Non-TW CFI cannot give Flight Review in TW

[Hilton]

Hi,

John Lynch's latest FAQ (#19) says:

Question: The situation is a flight instructor has asked the question
whether he can give a flight review in a tailwheel airplane and yet he has
not previously met the additional training requirements for operating a
tailwheel airplane [i.e., § 61.31(i)].

Answer: Ref. § 61.1(b)(2); § 61.56(c)(1); No, a flight instructor cannot
give a flight review in a tailwheel airplane unless he has complied with §
61.31(i). Per § 61.56(c)(1), it states, in pertinent part, ". . . by an
authorized instructor . . . ." Per § 61.1(b)(2)(ii), it states, in
pertinent part, ". . . in accordance with the privileges and limitations of
his or her flight instructor certificate . . . ." The flight instructor
would not be considered an "authorized instructor" for giving a flight
review in a tailwheel airplane.

Hilton

[Ron Natalie]

"Hilton" > wrote in message ink.net...
> Hi,
>
> John Lynch's latest FAQ (#19) says:
>
> Question: The situation is a flight instructor has asked the question
> whether he can give a flight review in a tailwheel airplane and yet he has
> not previously met the additional training requirements for operating a
> tailwheel airplane [i.e., § 61.31(i)].
>
> Answer: Ref. § 61.1(b)(2); § 61.56(c)(1); No, a flight instructor cannot
> give a flight review in a tailwheel airplane unless he has complied with §
> 61.31(i). Per § 61.56(c)(1), it states, in pertinent part, ". . . by an
> authorized instructor . . . ." Per § 61.1(b)(2)(ii), it states, in
> pertinent part, ". . . in accordance with the privileges and limitations of
> his or her flight instructor certificate . . . ." The flight instructor
> would not be considered an "authorized instructor" for giving a flight
> review in a tailwheel airplane.

Seems like Lynch is making things up again. Flight instructor certificates
do not have any tail dragger limitations. The certificate only has category
and class ratings. The only limitations are that the instructors pilot certificate
have the approprate category, class and type rating. There is no make/model
requirement for single engine.


>

[G.R. Patterson III]

Ron Natalie wrote:
>
> Seems like Lynch is making things up again.

Sounds like it to me. IIRC, only two of the several CFIs from whom I have taken
reviews in tailwheel aircraft actually had the tailwheel signoff. It was simply
made clear to me by the others that they could not serve as PIC and I was not to
think that they were PIC on the flight. The FAR that Lynch quotes requires a
"qualified instructor", not that the instructor be a qualified PIC.

George Patterson
Great discoveries are not announced with "Eureka!". What's usually said is
"Hummmmm... That's interesting...."

[Jim]

I gave a TW pilot a BFR several months ago. I'm not tw-endorsed. My
reasons were as Ron stated above. I made it clear that I could not act as
PIC. I still will not however act as a safety pilot for him during IFR work
because I am not endorsed to act as PIC of a tailwheel aircraft.
--
Jim Burns III

Remove "nospam" to reply


"G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Ron Natalie wrote:
> >
> > Seems like Lynch is making things up again.
>
> Sounds like it to me. IIRC, only two of the several CFIs from whom I have
taken
> reviews in tailwheel aircraft actually had the tailwheel signoff. It was
simply
> made clear to me by the others that they could not serve as PIC and I was
not to
> think that they were PIC on the flight. The FAR that Lynch quotes requires
a
> "qualified instructor", not that the instructor be a qualified PIC.
>
> George Patterson
> Great discoveries are not announced with "Eureka!". What's usually
said is
> "Hummmmm... That's interesting...."

[Ron Natalie]

"Jim" > wrote in message ...
> I gave a TW pilot a BFR several months ago. I'm not tw-endorsed. My
> reasons were as Ron stated above. I made it clear that I could not act as
> PIC. I still will not however act as a safety pilot for him during IFR work
> because I am not endorsed to act as PIC of a tailwheel aircraft.

Nothing requires a safety pilot to be PIC either.

[Jim]

Oops, I entered the logging/acting trap and got bit. You're right, a safety
pilot is only a necessary crewmember and MAY log PIC, but it doesn't mean he
has to act as PIC (and then can't log it as PIC either).
--
Jim Burns III

Remove "nospam" to reply

"Ron Natalie" > wrote in message
m...
>
> Nothing requires a safety pilot to be PIC either.
>

[Michael]

"Hilton" > wrote
> Question: The situation is a flight instructor has asked the question
> whether he can give a flight review in a tailwheel airplane and yet he has
> not previously met the additional training requirements for operating a
> tailwheel airplane [i.e., § 61.31(i)].
>
> Answer: Ref. § 61.1(b)(2); § 61.56(c)(1); No, a flight instructor cannot
> give a flight review in a tailwheel airplane unless he has complied with §
> 61.31(i). Per § 61.56(c)(1), it states, in pertinent part, ". . . by an
> authorized instructor . . . ." Per § 61.1(b)(2)(ii), it states, in
> pertinent part, ". . . in accordance with the privileges and limitations of
> his or her flight instructor certificate . . . ." The flight instructor
> would not be considered an "authorized instructor" for giving a flight
> review in a tailwheel airplane.

Just because Lynch says it don't make it so. This has been
demonstrated to everyone's satisfaction multiple times. The FAQ is
neither regulatory nor authoritative.

Lynch is correct in that the definition of an authorized instructor is
given in 61.1(b)(2)(ii). The pertinent part is indeed ". . . in
accordance with the privileges and limitations of his or her flight
instructor certificate . . . ."

The privileges and limitations of a flight instructor certificate are
defined by 61.193 and 61.195 respectively.

61.193 Flight instructor privileges.
A person who holds a flight instructor certificate is authorized
within the
limitations of that person's flight instructor certificate and ratings
to give
training and endorsements that are required for, and relate to:
(g) A flight review, operating privilege, or recency of experience
requirement
of this part;

Note that it mentions only "flight instructor certificate and ratings"
and not a word about endorsements. Tailwheel is an endorsement, not a
rating. Note that it also says nothing about recency of experience,
medical requirements, or any of the other things that are relevant to
acting as PIC.

61.195 Flight instructor limitations and qualifications.
A person who holds a flight instructor certificate is subject to the
following
limitations:
(b) Aircraft ratings. A flight instructor may not conduct flight
training in any aircraft for which the flight instructor does not
hold:
(1) A pilot certificate and flight instructor certificate with the
applicable
category and class rating; and
(2) If appropriate, a type rating.

Once again, note that there is not a word about endorsements, recency
of experience, medical, etc.

In other words, Lynch is simply wrong. Again.

Michael

[Robert M. Gary]

"G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message >...

> Sounds like it to me. IIRC, only two of the several CFIs from whom I have taken
> reviews in tailwheel aircraft actually had the tailwheel signoff. It was simply
> made clear to me by the others that they could not serve as PIC and I was not to
> think that they were PIC on the flight. The FAR that Lynch quotes requires a
> "qualified instructor", not that the instructor be a qualified PIC.

My Lynch also says a CFI, non-CFII cannot take a student into the
clouds because it is not "within the limits of his certificate"
61.193.

He doesn't always seem to make sense.

[Hilton]

Michael wrote:
> Just because Lynch says it don't make it so. This has been
> demonstrated to everyone's satisfaction multiple times. The FAQ is
> neither regulatory nor authoritative.

FWIW: After posting I thought I should have said: "I'm just the messenger
here." :)

The FAQ is a great idea, if only 'they' could get it right... :|

Hilton

[G.R. Patterson III]

Jim wrote:
>
> I still will not however act as a safety pilot for him during IFR work
> because I am not endorsed to act as PIC of a tailwheel aircraft.

You only have to be rated in category and class to be a safety pilot. The safety
pilot is not acting PIC.

George Patterson
Great discoveries are not announced with "Eureka!". What's usually said is
"Hummmmm... That's interesting...."

[Hilton]

Looks like the FSDO just referenced and quoted Lynch.

Hilton


"Gene Kearns" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 16 Jan 2004 06:08:24 GMT, "Hilton" >
> wrote:
>[i]
> >Hi,
> >
> >John Lynch's latest FAQ (#19) says:
> >
>
> <snip>
>
> I don't pretend to know the "correct" answer, but here are the words
> of another "authority."
>
> We took your question about the tailwheel BFR to the local FSDO, who
> shot it up to the FAA Headquarters, who just came out with this
> official stance:
>
> Question: The situation is a flight instructor has asked the question
> whether he can give a flight review in a tailwheel airplane and yet he
> has not previously met the additional training requirements for
> operating a tailwheel airplane .
>
> Answer: Ref. § 61.1(b)(2); § 61.56(c)(1); No, a flight instructor
> cannot give a flight review in a tailwheel airplane unless he has
> complied with § 61.31(i). Per § 61.56(c)(1), it states, in pertinent
> part, ". . . by an authorized instructor . . . ." Per §
> 61.1(b)(2)(ii), it states, in pertinent part, ". . . in accordance
> with the privileges and limitations of his or her flight instructor
> certificate . . . ." The flight instructor would not be considered an
> "authorized instructor" for giving a flight review in a tailwheel
> airplane.
>
>
>
> Paul Berge
> Brainteaser #66 Author
> Editor, IFR Magazine
>
> reference; http://www.avweb.com/news/avmail/184110-1.html
>

[Michael]

"Hilton" > wrote
> FWIW: After posting I thought I should have said: "I'm just the messenger
> here." :)

I'm sorry if I sounded like I was taking issue with you. That was not
the intent. The problem is Lynch.

> The FAQ is a great idea, if only 'they' could get it right... :|

That's a good general description of the FAA, not just that particular
FAQ. Usually, the FAA acts only when there is a real problem (some
call this regulation by body count...). It's pretty rare for the FAA
to do something for no reason at all.

However, when they do something they usually fail to fix the problem,
and only succeed in causing more problems.

Lynch's FAQ is a perfect example. Problem: The FAR's are complex and
difficult to understand. Many people (especially those who are not
lawyers) have a hard time interpreting them and determining if a given
operation is legal. A list of frequently asked questions and
AUTHORITATIVE answers is a great idea. Therefore, Lynch starts the
FAQ.

Unfortunately, it is neither authoritative nor correct. Therefore,
the problem is in no way diminished. What's worse, we now have
blatant misinterpretations floating around. Thus the situation is
made even worse than if Lynch had done nothing.

Michael

[Stevenatherton]

Non-TW CFI cannot give Flight Review in TW

wheres tw and why not