Tailwheel question

[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.

 

[nosehair]

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)

Oh, yeah. I forgot for the moment. The student requires a logbook endorsement as well, in his logbook.
This endorsement for a student to fly solo does say he is trained and found proficient to fly the (make/model) which would be a tailwheel, which is a tailwheel endorsement.

 

[MauleSkinner]

Oh, yeah. I forgot for the moment. The student requires a logbook endorsement as well, in his logbook.
This endorsement for a student to fly solo does say he is trained and found proficient to fly the (make/model) which would be a tailwheel, which is a tailwheel endorsement.

Not necessarily...You can endorse a student for solo in a tailwheel airplane without meeting all of the requirements of a tailwheel endorsement...specifically, you can give a solo endorsement without teaching wheel landings, even though they aren't exempted by 61.31(i)(1)(ii)

Wheel landings (unless the manufacturer has recommended against such landings);

On the other hand, the endorsement recommending the applicant for checkride does include their being qualified for all private pilot privileges, which should include all aspects of 61.31(i), but I guess I would do a separate tailwheel endorsement anyway...the extra time it takes to do so is probably a lot less than may be required down the road to prove it

Fly safe!

David

 

[MauleSkinner]

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.

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.

That's only for the type rating...if the type rating was issued in conjunction with a 121/125/135 checkride, no endorsement is required, although you'd probably have to keep a copy of your 8410(?) to prove the exemption.

Fly safe!

David

 

[midlifeflyer]

but I guess I would do a separate tailwheel endorsement anyway...the extra time it takes to do so is probably a lot less than may be required down the road to prove it

So would I. If the language in the AC holds true, it tells me that an endorsement or rating in an aircraft that happens to be high performance, tailwheel, pressurized, or complex is not, by itself, the endorsement contemplated by 61.31.

So, we can leave the endorsement off in the hope (maybe even probability) that the AC is never enforced or add the applicable endorsement and remove all doubt.

 

[charter dog]

He can also tell them that the FAA Legal Counsel said it was okay more than 25 years ago.

Not in the least fuzzy. Basic "sole manipulator" stuff covered in what may the granddaddy of FAA Legal opinions on the subject.

Apparently, it' fuzzy in the minds of many! That may be why there are so many questions about logbook issues on this forum. While I have a high level of confidence in my interpretation of this rule, I leave room for the possibility that contrary court rulings or FAA legal opinions could have escaped my notice. I am gratified that midlifeflyer has verified this interpretation, presumably by referencing all legal rulings on this issue. Having a copy of an FAA ruling certainly carries more weight than the personal opinion of some guy on the internet!

Best,

 

[av8rbama]

Apparently, it' fuzzy in the minds of many! That may be why there are so many questions about logbook issues on this forum. While I have a high level of confidence in my interpretation of this rule, I leave room for the possibility that contrary court rulings or FAA legal opinions could have escaped my notice. I am gratified that midlifeflyer has verified this interpretation, presumably by referencing all legal rulings on this issue. Having a copy of an FAA ruling certainly carries more weight than the personal opinion of some guy on the internet!

Best,

You don't have to take the opinion of "some guy on the internet."

Spend the bucks and get "Everything Explained for the Professional Pilot." Richie Lengel has spent countless hours researching the regs and backing it up with aviaiton case law and historical rulings and has thus created quite a comprehensive volume for my library.

If your questions aren't answered in his book, you can email him and he'll find out the answer. He said he wants people to do that so he can continue to make the book even better.

A tailwheel endorsement (or HP or complex or high-alt) is not a rating, no certificate is issued to say you are competent to fly in that category, class, type; it's just a simple logbook entry... If you are appropriately rated, ie. have a certificate in your pocket stating as such, you may log PIC for for that time you are the sole manipulator.

My instructor didn't sign my book as PIC for my HP endorsement, oh well... complex wasn't a deal either as all my complex was either as a student or in a multi- before I was multi- rated. My high-altitude in a King Air was 100% PIC. My tailwheel endorsement was 100% PIC, and the guy that did it is a DE.