Yet another logging question...tailwheels

[Fearless Tower]

Okay, here's the situation:

2 commercial pilots rated ASEL (neither is a CFI). One has a tailwheel endorsement, the other does not.

They go flying together in a tailwheel. The pilot without the endorsement is the sole operator of the controls - he can clearly log that time as sole manipulator of the controls. The other pilot who has the endorsement is the agreed upon PIC.

In this scenario, does the acting/agreed upon PIC log the time?

 

[pdonahue]

It's clear that he cannot act as PIC. I think that the only way he can log it as PIC is if he's the sole manipulator of the controls while he's under the hood. The other pilot is acting as PIC and is a safety pilot.

 

[ajstoner21]

pdonahue is right, the acting PIC can not log it in this example..

 

[poadeleted20]

It's clear that he cannot act as PIC. I think that the only way he can log it as PIC is if he's the sole manipulator of the controls while he's under the hood. The other pilot is acting as PIC and is a safety pilot.

That's a bit difficult to follow.

First, the non-endorsed pilot flying the plane can always log it as PIC time under 61.51(e)(1)(i) whether hooded or not, as long as s/he's the sole manipulator of the controls of an aircraft for which s/he is rated (additional training endorsements like tailwheel not being "ratings").

Second, the only way the endorsed pilot not flying the plane can log it under the original conditions (no instructor, no 135, etc) is if the pilot flying is hooded. In that case, since the endorsed pilot is now PIC when two pilots are required, the endorsed pilot can also log it as PIC time under 61.51(e)(1)(iii).

 

[Fearless Tower]

Second, the only way the endorsed pilot not flying the plane can log it under the original conditions (no instructor, no 135, etc) is if the pilot flying is hooded. In that case, since the endorsed pilot is now PIC when two pilots are required, the endorsed pilot can also log it as PIC time under 61.51(e)(1)(iii).

Not disagreeing with you, but that is the part that is tripping me up - it would seem that if the non-endorsed pilot was flying the plane then the second pilot would be required....but then again, there is obviously nothing that says the non-endorsed pilot HAS to fly the plane I suppose.

 

[Dr. O]

Ahem... Many of us do not need an endorsement...
We were flying conventional gear aircraft before your pilot with the 'endorsement' was born...

denny-o

 

[midlifeflyer]

Not disagreeing with you, but that is the part that is tripping me up - it would seem that if the non-endorsed pilot was flying the plane then the second pilot would be required....

So what? The requirement for logging in multiple pilot situations (check out 61.51) is that more than one pilot is required; i.e, the operation requires that there be at least 2 pilots.

Exactly what about a (non-hooded) flight in a tailwheel airplane requires two pilots?

Yes, the endorsed pilot was required, but the non-endorsed sole manipulator wasn't.

 

[JeffDG]

Not disagreeing with you, but that is the part that is tripping me up - it would seem that if the non-endorsed pilot was flying the plane then the second pilot would be required....but then again, there is obviously nothing that says the non-endorsed pilot HAS to fly the plane I suppose.

But the regulation requires that a second crewmember be required under the regulations. In this case, only the endorsed pilot is the only required crewmember, regulations wise. The guy flying the plane is, regulatorily, ballast.

Contrast that with the safety pilot situation. In that situations, the regs require that there be at least two crewmembers in the plane.

 

[flyingron]

Not disagreeing with you, but that is the part that is tripping me up - it would seem that if the non-endorsed pilot was flying the plane then the second pilot would be required....but then again, there is obviously nothing that says the non-endorsed pilot HAS to fly the plane I suppose.

But the standard isn't that a pilot can log it when he is required.

The rule is that the requires multiple pilots under the type certificate or regulations. Simulated instrument flight requires TWO pilots. Certain commercial operations require TWO pilots. Certain large aircraft require two pilots. Two clowns out flying around in a cub under standard conditions does not REQUIRE two pilots.

 

[poadeleted20]

Ahem... Many of us do not need an endorsement...
We were flying conventional gear aircraft before your pilot with the 'endorsement' was born...

denny-o

Denny is referring to the "grandfather" clause in 61.31(i) allowing those who logged PIC time in a tailwheel airplane before the tailwheel endorsement rule became effective in April 1991 to continue to act as PIC in tailwheel airplanes without that endorsement. I should have used the term "qualified" rather than "endorsed" to include both those endorsed and those grandfathered. Please make that substitutions mentally in all the posts above.

And I should have known better, since I'm one of the grandfatherees.