tailwheel endorsement

Student pilot does not need the tailwheel endorsement for
solo, student pilots are exempt from 61.31 because they are
covered by 61.87. However a rated pilot, whether they have
category and class, will require the 61.31 endorsement for
solo.



--
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.


"Peter Duniho" wrote in
message ...
| "T o d d P a t t i s t"
wrote in message
| ...
| 61.31(d) (2) is the catchall for training when a
"student"
| already has another rating and it "authorizes someone
other
| than the holder of a Student Pilot certificate to have
solo
| privileges in an aircraft for which they are not
otherwise
| qualified (rated, endorsements, etc)?"
|
| Actually, it's 61.31(d)(3), but close enough. For
some reason I just
| wasn't seeing it. 61.31(d)(2) applies when the pilot is
being supervised
| while receiving training.
|
| [...]
| Note the"or" in the middle. Personally, I think the
correct
| procedure is to make all the required signoffs before
solo.
|
| I'm still not sure. Being shown the regulation that
allows solo
| endorsements for non-student pilots was helpful, but it
still doesn't
| address the question about whether the 61.31(i)
endorsement is required for
| solo in a tailwheel aircraft (for example).
|
| Furthermore, now I'm a bit confused as to why the solo
flight
| privilege/requirements section in 61.87 is needed, given
that 61.31(d)(3)
| exists. Not that I've ever held any misconception that
the FARs are always
| consistent and non-redundant, but still. It seems like a
general-purpose
| regulation that covers all people, regardless of what
pilot certificate they
| hold, would be sufficient. And 61.31(d)(3) seems to cover
this to some
| extent (to be more complete, a one-size-fits-all
regulation would carry the
| additional training requirements that would not have been
covered by
| whatever pilot certificate is already held, if any).
|
| Anyway, the bottom line here is that I'm still not seeing
the resolution to
| the ambiguity about whether the 61.31(i) endorsement is
required for solo
| flight (by a student pilot or otherwise).
|
| Pete
|
|

"Jim Macklin" wrote in message
news:s1g3g.8050$ZW3.5047@dukeread04...
Student pilot does not need the tailwheel endorsement for
solo, student pilots are exempt from 61.31 because they are
covered by 61.87.

Nothing in 61.87 exempts a student pilot from the requirements of 61.31(i)
(or any other portion of 61.31, for that matter).

Pete

But 61.31 exempts student pilot certificate holders.
A student pilot gets all the training and endorsements
required by 61.31 as part of the 61.87 required training...
(i) Additional training required for operating tailwheel
airplanes. (1) Except as provided in paragraph (i)(2) of
this section, no person may act as pilot in command of a
tailwheel airplane unless that person has received and
logged flight training from an authorized instructor in a
tailwheel airplane and received an endorsement in the
person's logbook from an authorized instructor who found the
person proficient in the operation of a tailwheel airplane.
The flight training must include at least the following
maneuvers and procedures:

(i) Normal and crosswind takeoffs and landings;

(ii) Wheel landings (unless the manufacturer has recommended
against such landings); and

(iii) Go-around procedures.

(2) The training and endorsement required by paragraph
(i)(1) of this section is not required if the person logged
pilot-in-command time in a tailwheel airplane before April
15, 1991.



A pilot who has never flown and received training in a
tailwheel aircraft does not have a solo endorsement for such
an aircraft. A student pilot getting pre-solo train does.
Making another, distinct 61.31 endorsement for a pilot who
has soloed [with all the training logged and endorsed] is
redundant. Making the 61.31 tailwheel [or complex] for a
Student Pilot is just a belt and suspenders, it makes it
easier for a later review. I have come to this slightly
altered opinion while reading on this thread.

If there was a tailwheel, complex, high performance and
pressurized airplane that a student pilot might take initial
training for solo and did solo, no further endorsement would
be required by 61.31 for any of those types. But there is
no law that says you cannot make a redundant endorsement as
clarification.


--
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.





"Peter Duniho" wrote in
message ...
| "Jim Macklin" wrote
in message
| news:s1g3g.8050$ZW3.5047@dukeread04...
| Student pilot does not need the tailwheel endorsement
for
| solo, student pilots are exempt from 61.31 because they
are
| covered by 61.87.
|
| Nothing in 61.87 exempts a student pilot from the
requirements of 61.31(i)
| (or any other portion of 61.31, for that matter).
|
| Pete
|
|

"Jim Macklin" wrote in message
newsam3g.8067$ZW3.4469@dukeread04...
But 61.31 exempts student pilot certificate holders.

We have come full circle. The only person who has stated an opinion (so
far) on that question is Bob Moore, and he claims that the 61.31(i)
requirement is not a "rating limitation", and thus is not subject to
61.31(k).

A student pilot gets all the training and endorsements
required by 61.31 as part of the 61.87 required training...

But the student pilot does NOT get the endorsement unless the instructor
writes it. In particular, my understanding is that to meet the legal
requirements for a given FAR requiring an endorsement, the endorsement must
refer to that FAR. For example "so-and-so has been given the necessary
training for FAR 61.31(i) and has been found qualified to operate tailwheel
aircraft" (made up wording...didn't bother to look up the FAA recommended
verbiage).

Just because some other endorsement necessarily includes the training
required by a given endorsement, I don't see any FAR that tells us that
other endorsement satisfies the legal requirements of the given endorsement.
61.87 doesn't tell us that you don't need 61.31(i), and 61.31(i) doesn't
tell us that 61.87 allows you to skip 61.31(i). Nor does any other portion
of 61.31 tell us that 61.87 allows you to skip 61.31(i), and depending on
your intepretation of "rating limitation" even 61.31(k) doesn't tell us that
61.31(i) can be ignored for student pilots.

Thus, we're left with a regulation with no exceptions (61.31(i)), and which
must be referenced specifically in any endorsement intended to satisfy that
requirement.

[...]
A pilot who has never flown and received training in a
tailwheel aircraft does not have a solo endorsement for such
an aircraft. A student pilot getting pre-solo train does.
Making another, distinct 61.31 endorsement for a pilot who
has soloed [with all the training logged and endorsed] is
redundant.

Agreed. But there's nothing in the FARs that tells us that "redundant"
implies legality. Knowing that a second endorsement (or a more complex
single endorsement, referencing two different regulations) is redundant
doesn't answer the question regarding whether doing that is legally required
or not.

[...]
If there was a tailwheel, complex, high performance and
pressurized airplane that a student pilot might take initial
training for solo and did solo, no further endorsement would
be required by 61.31 for any of those types.

That claim is based on the same logic you use to claim no need for the
61.31(i) endorsement for tailwheel aircraft. If your logic is correct, then
the above claim is correct as well. But we have yet to establish that the
redundant endorsement is not required.

But there is
no law that says you cannot make a redundant endorsement as
clarification.

That is definitely true.

Pete

"Jim Macklin" wrote in message news:s1g3g.8050$ZW3.5047@dukeread04...
Student pilot does not need the tailwheel endorsement for
solo, student pilots are exempt from 61.31 because they are
covered by 61.87. However a rated pilot, whether they have
category and class, will require the 61.31 endorsement for
solo.



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

--


except for the grandfather clause...

I logged PIC in a 7KCAB before 1974 and in a complex and
high performance about the same time. I guess that's why I
don't think about those dates much. Besides they are
clearly printed.


".Blueskies." wrote in
message
. net...
|
| "Jim Macklin" wrote
in message news:s1g3g.8050$ZW3.5047@dukeread04...
| Student pilot does not need the tailwheel endorsement
for
| solo, student pilots are exempt from 61.31 because they
are
| covered by 61.87. However a rated pilot, whether they
have
| category and class, will require the 61.31 endorsement
for
| solo.
|
|
|
| --
| James H. Macklin
| ATP,CFI,A&P
|
| --
|
|
| except for the grandfather clause...
|
|