CFIing in a Tailwheel Airplane question

[jr51xx]

CFI Tailwheel

I love to see opinions from the FAA. It is part of what they are there for and it usually is good for covering our six. Even the one from AOPA is at least well researched but is not an FAA opinion or position. The FAA position is pretty much golden, though.

The AOPA opinion on safety pilot issues is non-germane in this case. No one mentioned safety pilot, only instructing in a tailwheel aircraft withut having an endorsement. Likewise, the FAA position is regarding the logging of PIC time by the pilot receiving instruction. If the CFI is not authorized to impart instruction (because, say, he lacks qualification), the already qualified and current pilot just logs PIC. But the CFI giving instruction is the question.

Either get the endorsement or get a specific interpetation from FAA sources. Get it in writing. Trying to twist and get around regulations and procedures can lead to serious results. Get the endorsement.

 

[avbug]

Getting the endorsement is always a good idea, but getting the endorsement, a safe pilot it does not make. In the same vein, a a pilot is legal to instruct without it.

Yes, both interpretations are germain and pertinent to the discussion at hand. You may not see it, but you need to open your eyes.

A safety pilot is a required crewmember, and does not require the endorsement to act as safety pilot...because the endorsement is ONLY required to act as PIC.

An instructor may log PIC while acting as an authorized instructor in an aircraft for which he or she does not hold an endorsement...because the endorsement is only required to act as PIC, not to log it.

How do you suppose the instructor may be acting as an authorized instructor in an aircraft for which he or she does not hold a conventional gear endorsement, and logging the time accordingly, if the instructor cannot legally do so?

Clearly the FAA has stipulated that an instructor does not need the endorsement to log the time as PIC, and in order to log the time as PIC, the instructor must be acting as an authorized instructor. An authorized instructor does not need the endorsement to act as an authorized instructor, as stipulated by the FAA Chief Legal Counsel in an official interpretation of the policy of the FAA Administrator.

What you have there is a bonafide interpretation setting forth the golden standard that one does not need the endorsement to log the time. One cannot log the time unless one is acting as an authorized instructor. One does not, therefore, need the endorsement to act as an authorized instructor. This isn't ambiguous; it's clear.

What part, exactly, is unclear to you?

 

[jr51xx]

CFI Tailwheel

Steve,

As you read these opinions, do you see the problem? Take the high road and either get the proper endorsement or get an opinion from the FAA. Ask your question with and be specific. What the pilot of the C185 logs is not your problem. If you log something is the issue.

As your career progresses use caution with the opinions of your peers. Most of them have a very strong sense of self esteem and find it difficult to not have an answer that they feel is correct. Just ask any pilot's spouse! Seek out the answers from study and from authoritative sources. Good luck!

Fly Safe,

JR

 

[avbug]

Junior 51,

Where do you suggest the poster seeks this authoritative information? Do you suggest he quizzes the FSDO? Do you suggest he wait the years it may take to get a reply from the FAA Chief Legal Counsel?

Or perhaps he could merely use the already existing official legal interpretations present and available (and quoted verbatim here) which apply to the question at hand.

What part of quoting the FAA and using the words of the Administrator verbatim do you find egotistical?

Why rely on opinion when the voice of the Administrator has already spoken?

Which part do you not understand?

The question here has never been w(h)eather the poster should obtain a conventional gear endorsement. Of course he should. That isn't what he asked. He asked if he may legally instruct without it, and the answer is yes.

 

[luvz2fli]

Luvz2fly,

Acting as PIC means being the PIC. Merely because you're the flight instructor, doesn't mean you're the pilot in command.

Logging PIC time is not the same as acting as PIC.

When acting as PIC, you are the final authority and responsibility for the safe operation of the aircraft.

If your student is able to act as PIC, w(h)eather or not you touch the controls has nothing to do with w(h)eather or not you are PIC...being PIC has nothing to do with touching the controls. Being PIC, being the acting PIC, means being responsibile, and accepting the responsibility for the flight.

If your student is able to act as PIC, and two of you agree that the student is PIC, you don't need the endorsement to instruct. You need to be rated in the airplane, meaning category and class. You can touch the controls, move the controls, fondle the controls...but if you're not acting as PIC (your student is), then you don't need the endorsement because the endorsement is only required to act as PIC.

Replace the word "act" with be. You need the endorsement to BE PIC. If you don't hold the endorsement, you can log PIC, you can manipulate the controls, you can do whatever you like, because you're NOT the pilot in command. Your student is.

Thank you for the clarification on that then Avbug. I appreciate it. I definitely have a better understanding now.

 

[jr51xx]

CFI Tailwheel

Avbug,

You may have noted that my comment was directed to Steve, the originator of this thread.

Any issues that you may have are not of my concern, but I am pleased that you have expressed an opinion. Steve has asked for input and asked a good question.

The opinions that you provided from AOPA and the FAA were certainly worthy of Steve's attention, but only he is able to carefully read them and to decide if they provide the answers that he seeks.

My eyes and my reading skills are just fine and I do have a strong sense of self-esteem. As I hope you also do. 'Tis a good thing, especially for a pilot.

Good night.

 

[avbug]

The opinions that you provided from AOPA and the FAA were certainly worthy of Steve's attention, but only he is able to carefully read them and to decide if they provide the answers that he seeks.

Check those interps with those good eyes...neither was published nor written by AOPA. Both were by the FAA Chief Legal Counsel's office.

AOPA has no authority in the matter. Their officer only asked a question. Much like the original poster in this thread. In both cases, the FAA Chief Legal Counsel, acting on behalf of the FAA Administrator, answered, and in each case, this answer covers the central question of this thread.

I agree that no reason exists why the poster should not seek conventional gear training and and endorsement, but not for reasons of legality. For reasons of legality, the poster has no need for concern.

Conventional gear aircraft require additional training above what many pilots typically receive; not for the difficulty involved, but for the weakness of skill with which many pilots arrive in training. The conventional gear aircraft does nothing more than expose existing deficiencies which many pilots don't even realize they have. If one is going to undertake to teach in any aircraft, one should be proficient in the aircraft. Obtaining an endorsement on a paper page in a paper logbook does not make a pilot proficient.

Before an instructor undertakes providing instruction in a conventional gear airplane, he or she should be fully capable of flying the airplane, and correcting any error that the student might make in the airplane. Ethically and professionally, one should be prepared to take on the full role of the instructor, which means providing a presence that's capable of both words and action. That action may require an instructor to take control, correct an error, or even demonstrate a maneuver or technique or proceedure.

As an example, you cover landings. You request the student to demonstrate a short field landing. You demonstrate it to the student. You step on the brakes...what's that conventional gear airplane going to do, and why? Do you teach the student to do it as a wheel landing, or a three point? How can you correct or instruct the student if you aren't conversant with the proceedures particular to that specific type aricraft, and conventional gear practices in general?

Legally you can do it...but more is involved than mere legality. More is involved than the issue of a mere endorsement. Look at the whole picture and then make your decision.