.

Yeah, so I’ve been told. I could have sworn it used to.
Click to expand...
Nope. All the versions I recall said "logged." Interesting anomaly since one could theoretically have never landed a tailwheel and yet meet the requirements.
 
MauleSkinner said:
so he was legally qualified to act as PIC in his new high performance taildragger because of a couple of logbook entries, and when he made the entries, he wouldn’t have been able to act as PIC in the Bo.
Click to expand...
That's pretty common since, whether tailwheel, complex, or HP, one may log PIC during transition training before earning the endorsement,
 
midlifeflyer said:
That's pretty common since, whether tailwheel, complex, or HP, one may log PIC during transition training before earning the endorsement,
Click to expand...
It's kind of scary that it's common that one may have started transition training 30 years ago and is still working on it... ;)
 
Last edited:
Soloed in a tail wheel plane in 78, plus 500 hours instructing in them before 1991. As far as the other endorsements I am grandfatherd also and instructed in before the dates. The only one I might have not also instructed in before the grandfather date would be the high altitude.
 
EdFred said:
What is considered a "stop" ?

Say I roll off the runway at the first taxiway (because I'm clearing way for an airplane on 100 mile final) taxi back to the numbers roll out onto the runway and take off, without ever coming to a 0fps velocity. Is it full stop? What if I say on the runway and the airspeed shows 0? What if....Hold on, I have more combustible material that needs to be ignited.
Click to expand...
Not sure if this is a serious question, but if you're still moving, you haven't stopped. The regulation doesn't say you have to stop on the runway, though.
"(I)f the aircraft to be flown is an airplane with a tailwheel, the takeoffs and landings must have been made to a full stop in an airplane with a tailwheel."
 
MauleSkinner said:
It's kind of scary that it's common that one may have started transition training 30 years ago and is still working on it... ;)
Click to expand...
:biggrin: I think tailwheel airplanes are somewhat special. I got my "I really need to do this" endorsement almost 7 years ago. I haven't taken off or landed one since. So while I have the endorsement and think I retained a decent knowledge base, the idea of my having to that without further "working on it" is just as scary as the 30 year transition!

Funny, I have a friend with a Husky. I fly with him and he often offers to let me land. "You don't really want to let me do that!" is my reply.
 
Lindberg said:
Not sure if this is a serious question, but if you're still moving, you haven't stopped. The regulation doesn't say you have to stop on the runway, though.
"(I)f the aircraft to be flown is an airplane with a tailwheel, the takeoffs and landings must have been made to a full stop in an airplane with a tailwheel."
Click to expand...
"What if....Hold on, I have more combustible material that needs to be ignited." is a pretty good sign it is one of the most serious things @EdFred ever posted!
 
midlifeflyer said:
"What if....Hold on, I have more combustible material that needs to be ignited." is a pretty good sign it is one of the most serious things @EdFred ever posted!
Click to expand...
:D

Honestly though, like with night currency once I have left the runway I considered it a stop. If I don't leave the runway I do come to a complete stop, not a rolling stop. Letter vs spirit.
 
midlifeflyer said:
:biggrin: I think tailwheel airplanes are somewhat special. I got my "I really need to do this" endorsement almost 7 years ago. I haven't taken off or landed one since. So while I have the endorsement and think I retained a decent knowledge base, the idea of my having to that without further "working on it" is just as scary as the 30 year transition!

Funny, I have a friend with a Husky. I fly with him and he often offers to let me land. "You don't really want to let me do that!" is my reply.
Click to expand...
Same with me and seaplanes...got 5 hours and a rating, but politely declined when a customer offered to let me land his 206 on amphibs.
 
midlifeflyer said:
he often offers to let me land. "You don't really want to let me do that!" is my reply.
Click to expand...
Took my sister (private pilot) for a ride - of course I let her fly while I sat there with my feet on the floor, hands in my lap. Then on short final I move my feet to the pedals and I hear "Thank God" over the intercom...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top