tailwheel endorsement

But just to be on the safe side...

Of course... but that isn't the question. It is =possible= to get all
one's training in a tailwheel, take the checkride in a nosewheel, and
not be legal to fly tailwheel aircraft due to the lack of a specific
tailwheel endorsement?

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

Jose
That is one that can have even the FSDO arguing among themselves! I'd
feel comfortable with the solo endorsement and the required logbook
solo endorsement as a specific tailwheel endorsement to meet the
qualifications you refer to. Then you can get some FAA hotshot who "has
all the answers" tell me I'm all wet......and in return I'll refer it
to an FAA attorney who comes up with another opinion that agrees with
me, etc, etc.
Are you up against a particular problem with this? The student will
have to have an additional endorsement for solo in the nosewheel
aircraft as well so its kind of a moot point don't you think?
I'm still doing a fair amount of tailwheel training and recurrency
training in a variety of aircraft like Citabrias, Maule, Twin Beech,
C-185, etc. Tailwheel is what I started in over 50 years ago.
Cheers
Ol Shy & Bashful
CFII/RAM

yes,
"Jose" wrote in message
t...
| But just to be on the safe side...
|
| Of course... but that isn't the question. It is
=possible= to get all
| one's training in a tailwheel, take the checkride in a
nosewheel, and
| not be legal to fly tailwheel aircraft due to the lack of
a specific
| tailwheel endorsement?
|
| Jose
| --
| The price of freedom is... well... freedom.
| for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

But just to be on the safe side, as part of the long list of
endorsements required by FAR 61.31,

No need.

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

The question was about the practical test and the private
certificate. Having all required endorsements is required
for taking the practical test.



--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

--
The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.
some support
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm
See http://www.fija.org/ more about your rights and duties.


"Robert M. Gary" wrote in message
oups.com...
| But just to be on the safe side, as part of the long list
of
| endorsements required by FAR 61.31,
|
| No need.
|
| 61.31
| (k) Exceptions.
| (2) The rating limitations of this section do not apply
to-
| (ii) The holder of a student pilot certificate;
|

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.

No, this actually happened to a friend of mine. Did all his private
training in a Cessna 140 but his CFI recommended taking the checkride
in the C-152 because he needed more time to meet the PTS in the
tailwheel. However, once he received his private he had to surrender
his student ticket, making him not legal for the tailwheel until he got
the proper endorsement. When it comes to checkrides, it comes down to
time. You may be lucky to find one 4 hour time slot in 30 days with an
examiner around here. If you've got to change a student into another
plane to make things work, you do what you have to do. I had to change
a student from a Cherokee to a C-172 1 week before his checkride when
the Cherokee started to look unreliable (I suspected it was going to
need more extensive repairs than the FBO thought, sure enough the A&P
opened it up and said the same thing). It was moving the student into
the C-172 vs.to delay the checkride for 6 weeks until the examiner had
another slot. Most students don't want to move 6 weeks out when they
are expecting to take their checkride next week.

-Robert

On Sat, 22 Apr 2006 03:23:32 GMT, Jose
wrote:

snip

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.

been awhile since i've paged through my logbook. heck i'm surprised i
could find it.

i received most of my primary flight instruction in a conventional
gear aircraft. my old "ok to solo" entries sure appear to be dated to
expire in 90 days-and make no specific mention of "tailwheel". IMHO,
in my case, this would not meet the requirements of the FAR for a
"one time" endorsement.

BTW, i took my ppsel 'ride in a complex/high performance aircraft.
without getting into a big discussion of whether or not i was "legal"
to take the ride, my next flight/entry in my log after the ride & temp
issuance was my complex/high performance "one time" endorsement.

it was about 3 weeks later that i took the time to get my "one time"
tailwheel airplane signoff.

my impression at the time was that without these endorsements,
regardless of my "tailwheel" training and complex/high performance
checkride, i couldn't act as PIC of either.

YMMV

TC

my impression at the time was that without these endorsements,
regardless of my "tailwheel" training and complex/high performance
checkride, i couldn't act as PIC of either.

That's true today too. Once you surrender your student ticket for your
private you must have the endorsements.

-Robert

Jose wrote:
If a student pilot takes all his training in a tailwheel aircraft
(including solo), but takes his flight test in a nosedragger, does the
newly minted private pilot need a separate tailwheel endorsement?

Yes, he will still require a tailwheel endorsement somewhere in his
logbook as required by FARs. The CFI who gave his training would simply
make the endorsement.