Tailwheel question

[Steve]

nope.......after 1991!

sf3ca

Good question then. Its sound to me that if you passed the type you would have had to have performed both wheel and 3 point landings? If you were able to perform those then the instructor should have given you the endorsment. I'm assuming you did all of the training and checkride in the DC-3 itself and not a sim?

 

[SF3CA]

I'm pretty sure we only did wheels on landings only. I can't even remember doing a 3 point landing in the 800 hrs I have in the airplane. The type ride was a normal atp/type check ride in the airplane. I checked my log book and all the guy wrote was ATP check ride satisfactory. I did 3 or 4 hours of dual before the ride and the instructor just signed it off as dual. I don't see an "endorsement"

something I have always wondered

SF3CA

 

[Steve]

I'm pretty sure we only did wheels on landings only. I can't even remember doing a 3 point landing in the 800 hrs I have in the airplane. The type ride was a normal atp/type check ride in the airplane. I checked my log book and all the guy wrote was ATP check ride satisfactory. I did 3 or 4 hours of dual before the ride and the instructor just signed it off as dual. I don't see an "endorsement"

something I have always wondered

SF3CA

Maybe wheel landings are not recommended by the Douglas in the DC-3? I don't have the FAR's with me but I think the wording allowed the training for the endorsement to be tailored to the aircraft, I.E. if Douglas says no wheel landings in the DC-3 you dont have to show that you can do them if thats the aircraft you are training in. Still dosn't answer the question why the CFI never gave you the endorsement.

 

[MauleSkinner]

In the case of a student pilot, the endorsement is on his student pilot certificate. That's an endorsement. He does not need another one. Well, 61.31 says "logbook endorsement", but I don't think an NTSB judge would entertain that kind of nitpicking.

Been a while since I've endorsed a student pilot cert...but that's just "make and model" for solo and solo x/c, if I recall correctly...Not the endorsement required by 61.31(i)

 

[Waldom]

I think getting the ATP in a DC-3 is a class act. I'm embarrassed to admit that I got mine in a Beech Duchess. I subsequently flew the DC-3 in a variety of roles, though.

Most operators use wheel landings in the '3 as S.O.P., although the airplane does very nice three-point landings. I'm not aware of any restrictions by the manufacturer regarding which landing technique is used.

F.A.R. 61.31(i) regards training in tailwheel airplanes required after 15 April, 1991. As I read the reg., it requires a logbook endorsement specifying "proficient in the operation of a tailwheel airplane" to operate one as P.I.C. I personally think that that regulation is ridiculous in your situation, but that's not the only F.A.R. that meets that description.

 

[CFIse]

The point that gets lost in these "acts as PIC' vs. "logs PIC" debates is how those entries will be viewed by a potential employer during an interview. I've seen it happen many times. An otherwise attractive candidate gets the boot because his logbook contains PIC time for which the pilot was not rated. Legal interpretations aside, most airline hiring boards will not accept PIC time unless you were also acting as PIC.

Well I'll call BS. You've never seen that at all. You might have seen people "booted" for reporting PIC time on their APPLICATION that did not meet the criteria defined by the employer, but no employer has ever "booted" anybody for logging time not in accordance with that employers views on aircraft time and employment eligibility.

I've filled out a bunch of applications, insurance sheets etc., I don't think I've EVER been asked to present my time in the same way, everybody has a twist on what time they think is important and what isn't.

My logbook is filled out in accordance with the FAA regulations, if an employer wants to take issue with that, well good for them, but they don't have a leg to stand on. I'll fill out their application any way they want, and if I screw that up well I probably shouldn't be put in charge of their nice shiny flying machine anyway......

 

[Skyboy722]

Then it's a very good question: If you have a type rating in an aircraft with a tailwheel, do you =also= need the endorsement?

A strict reading of 61.31 would seem to suggest that you do. And, although it doesn't deal with tailwheels in particular, the language in Paragraph 4b of AC 61-89E, "Pilot Certificates: Aircraft Type Ratings", suggests that at the time of your DC3 type rating, you should have =also= received a tailwheel endorsement:

==============================
Most airplanes that require type ratings have more than 200 horsepower (or the equivalent thrust), pressurization, and service ceilings and/or maximum operating altitudes above 25,000 feet mean sea level. Pilots would therefore be required to receive both a high-performance endorsement and a high-altitude endorsement in their logbook or training record before acting as pilot in command of those airplanes. If they do not have the endorsements when they begin training for the type rating, the training for those endorsements may be included in the type rating curriculum if the airplane for which the type rating is required fits the appropriate description. However, separate logbook or training record endorsements must be issued for the type rating, high-performance, and/or high-altitude training, as appropriate.
==============================

Hows that for absurdity? Sounds like technically you can't act as PIC in the aircraft you're type rated for!!

Come to think of it, I never got my High Altitude endorsement.... Never crossed my mind and I have never been asked...

 

[MDAutry]

Here is a good one... I think I know but lets get the jury on it...
If I work at a place that has a hig performance single. I.e. +200HP and it is a single seater... can I legally get signed off to fly it solo if I do not have the high performance yet?

 

[MauleSkinner]

Come to think of it, I never got my High Altitude endorsement.... Never crossed my mind and I have never been asked...

Have you possibly been exempted by...

(3) The training and endorsement required by paragraphs (g)(1) and (g)(2) of this section are not required if that person can document satisfactory accomplishment of any of the following in a pressurized aircraft, or in a flight simulator or flight training device that is representative of a pressurized aircraft:
(iv) Completing a pilot-in-command proficiency check under part 121, 125, or 135 of this chapter conducted by the Administrator or by an approved pilot check airman.

 

[Skyboy722]

You're right. I was exempted by that provision but was referring to this one:

If they do not have the endorsements when they begin training for the type rating, the training for those endorsements may be included in the type rating curriculum if the airplane for which the type rating is required fits the appropriate description. However, separate logbook or training record endorsements must be issued for the type rating, high-performance, and/or high-altitude training, as appropriate.
quote]

I'm sure a "training record endorsement" was made in my case but found it interesting that it was never mentioned, that's all. I'm certainly not worried about it.