61.31
(k) Exceptions.
(2) The rating limitations of this section do not apply to-
(ii) The holder of a student pilot certificate;

Tnanks, that helped me find the section that had the tailwheel stuff.

The tailwheel stuff is not a =rating= limitation, so this exception
doesn't appear to apply.

The tailwheel rule 61.31(i) refers to "additional training", but does
require an "endorsement". I know there are recommended wordings for
endorsements, but are there =required= wordings for them, specifically
for this one? The endorsement must "find the person proficient in the
operation of a tailwheel airplane". It could be argued that simply
letting the student solo in a tailwheel airplane, and endorsing the
student pilot's logbook for solo flight, constitutes a finding of
proficiency; it could be counter argued that the level of proficiency is
not =necessarily= up to private pilot standards.

It could be (though it is admittedly unlikely) that despite all the
tailwheel training, the instructor does not believe the student is PP
proficient in a tailwheel, but is PP proficient in everything else, and
would pass a checkride in a nosewheel airplane but flunk a tailwheel
checkride. So, he signs the student off in a 152 and the student gets
his PP license. He has the training, but not the proficiency, in a
tailwheel airplane. (Yes, it would be a dumb CFI; you don't know any?)

This would support the interpretation that SP solo endorsements are
=not= sufficient as PP tailwheel endorsements.

Jose
--
The price of freedom is... well... freedom.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.