tailwheel endorsement

The 61.31 endorsements are one time and apply to operation
of a whole range of airplanes... the tailwheel endorsement
applies to a Piper Cub, a Beech 18 and a DC 3 and C 46. The
fact that a type rating is required for the C 46 and DC 3
doesn't mean that, unless otherwise covered by the
exemptions, a person applying for a type rating doesn't need
the 61.31 endorsement before the check ride.

A student pilot is covered by the solo requirements of the
90 day sign off, the 61.31 endorsement never expires and
covers any tailwheel airplane. If I was instructing a
student in a tailwheel airplane, I would make the 61.31
endorsement at the time I completed the practical test
recommendation, it isn't needed before and when the student
passes, it will be needed for the flight home.


--
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.


"Bob Moore" wrote in message
. 121...
| Peter Duniho wrote
|
| "Bob Moore" wrote in message
| . 121...
| Agreed. But is required training (and in particular,
training
| required by 61.31(i)) a "rating limitation"?
|
| No...Fist because it can be endorsed by an Authorized
Instructor
| and second probably because it comes under the second
part of the
| title of 61.31 which contains three distinct items:
| "Section 61.31: Type rating requirements, additional
training, and
| authorization requirements".
|
| Well, if it's not a "rating limitation", then 61.31(k)
doesn't apply.
|
| (k) Exceptions.
| (2) The rating limitations of this section do not apply
to-
| (ii) The holder of a student pilot certificate;
|
| They can't apply since a student pilot certificate
contains no ratings,
| only training endorsements.
|
| In addition, any 61.31(i)requirement for student pilots is
more than
| covered by 61.87c and 61.87n
|
| Section 61.87n: Solo requirements for student pilots.
|
| (n) Limitations on student pilots operating an aircraft in
solo flight. A
| student pilot may not operate an aircraft in solo flight
unless that
| student pilot has received:
|
| (1) An endorsement from an authorized instructor on his or
her student
| pilot certificate for the specific make and model aircraft
to be flown; and
|
| (2) An endorsement in the student's logbook for the
specific make and model
| aircraft to be flown by an authorized instructor, who gave
the training
| within the 90 days preceding the date of the flight.
|
| Bob Moore
|

"Bob Moore" wrote in message
. 121...
(k) Exceptions.
(2) The rating limitations of this section do not apply to—
(ii) The holder of a student pilot certificate;

They can't apply since a student pilot certificate contains no ratings,
only training endorsements.

My point is that you have stated that 61.31(i) is not a rating limitation.
As such, 61.31(k) is irrelevant. According to your own statements, it can't
provide an exception to 61.31(i) for student pilots, because it doesn't
apply to 61.31(i) at all. It only applies to "rating limitations", which
61.31(i) is not.

I have to admit, I was ready to accept 61.31(k) as a legitimate exception,
until you effectively explained to me why 61.31(i) is not a rating
limitation. And I see no reason to disagree with your explanation. But
that interpretation (so effectively explained by you) eliminates any
possibility of using 61.31(k) as an exception to 61.31(i).

In addition, any 61.31(i)requirement for student pilots is more than
covered by 61.87c and 61.87n

Not really. While it's true that those student pilot endorsements are more
restrictive than 61.31(i), there's no provision in the FARs allowing a pilot
to take one endorsement (more restrictive or not) and apply it to a
different requirement.

Pete

"Jim Macklin" wrote in message
news:9VK2g.6557$ZW3.5292@dukeread04...
[...] If I was instructing a
student in a tailwheel airplane, I would make the 61.31
endorsement at the time I completed the practical test
recommendation, it isn't needed before

Please explain why it's not needed for student solo. The student is acting
as PIC, and the only exception suggested so far is 61.31(k), which Bob has
explained doesn't apply to 61.31(i).

The student pilot is exempted from the requirements of
61.31, but if the CFI endorsed the student pilot for a
taildragger, that 61.31 endorsement would never expire,
unlike the 90 day solo [proficiency] endorsement a student
pilot is required to have for solo operation.

Doing a 61.31 for a first solo is granting too much to a
student pilot. However I think it should be doing as part
of the paperwork for a private pilot practical test if the
test will be done in a taildragger. When the CFI endorses
for a practical test, he is stating that the applicant is
prepared and qualified as a private pilot and the DPE will
verify that.

As such, the CFI should complete all required 61.31 LIFETIME
endorsements that the student has met, such as complex, high
performance and taildragger (that could be one airplane such
as a Spartan Executive). You would not need to sign off
before the issuance of the private certificate because the
90 day solo student endorsement requirement and you would
need to do so afterward.


--
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:9VK2g.6557$ZW3.5292@dukeread04...
| [...] If I was instructing a
| student in a tailwheel airplane, I would make the 61.31
| endorsement at the time I completed the practical test
| recommendation, it isn't needed before
|
| Please explain why it's not needed for student solo. The
student is acting
| as PIC, and the only exception suggested so far is
61.31(k), which Bob has
| explained doesn't apply to 61.31(i).
|
|

Agreed. But is required training (and in particular, training required by
61.31(i)) a "rating limitation"?

Its a limitation on your private. Your private is limited, prohibiting
tailwheel flying until you have the endorsement. Students are
different, and that is why we don't sign those endorsements until they
take their checkride.

-Robert, CFI

Sport Pilot, Recreational, Private, Commercial and ATP all
require the 61.31 sign-offs as appropriate. I think we can
all agree now, make the 61.31 endorsements that have been
completed at the same time you're reviewing and signing the
logbook just prior to the checkride.



--
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
ups.com...
| Agreed. But is required training (and in particular,
training required by
| 61.31(i)) a "rating limitation"?
|
| Its a limitation on your private. Your private is limited,
prohibiting
| tailwheel flying until you have the endorsement. Students
are
| different, and that is why we don't sign those
endorsements until they
| take their checkride.
|
| -Robert, CFI
|

"Jim Macklin" wrote in message
news:IiP2g.6584$ZW3.578@dukeread04...
The student pilot is exempted from the requirements of
61.31

Why? Why is the student pilot exempted from the requirements of 61.31(i),
in particular?

[...]
Doing a 61.31 for a first solo is granting too much to a
student pilot.

That's a good point, especially given how much latitude 61.31(i) gives the
pilot with respect to other aircraft. But still, so far all I've seen is a
regulation (61.31(k)) that exempts student pilots from some portions of
61.31 and a statement by the same person quoting that regulation that
61.31(i) isn't covered by 61.31(k) (that is, that it's not a "rating
limitation").

Just because it doesn't make sense to require a student to be qualified for
a 61.31(i) endorsement just to have them solo, that doesn't mean the FARs
don't require that. There's lots of stuff in the FARs that don't make much
sense.

Pete

"Robert M. Gary" wrote in message
ups.com...
Agreed. But is required training (and in particular, training required
by
61.31(i)) a "rating limitation"?

Its a limitation on your private. Your private is limited, prohibiting
tailwheel flying until you have the endorsement.

Makes sense to me. But Bob Moore, who has a perfectly respectable opinion
around here, has made a different statement, that 61.31(i) is NOT a rating
limitation, and he seemed to present a sensible argument for that position
as well.

I see two valid interpretations of the regulations, both in conflict with
each other. That was why I was asking about an official definition of
"rating limitation", since understanding how that phrase is used is the key
to figuring out which of the two interpretations is correct.

Got a reference? Is this something that's in the Part 61 FAQ? I'd look
myself, but frankly I've spent enough of my time reading through that
poorly-indexed behemoth to last me a while.

Pete

The whole section does not apply to STUDENT PILOT
certificate holders, the endorsement is not required.
Student pilots are required to have a make and model solo
endorsement on their pilot certificate and a 90 day
endorsement for each airplane they will be allowed to fly
solo.

61.31 is required for solo, PIC solo and passenger carrying.
For instance, a private pilot [or better] can take training
in a Beech 18 for a multiengine rating and be signed off for
solo before the multi checkride. A 61.31 endorsement is
required as well as the training required by the appropriate
FAR section for solo. Since the pilot would be qualified
for a checkride when a careful CFI would sign such a solo
endorsement, it is rarely done. Unless the multiengine
student owned the airplane, likely they could not get
insurance coverage.


--
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:IiP2g.6584$ZW3.578@dukeread04...
| The student pilot is exempted from the requirements of
| 61.31
|
| Why? Why is the student pilot exempted from the
requirements of 61.31(i),
| in particular?
|
| [...]
| Doing a 61.31 for a first solo is granting too much to a
| student pilot.
|
| That's a good point, especially given how much latitude
61.31(i) gives the
| pilot with respect to other aircraft. But still, so far
all I've seen is a
| regulation (61.31(k)) that exempts student pilots from
some portions of
| 61.31 and a statement by the same person quoting that
regulation that
| 61.31(i) isn't covered by 61.31(k) (that is, that it's not
a "rating
| limitation").
|
| Just because it doesn't make sense to require a student to
be qualified for
| a 61.31(i) endorsement just to have them solo, that
doesn't mean the FARs
| don't require that. There's lots of stuff in the FARs
that don't make much
| sense.
|
| Pete
|
|

"Jim Macklin" wrote in message
news:JdW2g.7005$ZW3.3537@dukeread04...
The whole section does not apply to STUDENT PILOT
certificate holders

Says who?

You posting that statement here does not make it fact. I'm certainly
willing to believe it's true (as I've stated in other messages), but so far
I haven't seen any evidence suggesting that it's true.

[...]
61.31 is required for solo, PIC solo and passenger carrying.
For instance, a private pilot [or better] can take training
in a Beech 18 for a multiengine rating and be signed off for
solo before the multi checkride.

Under what regulation? Solo privileges are granted only to student pilots,
under 61.87. What regulation is it that you believe 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)?

A 61.31 endorsement is
required as well as the training required by the appropriate
FAR section for solo.

Since I don't believe someone other than a student pilot can be given solo
privileges in a category and class other than that for which they are rated,
the question of the 61.31 endorsement is moot. Regardless, it's irrelevant
to the question of what a student pilot needs (except possibly to illustrate
yet another inconsistency in the FARs, if true).

Pete