FARs Regarding Tailwheel Endorsement (is it required?)

Lindberg said:
The reg doesn't require "61.31(i)" to be in the endorsement. Again, all that is required is "an endorsement in the person's logbook from an authorized instructor who found the person proficient in the operation of a tailwheel airplane." The rest is merely a training requirement.
Click to expand...
So why did you have “61.87” in your endorsement example?
 
EdFred said:
Is it a requirement by regulation that "61.31(i)" MUST appear in the endorsement? Or can I just sign it saying "Joe Pilot is cool to fly tailwheel aircraft" ? And if I can say that, why wouldn't "Joe Pilot is cool to fly [specific make and model tailwheel]" suffice?
Click to expand...
Because people want to make up regulations. It's rather silly, but a tailwheel endorsement earned by demonstrating proficiency in a Cub covers you for a DC-3 (as far as the endorsement requirement). The regulation is clear on that and even says "a tailwheel airplane," not "tailwheel airplanes." You only have to be proficient in one, and you've satisfied the need for a tailwheel endorsement.
 
MauleSkinner said:
So why did you have “61.87” in your endorsement example?
Click to expand...
Because that's the FAA prototype solo endorsement, and the question was whether a separate tailwheel endorsement is necessary if the solo endorsement refers to a tailwheel airplane. That's surplusage when considering whether the endorsement can satisfy 61.31(i)
 
Lindberg said:
Because that's the FAA prototype solo endorsement, and the question was whether a separate tailwheel endorsement is necessary if the solo endorsement refers to a tailwheel airplane. That's surplusage when considering whether the endorsement can satisfy 61.31(i)
Click to expand...
Assuming that endorsement CAN satisfy 61.31(i), and the disagreement is over that base assumption.
And you still haven’t explained how it can apply to any operations other than solo, or any aircraft other than a Cub, or why 61.31 doesn’t apply to Sport Pilots but does apply to everyone else.
 
EdFred said:
Is it a requirement by regulation that "61.31(i)" MUST appear in the endorsement? Or can I just sign it saying "Joe Pilot is cool to fly tailwheel aircraft" ? And if I can say that, why wouldn't "Joe Pilot is cool to fly [specific make and model tailwheel]" suffice?
Click to expand...
The regulation does not state that the regulation must be referenced.

AC 61-65H, is the Advisory Circular which expands on and explains the regulations as they pertain to the CFI-S, Sport Pilots, and Student Pilots seeking Sport Pilot Certification.

The FAA also distributed to all CFI-Ss a summary document https://www.faa.gov/sites/faa.gov/files/student_pilot_guidance.pdf that walks a CFI-S through the process and gives very specific word-for-word examples of endorsements a CFI-S must give a student pilot to solo, make cross country flights, and take the required tests. It also gives very specific examples of endorsements required for Sport Pilots to exercise additional privileges* such as operating in B,C, or D airspace, operating at airports in B, C, or D airspace, or operating a LSA with a VH greater than 87 knots.

AC 61-65H Explicitly reiterates the regulation that allows a CFI-S to instruct a person with a higher level of certification and the summary document gives very specific endorse gives very specific examples of how the CFI-S should endorse those airmen to operate a tailwheel equipped airplane.

While some very knowledgeable people here, or some DPEs and FSDOs may wish that certain verbiage not included in said AC be included, the CFI-Ss that I personally know use the endorsements in AC 61-65H verbatim. And in 58 pages of instructions there is no discrete tailwheel endorsement for Sport Pilots. They understand that they may not add limitations not provided for in the regulations or guidance materials provided by the FAA.

*No document is perfect. Interestingly on page 12 of the AC it states something cannot be done. Then on page 14 it provides exceptions, and in the summary it explains procedurally how to do it.
 
Last edited:
MauleSkinner said:
Assuming that endorsement CAN satisfy 61.31(i), and the disagreement is over that base assumption.
And you still haven’t explained how it can apply to any operations other than solo, or any aircraft other than a Cub, or why 61.31 doesn’t apply to Sport Pilots but does apply to everyone else.
Click to expand...
I haven't said anything about sport pilots. And I don't see any different requirements in 61.31 for solo and not solo.
 
Ersatz L-4 said:
AC 61-65H Explicitly reiterates the regulation that allows a CFI-S to instruct a person with a higher level of certification?
Click to expand...
What verbiage in 61.65H are you referring to, and which regulation is it reiterating?

and just because I’ve gotten discussions mixed up, does it in any way relate to this statement?
Ersatz L-4 said:
Just for clarification, Sport Pilot Certificate holders are not required to have a generic tailwheel endorsement.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Ersatz L-4 said:
Per "§ 61.87 Solo requirements for student pilots.(c) Pre-solo flight training." your presolo endorsement attests to the fact that you fulfilled the following requirements: "Prior to conducting a solo flight, a student pilot must have: (1) Received and logged flight training for the maneuvers and procedures of this section that are appropriate to the make and model of aircraft to be flown; and (2) Demonstrated satisfactory proficiency and safety, as judged by an authorized instructor, on the maneuvers and procedures required by this section in the make and model of aircraft or similar make and model of aircraft to be flown."

For a Sport Pilot you are endorsed to fly one particular make and model of aircraft, this would include ground operations, takeoffs and landings. Therefore, in a tailwheel equipped aircraft, said endorsement would attest to proficiency with ground operations, takeoffs and landings in a tailwheel equipped airplane.

To argue otherwise is to say that one's Texas birth certificate does not establish US citizenship.
Click to expand...
To argue otherwise is to say that the FAA wants specificity that stated requirements are met and that a "person" must have a tailwheel endorsement to act as PIC in one. We're talking about an agency that doesn't even accept an instrument rating as automatically covering the requirements for commercial instrument training.

You may well turn out to be right but, practically speaking, it's a nice academic argument unless a CFI decides that ink is more important than being sure.
 
From the beginning of this thread, I keep wondering if anyone else wonders how a DPE could give the practical to someone in a taildragger that didn't have the endorsement. I suppose the OP took the ride in a tricycle but got all his training in a taildragger? Not what's implied.
 
ACs are ADVISORY. Not mandatory.

IMO, a sign off to solo a tailwheel as a student is also the endorsement to fly them. You are signing you have given this person the instruction required to safely fly a tailwheel plane.

And, also IMO, an endorsement like "Joe is cool to fly tailwheel aircraft, I taught him what he needs" may raise eyebrows, but would be OK. The exact things taught should have been captured in the comments for each dual flight leading up to the endorsement.

That said, using the FAA recommended language is probably a good idea. :)
 
Pinecone said:
IMO, a sign off to solo a tailwheel as a student is also the endorsement to fly them.
Click to expand...

What if the instructor failed to do wheel landing training? That's how the FAA tends to look at things. The instructor's error becomes the student's problem.

As midlifeflyer posted earlier, even just a simple reference to 61.31 (l) eliminates uncertainty all around (FAA, student, instructor, insurance company).
 
dbahn said:
What if the instructor failed to do wheel landing training? That's how the FAA tends to look at things. The instructor's error becomes the student's problem.
Click to expand...
If the instructor failed to do wheel-landing training (assuming the exception doesn't apply), then the pilot hasn't had the required flight training. And whether he has or hasn't must be reflected in the training entries in his logbook. But this is tangential to the question of what the instructor puts in the endorsement because receiving the training, logging the training, and the endorsement are three different requirements.

Likewise, the instructor's merely including "61.31(i)" in the endorsement doesn't make the pilot legal to fly tailwheel airplanes if he hasn't actually "received and logged" the required training.

The answer to the OP is that there's no special rule for pilots who did their initial training in tailwheel airplanes. Like all other non-grandfathered tailwheel pilots, he must 1) receive and 2) log flight training from an authorized instructor in a tailwheel airplane, and 3) receive an endorsement from an authorized instructor who found him proficient in the operation of a tailwheel airplane.
 
Last edited:
Exactly.

But in the case of a student pilot, you can sort of assume that they have received training in a tailwheel aircraft.

You could (HIGHLY unlikely) that an instructor could train someone in a nosewheel aircraft, then let them solo a tailwheel aircraft. But the log books would show the lack of training
 
Lindberg said:
Likewise, the instructor's merely including "61.31(i)" in the endorsement doesn't make the pilot legal to fly tailwheel airplanes if he hasn't actually "received and logged" the required training.
Click to expand...

Where's the flaw in midlifeflyer's earlier post? I don't see it.

midlifeflyer said:
I think the FAA would accept it if it incorporated at least the content of the current AC 61-65 tailwheel endorsement:

I certify that [First name, MI, Last name], [grade of pilot certificate], [certificate number], has received the required training of § 61.31(i) in a [make and model] of tailwheel airplane. I have determined that [he or she] is proficient in the operation of a tailwheel airplane​

At this point There are two basic student solo logbook endorsements at this point. The completion of the required training endorsement which used to be on the student certificate, and the appropriate 90-day endorsement. It's certainly possible to combine those two and add the language of the tailwheel endorsement, and make them all one endorsement. Not difficult. Just requires a little creativity and an evaluation that the risk of being wrong or at least questioned (which affects both student and instructor) is less than the value of using less ink.
Click to expand...
 
midlifeflyer said:
You may well turn out to be right but, practically speaking, it's a nice academic argument unless a CFI decides that ink is more important than being sure.
Click to expand...
The beauty of it is, it’s not the instructor’s problem..it’s the student who pays when somebody down the road decides he doesn’t have a valid tailwheel endorsement Because his instructor decided to stand on principle.
 
birdus said:
Which FARs clarify whether or not a tailwheel endorsement is required if one gets their Private Pilot Certificate in a tailwheel airplane? There is disagreement among some regarding whether or not the endorsement is required in this case.
Click to expand...

Too bad some common sense cannot be used. Any pilot with a lick of common sense knows the above pilot knows how to fly a tailwheel if that pilot passed their Private Pilot flight test in one. :rolleyes:
 
midlifeflyer said:
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.
Click to expand...

Since one milliliter = one cubic centimeter, "a few milliliters of ink" would amount to many pages of endorsements! :D

[/nitpicking]
 
Plano Pilot said:
Any pilot with a lick of common sense knows the above pilot knows how to fly a tailwheel if that pilot passed their Private Pilot flight test in one. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Agreed. Now the question is ... if you were trained in a Piper Cub and then took your PPL check ride in a Cessna 150 are you allowed tailwheel privileges? Does the instructor's endorsement for you to solo as a student carry over or is the DPE required to examine this part of your training on the check ride also?
 
Plano Pilot said:
Too bad some common sense cannot be used. Any pilot with a lick of common sense knows the above pilot knows how to fly a tailwheel if that pilot passed their Private Pilot flight test in one. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
The FAA knows that common sense isn’t very common, so they require an endorsement.

and for what it’s worth, the endorsement says nothing about a pilot knowing how to fly a tailwheel. Simply that he’s been trained to proficiency in specific areas.
 
Dana said:
What if the airplane has a tailskid instead of a tailwheel? The regs don't say anything about that...
Click to expand...
I knew one guy that turned his tailwheel plane into a tailskid plane, in one landing.
 
dbahn said:
Where's the flaw in midlifeflyer's earlier post? I don't see it.
Click to expand...
Midlifeflyer's analysis, for those who know the FAA's levels of learning, is that, right or wrong, it's not rote or looking solely at the requirements, Not even understanding or application. Just correlation - an opinion and guess based on a reading on what the FAA has said on other endorsement issues. "Ok to solo" as an endorsement does not mean all requirements for solo were met. An instrument rating does not mean you have covered the commercial instrument training requirements although you obviously did to a more exacting standard.
 
Last edited:
Dana said:
What if the airplane has a tailskid instead of a tailwheel? The regs don't say anything about that...
Click to expand...

I do have a tailwheel endorsement in a J-3 on wheels, but most of my time flying Cubs is on skis. I wonder if that would work for the endorsement. Probably not, since we never really do "wheel landings."
 
Gilbert Buettner said:
I do have a tailwheel endorsement in a J-3 on wheels, but most of my time flying Cubs is on skis. I wonder if that would work for the endorsement. Probably not, since we never really do "wheel landings."
Click to expand...
From AC 61-65H:
If the aircraft has skis or floats in place of the wheeled landing gear, the training cannot be accomplished and thus the endorsement is not required.
 
MauleSkinner said:
From AC 61-65H:
If the aircraft has skis or floats in place of the wheeled landing gear, the training cannot be accomplished and thus the endorsement is not required.
Click to expand...

Thanks. I never worried about it because I do have the endorsement for wheels. I also fly the J-3 and a PA-18 on straight floats and have the seaplane rating.
 
Lindberg said:
…and 3) receive an endorsement from an authorized instructor who found him proficient in the operation of a tailwheel airplane.
Click to expand...

There’s obviously confusion about what, precisely, that means.
 
ebetancourt said:
From the beginning of this thread, I keep wondering if anyone else wonders how a DPE could give the practical to someone in a taildragger that didn't have the endorsement. I suppose the OP took the ride in a tricycle but got all his training in a taildragger? Not what's implied.
Click to expand...

The only airplane I’d flown up until around 250 hours was my Luscombe. I took the check ride in my Luscombe.
 
Lindberg said:
Because people want to make up regulations. It's rather silly, but a tailwheel endorsement earned by demonstrating proficiency in a Cub covers you for a DC-3 (as far as the endorsement requirement). The regulation is clear on that and even says "a tailwheel airplane," not "tailwheel airplanes." You only have to be proficient in one, and you've satisfied the need for a tailwheel endorsement.
Click to expand...

No, the tailwheel endorsement in the Cub will have no relevance to a DC-3 since that airplane requires a type rating. It's that rating which will allow you to then be certificated to fly it. It happens to be a tailwheel airplane of course.

It would still cover one in a Beech 18 or a Grumman Goose, so the extrapolation is still valid, just the example doesn't quite work.

(Grandfathered and endorsed)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top