there is no provision for “I got my Private Certificate in a tailwheel”.
You would have an endorsement to solo. Or you would be grandfathered.
No, in order to act as pilot in command of a tail wheel aircraft you have to have a tail wheel endorsement. When you solo in an aircraft as a student pilot you are pilot in command. So in addition to the endorsements necessary to solo, you would have had a endorsement to fly a tailwheel aircraft.
Did your training include the required maneuvers and procedures? Does the everywhere say the instructor found you proficient in the operation of a tailwheel airplane? The rules don't say the endorsement has to call out the specific FAR or that it can't be combined with another endorsement. But it's still required. As a matter of good practice, most CFIs, IME, include a reference to the reg in their endorsements.
No. As @Brad Z said, If you got your solo endorsement in a tailwheel, your CFI should have also given you the tailwheel endorsement (unless you are grandfathered). Basucally, the FAA does not recognize implied endorsements.
Do they actually say that, or is it merely implied by violation history?
Which doesn't mean that one endorsement can't meet both requirements, but that the requirements of both endorsements must be explicitly satisfied.
Violation history. If they say it must be logged it must be logged.Do they actually say that, or is it merely implied by violation history?
Of course. If it ain't logged, it don't meet the requirement to "document and record the following time in a manner acceptable to the Administrator."
And, of course, it’s more confusing because an endorsement has been required since 1978, but there are pilots who logged PIC in their buddy’s taildragger between 1978 and 1991 who couldn’t act as PIC at the time, but are now grandfathered.
Even though I sign endorsements, this is a good question. My bet is that if the endorsement requirement was dropped, there would still be plenty of business - and more attrition in the used airplane market.
Good question. My guess is the insurance companies would be in the best position to answer that. Because landing accidents—particularly those resulting from ground loops—are much less likely to result in serious injuries or death, they don’t get the same attention in aviation safety circles as other phases of flight.
???? I never heard of that, certainly I didn't have or need one when flying tailwheel aircraft in the early 1980s.
Of course. While I suspect most instructors prefer the "purity" and safe harbor of the recommended endorsements of the AC 61-65 Appendix, there's nothing I know of to prevent combining them to save your wrist and a few milliliters of ink, or making up your own wording. I do that with a preprinted label when I endorse a combined flight review and IPC in a paper logbook.
The magic date for being grandfathered in (even if you don't actually have grandchildren, or even children) and not requiring an endorsement was April 15, 1991. But I don't know when the reg actually changed.
You are correct…I was confusing it with the high performance/complex endorsements.
I think the FAA would accept it if it incorporated at least the content of the current AC 61-65 tailwheel endorsement:
Yeah. The tailwheel endorsement came along in 1991.
Dunno. I know that the FAA said the endorsement requirement was based on the prevalence of tricycle gear, on recommendations made in a 1980 NTSB study/report and on other accident data supporting the conclusion "that tailwheel airplanes have proportionately more takeoff and landing accidents than tricycle gear airplanes."
I am so old I don't have a complex, high performance, or tail wheel endorsement and my MEI was also grandfathered.
self-launch as well.
