CFIing in a Tailwheel Airplane question

[flyboycpa]

"Take a look at your CFI certificate. See where it requires a pilot certificate and remember that your pilot certificate is not valid to operate a taildragger. Until you have that endorsement you simply cannot operate (or teach, in my opinion) a taildragger aircraft."

Jr51, I hate to tell you, but you're just not correct with that statement. While you are correct, he cannot "operate" the aircraft as PIC, he is still fully legal to instruct in it so long as the pilot is qualified to act as PIC. As the instructor, he isn't teaching the guy to land,takeoff, etc.. He is teaching him instrument skills that transfer over to many types of aircraft (both trikes and conventional geared). I reread the insurance policy on both of my planes (Swift and Stinson) and, for the open-pilot clause, the pilot must have 500TT, 100 Tailwheel, and 25 in type; or be a CFI. Of course we all know that in a crash the insurance company is going to try to subrogate against anything and everything that came within 25' of the airplane, so the CFI will most likely be involved, but not for the lack of a tailwheel endorsement, because of some other deficiency in training.

fb

 

[flyboycpa]

JR51xx,

Let me follow up my post with my complete agreement with you and Lead Sled that while it is legal and permissible I still don't think that it's necessarily wise. I think that our CFI posing the original question should seek out the instruction to complete a tailwheel endorsement. I've trained people for tailwheel endorsements for many years and as you all know....it's a blast to see a new tailwheel guy finally figure out what his feet are for!

best wishes,
fb

 

[jr51xx]

Cfi

FLYBOYCPA,

Still disagree. The question was about teaching CPL maneuvers in a C185 and not having an endorsement for tailwheel. Regardless of the position of an insurance company, the FAA interpets the FARs. Holding a CFI exposes a pilot to an entirely different status and the FAA tend to hold CFIs to a rather high standard.

Steve could probably do this and be fine, but I would regard teaching in an aircraft that I was unqualified in to be an unneccessary risk of hard-earned credentials. I still vote for getting the rating or making an appointment and meeting with a supervisory FAA Inspector and getting a blessing. But then, that is just my opinion and advice!

JR

 

[avbug]

June 24, 1991

Mr. Glenn H. Rizner
Technical/Airports Specialist
Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association
421 Aviation Way
Frederick, MD 21701-4798

Dear Mr. Rizner:

This is in response to your letter of November 5, 1990, concerning an interpretation of Section 91.109(b)(1) of the Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR). We apologize for the delay in responding to you. Your question is set forth below and is followed by our interpretation of the FAR.

Question:

Your question, in pertinent part, states:
Does an appropriately rated safety pilot have to have a high performance signoff prior to acting as second in command (safety pilot) in a high performance airplane? (for example: a Piper Arrow or a Cessna Cutlass)

Since an endorsement is not a rating, the private pilot in our scenario, acting as second in command, appears to hold the appropriate category and class ratings. Therefore, he would be able to act as safety pilot without a high performance endorsement.

Again, since our pilot is acting as second in command, a review of the regulation would support the fact that he does not need the high performance endorsement.

To verify this, I spoke with [the FAA] ... and was told, although the safety pilot is acting as second in command, "he must be capable of taking over and acting as pilot in command in case of potential hazards during the flight."

We do not believe the FARs support this position and therefore would like to request a written interpretation in order to formally clarify this issue.

Answer:

Section 1.1 states, in pertinent part, that:

"Category":
(1) As used with respect to the certification, ratings, privileges, and limitations of airmen, means a broad classification of aircraft. Examples include: airplane; rotorcraft; glider; and lighter-than-air; ...

"Class"
(1) As used with respect to the certification, ratings, privileges, and limitations of airmen, means a classification of aircraft with a category having similar operating characteristics. Examples include: single engine; multiengine; land; water; gyroplane; helicopter; airship; and free balloon; ...
Section 91.109(b) states, in pertinent part, that:

No person may operate a civil aircraft in simulated instrument flight unless -
(1) The other control seat is occupied by a safety pilot who possesses at least a private pilot certificate with category and class ratings appropriate to the aircraft being flown.

Section 61.31(e) states, in pertinent part, that:

High performance airplanes. A person holding a private or commercial pilot certificate may not act as pilot in command of an airplane that has more than 200 horsepower, or that has a retractable landing gear, flaps, and a controllable propeller, unless he has received flight instruction from an authorized flight instructor who has certified in his logbook that he is competent to pilot an airplane that has more than 200 horsepower, or that has a retractable landing gear, flaps, and a controllable propeller, as the case may be.

A fundamental principle of statutory construction is that when language is clear and unambiguous it must be held to mean what it plainly expresses. Applying the meaning of the words "category" and "class" as defined in Part 1 of the FAR to Section 91.109(b)(1), a safety pilot would need at least a private pilot certificate with category (i.e., a broad classification of aircraft, e.g., airplane) and class (i.e., aircraft with a category having similar operating characteristics, e.g., single engine) ratings appropriate to the aircraft being flown.

Another principle of statutory construction is that all parts of the statute (i.e., preamble language) should be given equal weight. The preamble language to Amendment 91-36, 32 Federal Register 260, January 11, 1967, discussed Section 91.109(a)(2), which in 1967 was numbered as 91.21(b). Like Section 91.109(b), Section 91.109(a)(2) uses the terms category and class in stating that "The person manipulating the controls has at least a private pilot certificate with appropriate category and class ratings." That preamble language states that "Under present Sec. 91.21(b), for simulated instrument flight an 'appropriately rated pilot' must occupy the other control seat as safety pilot. Section 91.21(b) has been interpreted to require a private pilot certificate with an airplane category rating and multiengine class rating for a small multiengine land plane, and a type rating for a large airplane or for a turbojet powered airplane (large or small)."

Therefore, regarding your question, our opinion is that the safety pilot would need only a private pilot certificate with an airplane category and single engine land class ratings.

While our opinion is that there is no regulatory requirement that a safety pilot have a high performance endorsement to act as safety pilot, we are advised by the General Aviation & Commercial Division of the Flight Standards Service that they have always encouraged those pilots who act as safety pilots to be thoroughly familiar and current in the aircraft that is used. We are also advised by the General Aviation and Commercial Division that the FAA is currently in the process of reviewing the appropriate parts of the FAR to determine, among other things, if a safety pilot should be required to have a high performance endorsement.

This interpretation has been prepared by David Metzbower, Staff Attorney, Operations Law Branch, Regulations and Enforcement Division; Richard C. Beitel, Manager.

This interpretation has been coordinated with the Manager, General Aviation and Commercial Division, Flight Standards Service.

We hope this satisfactorily answers your question.

Sincerely,
Donald P. Byrne
Assistant Chief Counsel
Regulations and Enforcement Division

 

[avbug]

OCT. 28, 1980

WINSTON SCOTT JONES

Dear Mr. Jones:

This is in response to your letter in which you request an interpretation of Section 61.51(2)(c) of the Federal Aviation Regulations, regarding logging of pilot-in-command (PIC) flight time.

Specifically, you ask what time may be logged as PIC time when the pilot in the right seat is a certificated flight instructor (CFI) along for the purpose of instruction and is not a required crewmember, and the pilot in the left seat holds either a private or commercial certificate in an aircraft for which he is rated.

Section 61.51 is a flight-time logging regulation, under which PIC time may be logged by one who is not actually the pilot in command (i.e., not "ultimately" responsible for the aircraft) during that time. This is consistent with the purpose of Section 61.51, which as stated in 61.51(a) is to record aeronautical training and experience used to meet the requirements for a certificate or rating, or the recent flight experience requirements of Section 61.

Section 61.51(c)(2)(i) provides that a private or commercial pilot may log as pilot-in-command time only that flight time during which the pilot--

1. Is the sole manipulator of the controls of an aircraft for which he is rated; or

2. Is the sole occupant of the aircraft; or

3. Acts as pilot-in-command of an aircraft on which more than one pilot is required under the type certification of the aircraft, or the regulations under which the flight is conducted.

Under Section 61.51(c)(2)(iii) a certificated flight instructor may log as pilot-in-command time all flight time during which he or she acts as a flight instructor. Sections 61.51(b)(2)(iii) and (iv) provide for logging of flight instruction and instrument flight instruction received.

Accordingly, two or more pilots may each log PIC time for the same flight time. For example, a pilot who is the sole manipulator of the controls of an aircraft for which he or she is rated may log that time as PIC time under 61.51(c)(2)(i) while receiving instruction, and the instructor may log that same time as PIC time under 61.51(c)(2)(iii).

There is no provision in the FAR's for logging of "dual" flight time; however, we assume that you are referring to logging time as instruction received. Section 61.51(b)(2)(iii) and (iv) allow flight instruction and instrument instruction received time to be recorded. There is nothing in the FAR's which prevents a pilot from logging the same time as both instruction received and PIC time, as long as each requirement is met. The pilot may also log the same time as instrument instruction. Note, though, that one hour of flight logged both as one hour of PIC and one hour of instruction received still adds up to only one hour total flight time.

You request interpretations of these regulations for situations in which:

1. The purpose of the flight is instruction in advanced maneuvers.

2. The purpose of the flight is simulated instrument instruction in actual VFR conditions.

3. The purpose of the flight is instrument instruction actual IFR conditions.

4. The pilot in the left seat is not current in the aircraft or in the conditions of flight.

5. The purpose of the flight is transition from tricycle to conventional landing gear.

6. The purpose of the flight is obtaining logbook endorsement authorizing operation of a high performance aircraft, as required by FAR 61.31(e).

7. The purpose of the flight is transition to a different type aircraft of the same category and class for which the left seat pilot is rated and a type rating is not required.

In each situation, the CFI may log PIC time for all flight time during which she or he acts as flight instructor. The pilot receiving instruction may also log PIC time in each of these situations, as the pilot is the sole manipulator of the controls of an aircraft for which she or he is rated. Specifically, neither the currency requirements of situation 4 nor the log book endorsement of situation 6 are ratings within the meaning of Section 61.51. "Rating" as used in that section refers to the rating in categories, classes, and types, as listed in Section 61.5, which are placed on pilot certificates.
We trust that this discussion answers your questions.

Sincerely,
EDWARD P. FABERMAN
Acting Assistant Chief Counsel
Regulations and Enforcement Division

 

[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.