Something to think about (61.57)

Damn. Now as I re-read it I think I agree with Ron.
When I read the whole passage below instead of just the tailwheel section I would say that since they use the phrase "...if the aircraft to be flown..." meaning the aircraft to be flow with passengers, has a tailwheel, your cycles must be in a tailwheel aircraft of category and class.

Damn legalese stuff.


(a) General experience. (1) Except as provided in paragraph (e) of this section, no person may act as a pilot in command of an aircraft carrying passengers or of an aircraft certificated for more than one pilot flight crewmember unless that person has made at least three takeoffs and three landings within the preceding 90 days, and—
(i) The person acted as the sole manipulator of the flight controls; and
(ii) The required takeoffs and landings were performed in an aircraft of the same category, class, and type (if a type rating is required), and, if the aircraft to be flown is an airplane with a tailwheel, the takeoffs and landings must have been made to a full stop in an airplane with a tailwheel.
 
Bill Jennings said:
"if the aircraft to be flown is an airplane with a tailwheel, the takeoffs and landings must have been made to a full stop in an airplane with a tailwheel."

Any airplane with the little wheel in the back is "an airplane with a tailwheel". If they wanted a specific airplane, I'd think it would read "the airplane with a tailwheel".
Click to expand...
If they wanted that, they would have separated it into two sentences like this:

"The required takeoffs and landings were performed in an aircraft of the same category, class, and type (if a type rating is required). If the aircraft to be flown is an airplane with a tailwheel, three takeoffs and landings within the same period must have been made to a full stop in an airplane with a tailwheel."

But they didn't, so "the takeoffs and landings" in the second clause of the sentence clearly refers to "The required takeoffs and landings" in the first clause, which it already said must be "performed in an aircraft of the same category, class, and type (if a type rating is required)." IOW, it's additive to the basic requirement, not a separate requirement. That's why they said "the takeoffs and landings" not "some other takeoffs and landings".
 
mkosmo said:
It's the second comma that makes me question it more than anything apart from the usage of the word airplane.
Click to expand...
The second comma is proper English punctuation to separate that qualifying clause. Or at least that's what my eighth grade English teacher taught me, and I learned not to argue grammar with Mrs. Guile.
 
I can see how you are both parsing the language, and I see how you each got to the interpretation you have---however, I also think the intent of the passage is pretty clear, and it agrees with Ron.

I seriously doubt that clinging to a questionable grammatical ambiguity is going to do you any good should you actually have a problem where it becomes an issue.
 
"...the takeoffs and landings must have..."

To which takeoffs and landings is this phrase referring?

I say it is referring back to the three takeoffs and landings in the same category and class that are mentioned earlier in the same sentence.
 
EdFred said:
(ii) The required takeoffs and landings were performed in an aircraft of the same category, class, and type (if a type rating is required), and, if the aircraft to be flown is an airplane with a tailwheel, the takeoffs and landings must have been made to a full stop in an airplane with a tailwheel.


It does not state must be in a tailwheel in the same category class and type, simply that it must be in an airplane.
Click to expand...

What part of the word AND do you not understand? You must comply with both parts of that conjunction...i.e., the fact that it is a tailwheel adds an additional condition to category and class.
 
flyingron said:
What part of the word AND do you not understand? You must comply with both parts of that conjunction...i.e., the fact that it is a tailwheel adds an additional condition to category and class.
Click to expand...

I already drew the parallel with the SE commercial requirements. In the SE commercial requirements is says "in airplanes", not specifically in a single engine airplane, not in a multi. Just airplanes. The second statement says an airplane with a tailwheel, not an airplane with a tailwheel in category and class.

Are you satisfying both parts of the statement? Yes. Are you getting 3 takeoffs and landings in category and class? Yes. Are you also doing 3 takeoffs and landings in a tailwheel? Yes.
 
What this thread needs is an English teacher!

(Come to think of it, the FAA needs a few of those on staff as well!)
 
Palmpilot said:
What this thread needs is an English teacher!

(Come to think of it, the FAA needs a few of those on staff as well!)
Click to expand...

All the FAA needs to do it make their writings consistent and explicit. Then again if they did that, they wouldn't be able to bust pilots ex post facto.
 
Why assume he performed any tailwheel flights. The Beech 18 could have been one of the tricycle models.
 

Attachments

  • image.jpg
    image.jpg
    7.6 KB · Views: 6
I hesitate to jump in here given that I'm mainly a lurker, but, what the heck, why not?

I'm a big fan of plain language. In reading an studying the regs, sometimes I'll re-write them in plain language to see if I can make it clear. Thought I'd do that here:

(a) General experience. (1) Except as provided in paragraph (e) of this section, no person may act as a pilot in command of an aircraft carrying passengers or of an aircraft certificated for more than one pilot flight crewmember unless that person has made at least three takeoffs and three landings within the preceding 90 days, and—
(i) The person acted as the sole manipulator of the flight controls; and
(ii) The required takeoffs and landings were performed in an aircraft of the same category, class, and type (if a type rating is required), and if the aircraft to be flown is an airplane with a tailwheel, the takeoffs and landings must have been made to a full stop in an airplane with a tailwheel.​

Plain language speak:

You can't be PIC carrying passengers in a specific aircraft unless you made at least 3 takeoffs and landings within the past 90 days.
AND
When those 3 qualifying takeoffs and landings were made, you were the only one who controlled the plane.
AND
The qualifying takeoffs and landings don't have to be in the exact same specific aircraft for which you want to be PIC carrying passengers, but they must have been made in an aircraft of the same category, class, and type as the specific aircraft.
AND
If the specific aircraft in which you want to be PIC carrying passengers is an tailwheel airplane, the qualifying landings must have been to a full stop, and the aircraft in which you're doing the qualifying takeoffs and landings must also have a tailwheel.

There are some exceptions to the above given in paragraph (e). You really ought to read that also...​

Now, I think I've done a pretty good job of re-writing the reg in plain language. If I have, then it seems pretty plain to me that when the qualifying landings are being done, they have to be done in an aircraft with the same category, class, and type, and, if the aircraft in which you want to be PIC carrying passengers has a tailwheel, the aircraft you use to qualify also has to have a tailwheel, and you can't qualify in an aircraft not having the same category, class, and type, so, QED, the qualifying aircraft must match category, class, and type and have tailwheel if the specific aircraft in which you intend to be PIC while carrying passengers has a tailwheel.

Let's take as an example a Beech 18 (with a tailwheel).
Category: Airplane
Class: Multi-Engine Land
Type Rating: Not required
Tailwheel: Yes.

Can I use a J-3 cub to qualify? No, because a J-3 is Single-Engine Land, not multi-engine.

Can I use a combination of C310 and J-3? No. The TO&L's in the 310 are in a multi-engined land plane, but not in a tailwheel, and thus don't satisfy the part after the "AND". The TO&L's in the J-3 are in a tailwheel, but don't satisfy the part before the AND.
 
Last edited:
flyingron said:
What part of the word AND do you not understand? You must comply with both parts of that conjunction...i.e., the fact that it is a tailwheel adds an additional condition to category and class.
Click to expand...
I don't think it's the word "and," so much as the definite article "the." The landings in the second clause are the same landings as in the first.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top