tailwheel endorsement

[Jose]

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?

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

[[email protected]]

The endorsement for solo specifies the type of aircraft and should
suffice for the specific tailwheel endorsement.

[Peter Duniho]

"Jose" > wrote in message
om...
> 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?

Why wouldn't he?

The student pilot needs the endorsement just to solo. But even if he
didn't, there's no exception allowing a pilot taking the practical flight
exam in a tailwheel airplane to get away without the endorsement. A pilot
taking the exam in a nosewheel airplane would require the same endorsement.

Pete

[Jim Macklin]

The student solo endorsement is for the specific make and
model, which may be a tailwheel [conventional] airplane.
But just to be on the safe side, as part of the long list of
endorsements required by FAR 61.31, I would make the 61.31
entry and any other that applied, such as complex, high
performance or high altitude. A few lines of hand written
text and a signature don't take much time or cost very much
and could save a lot of questions later.



--
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.


"Jose" > wrote in message
om...
| 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?
|
| Jose
| --
| The price of freedom is... well... freedom.
| for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Jose]

> 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.

[[email protected]]

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

[Jim Macklin]

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.

[BTIZ]

I do not think that is correct.. a "student" pilot does not need all the
funny endorsements while a student.. but once graduated.. he does..

we run into this with glider students... the student endorsement does not
specify type of launch procedure.. but after the check ride.. he needs the
endorsement

BT

> wrote in message
oups.com...
> The endorsement for solo specifies the type of aircraft and should
> suffice for the specific tailwheel endorsement.
>

[Robert M. Gary]

Peter Duniho wrote:

> The student pilot needs the endorsement just to solo.

Student pilots are exempt from the endorsement requirement since they
are "type rated" to that aircraft.

-Robert, CFI

[Morgans]

"Jose" > wrote

> The student will have never soloed a nosewheel. His first step into one
> will be with an FAA examiner, who has decided to let him take the test in
> the nosewheel aircraft.

I find it hard to believe that a competent instructor would stick a student
into a nose dragger, with no dual given - before a solo, or a checkride. It
just doesn't seem logical.
--
Jim in NC

[Robert M. Gary]

> 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;

[Jose]

> I find it hard to believe that a competent instructor would...

I do too, but that begs the question of whether, =given= that the
instructor did this and the examiner allowed it, would the student be
legally able to fly a taildragger without a separate endorsement. I can
actually think of scenarios where this might occur, but it is not
necessary to do so in order that the question make sense.

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

[Jim Macklin]

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;
|

[Jose]

> 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.

[Morgans]

"Jose" > wrote
>
> I do too, but that begs the question of whether, =given= that the
> instructor did this and the examiner allowed it, would the student be
> legally able to fly a taildragger without a separate endorsement. I can
> actually think of scenarios where this might occur, but it is not
> necessary to do so in order that the question make sense.

As others have written, the student does need to go back, and have an
instructor that taught him in a tailwheel write an endorsement.

It also brings up another question. How would the student fly a nose
dragger, that he had never been signed off in? It is my understanding that
a student must be signed off in every different model of plane.
--
Jim in NC

[[email protected]]

Jose
I think the examiner couldn't do it without the proper endorsements on
the license for the aricraft being used for the flight check.

[Jose]

> How would the student fly a nose dragger, that he had never been signed off in? It is my understanding that a student must be signed off in every different model of plane.

One scenario - the student is the daugher of a CFI who owns a 152 and
she has flown it right seat since she was twelve (with the father in the
plane of course!) None of this time was logged but the student is
competent. The daughter wants to learn to fly, but "not from daddy" and
falls in love with a blue cub on the field. The instructor's cute too.

She takes lessons, gets all the way to the checkout, and the cub moves
on. The cub owner is a friend of dad and knows how the daughter flies
the 152 (in fact, she has flown them both in a 172) quite competently.

So, the instructor signs her off for the test and the FAA examiner takes
her for the checkride, which she passes.

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

[Robert M. Gary]

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

[[email protected]]

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

[Robert M. Gary]

> 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

[Peter Duniho]

"BTIZ" > wrote in message
news:kzg2g.8412$Qz.914@fed1read11...
>I do not think that is correct.. a "student" pilot does not need all the
>funny endorsements while a student.. but once graduated.. he does..

The endorsement is required when acting as PIC. A student pilot flying solo
is acting as PIC. Ergo, the endorsement is required by a student pilot
flying solo.

[Peter Duniho]

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Student pilots are exempt from the endorsement requirement since they
> are "type rated" to that aircraft.

What FAR grants that exemption?

[kontiki]

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.

[Jim Macklin]

You don't have to surrender your Student certificate since
it is also likely to be your medical.


--
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...
|> 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
|

[Jim Macklin]

Still the student pilot must have a solo endorsement for
each make and model on the student pilot certificate and a
90 day solo endorsement in the logbook to be qualified to
take 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.


"Jose" > wrote in message
. com...
|> How would the student fly a nose dragger, that he had
never been signed off in? It is my understanding that a
student must be signed off in every different model of
plane.
|
| One scenario - the student is the daugher of a CFI who
owns a 152 and
| she has flown it right seat since she was twelve (with the
father in the
| plane of course!) None of this time was logged but the
student is
| competent. The daughter wants to learn to fly, but "not
from daddy" and
| falls in love with a blue cub on the field. The
instructor's cute too.
|
| She takes lessons, gets all the way to the checkout, and
the cub moves
| on. The cub owner is a friend of dad and knows how the
daughter flies
| the 152 (in fact, she has flown them both in a 172) quite
competently.
|
| So, the instructor signs her off for the test and the FAA
examiner takes
| her for the checkride, which she passes.
|
| Jose
| --
| The price of freedom is... well... freedom.
| for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Jim Macklin]

Correct, all endorsements are required as part of the
practical test requirements.

Make/model and 90 day. If the student has to fly to a
different airport for the test, a round-trip solo
endorsement is required [make it round trip so the examiner
doesn't have to sign them off for a return flight in case
the student fails the 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.


> wrote in message
ps.com...
| Jose
| I think the examiner couldn't do it without the proper
endorsements on
| the license for the aricraft being used for the flight
check.
|

[Dave S]

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?
>
> Jose

He needs an endorsement before he can solo the tailwheel... he cannot be
PIC until he has the endorsement, and as sole occupant he IS the PIC.

Dave

[Robert M. Gary]

> What FAR grants that exemption?

61.31(k)(2)(ii)

[Jose]

> Still the student pilot must have a solo endorsement for
> each make and model on the student pilot certificate and a
> 90 day solo endorsement in the logbook to be qualified to
> take the practical test.

Ok, would this suffice as a (permanent) tailwheel endorsement?

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

[Peter Duniho]

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>> What FAR grants that exemption?
>
> 61.31(k)(2)(ii)

Thanks. I did see that (later). I also saw someone else state that the
tailwheel restriction isn't a rating limitation.

I personally don't see why it's not a rating limitation, but do you have an
official definition of "rating limitation" to use to properly understand
61.31(k)(2)(ii)?

Pete

[Jose]

> but do you have an
> official definition of "rating limitation" to use to properly understand
> 61.31(k)(2)(ii)?

No, but the definition of rating is implicit in its use in that same
section. 61.31.... (a) type rating required... (c) aircraft category,
class, and type ratings... (d) aircraft category, class, and type
ratings... and then (e), (f), and (g) specify "training", not "rating".

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

[Bob Moore]

Jose wrote

>> but do you have an
>> official definition of "rating limitation" to use to properly
>> understand 61.31(k)(2)(ii)?
>
> No, but the definition of rating is implicit in its use in that same
> section. 61.31.... (a) type rating required... (c) aircraft category,
> class, and type ratings... (d) aircraft category, class, and type
> ratings... and then (e), (f), and (g) specify "training", not
> "rating".

Anything pertaining to "rating" is a certificate action accomplished by
either an FAA Inspector or a Designated Examiner.
Anything pertaining to "training" may be accomplished and endorsed by
an Authorized Instructor.

Bob Moore
Authorized Instructor

[Peter Duniho]

"Bob Moore" > wrote in message
. 121...
> Anything pertaining to "rating" is a certificate action accomplished by
> either an FAA Inspector or a Designated Examiner.
> Anything pertaining to "training" may be accomplished and endorsed by
> an Authorized Instructor.

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

[Jim Macklin]

I think the endorsement has to reference 61.31 as well as
the other parts of 61.


--
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.


"Jose" > wrote in message
...
|> Still the student pilot must have a solo endorsement for
| > each make and model on the student pilot certificate and
a
| > 90 day solo endorsement in the logbook to be qualified
to
| > take the practical test.
|
| Ok, would this suffice as a (permanent) tailwheel
endorsement?
|
| Jose
| --
| The price of freedom is... well... freedom.
| for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Bob Moore]

Peter Duniho wrote

> 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".
Since the tailwheel requirement is specifically labeled:
"(i) Additional training required for operating tailwheel airplanes."
This would seem to exclude it from the "Type Rating Requirements".

Bob Moore

[Peter Duniho]

"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.

Got a different exception? So far, as near as I can tell, a student pilot
DOES need the tailwheel endorsement for solo flight.

Pete

[Jose]

> Well, if it's not a "rating limitation", then 61.31(k) doesn't apply.

Sounds to me that that clinches it. So a student pilot would need the
endorsement before solo, and would therefore already have the
endorsement by the time he took the checkride, and it would still be
valid (since there is nothing to invalidate it).

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

[Cub Driver]

On Fri, 21 Apr 2006 21:39:28 GMT, 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?

He will get the endorsement as a matter of course.

I thought it would have been given prior to solo, but I see that mine
is dated *after* my flight test! Evidently the instructor overlooked
it. So perhaps you should nudge the CFI.





-- all the best, Dan Ford

email: usenet AT danford DOT net

Warbird's Forum: www.warbirdforum.com
Piper Cub Forum: www.pipercubforum.com
In Search of Lost Time: www.readingproust.com

[Cub Driver]

On Sat, 22 Apr 2006 23:09:37 -0700, "Peter Duniho"
> wrote:

>Got a different exception? So far, as near as I can tell, a student pilot
>DOES need the tailwheel endorsement for solo flight.

As I just posted (sorry! I'm late to this thread), I didn't have it
until after I'd gotten my certificate. But I suspect this was an
oversight.

If you-all like, I'll ask the instructors at the airport, which does
all its primary training in Cubs.

Note however that even when flying solo, the student is under the
supervision of the instructor, so that may obviate the need for the
endorsement. In my case, the instructor (now a friend) actually drove
up from the neighboring state on each of my cross-country solo flights
and sat around the airport for hours at no pay; he was that meticulous
about supervising.


-- all the best, Dan Ford

email: usenet AT danford DOT net

Warbird's Forum: www.warbirdforum.com
Piper Cub Forum: www.pipercubforum.com
In Search of Lost Time: www.readingproust.com

[Bob Moore]

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

[Jim Macklin]

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
|

[Peter Duniho]

"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

[Peter Duniho]

"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).

[Jim Macklin]

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).
|
|

[Robert M. Gary]

> 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]

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
|

[Peter Duniho]

"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

[Peter Duniho]

"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

[Jim Macklin]

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
|
|

[Peter Duniho]

"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

[Jim Macklin]

I had an Air Force KC 135 command pilot come to me to get a
CFI. His ratings at the time were ATP MEL Boeing 707. He
had not single-engine rating.

To train him for the single-engine CFI he needed training
and solo practice. The same areas of operation required for
a student pilot solo must also be demonstrated by any pilot
seeking to solo.

I flew with the tanker pilot, taught him how to fly from a
civilian airport [up to that point, when he called for taxi,
the military tower knew where he was parked, where he was
going and when he'd be back], taught him how to find grass
strips and even how to talk on the radio. He was a very
sharp pilot and fast learner, but he had never flown behind
a piston engine, prop or very much solo. As soon as we had
covered the required operations 61.87 I signed him off for
solo in single engine and complex aircraft. He then flew
solo, in an aircraft for which he was not rated to gain
experience. He could legally fly IFR but could not carry
passengers or fly for hire. We had to get him to the
commercial level and the CFI. It didn't take long, he made
several solo trips and we flew dual a total of about 15
hours (remember 10 hours is required for adding a commercial
certificate) and he did not holds ASEL.
He took his CP ASEL additional rating from the local DPE on
one morning and his CFI from the feds that afternoon.

It could have been the other way around. Another case, when
I was chief flight instructor, a student pilot asked me to
authorize a solo flight from Wichita to Hutchinson, Kansas
[about 35 miles]. He was not my regular student and his
instructor was out of town. I was scheduled with a another
student and just had a few minutes to review his paperwork.
Problems, his 90 day solo had expired and he had not been
signed off yet for solo cross-country flights. I said
"Sorry, don't have time to fly with you today." He said not
to worry, he'd just go fly his balloon. He then pulled a
Commercial lighter than air balloon certificate out of his
wallet.

He was signed off for solo and he was a rated pilot, I told
him to go ahead since he was a rated pilot and the student
pilot restrictions did not apply to him, but that 61.31 did,
so he could only fly solo until he took 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.


"Peter Duniho" > wrote in
message ...
| "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
|
|

[Peter Duniho]

"Jim Macklin" > wrote in message
news:QCZ2g.7750$ZW3.3692@dukeread04...
>I had an Air Force KC 135 command pilot come to me to get a
> CFI. His ratings at the time were ATP MEL Boeing 707. He
> had not single-engine rating.
> [lengthy narrative snipped]

Your own personal experience does not constitute rule-making.

Under what rule was that pilot allowed to fly solo without the necessary
category and class rating? On what Student Pilot certificate did you make
the required solo endorsement?

[Jim Macklin]

The rated pilot, holding a pilot certificate does not need a
student certificate. FAR 61.31 and 61.63 and
(c) Aircraft category, class, and type ratings: Limitations
on the carriage of persons, or operating for compensation or
hire. Unless a person holds a category, class, and type
rating (if a class and type rating is required) that applies
to the aircraft, that person may not act as pilot in command
of an aircraft that is carrying another person, or is
operated for compensation or hire. That person also may not
act as pilot in command of that aircraft for compensation or
hire.

(d) Aircraft category, class, and type ratings: Limitations
on operating an aircraft as the pilot in command. To serve
as the pilot in command of an aircraft, a person must-

(1) Hold the appropriate category, class, and type rating
(if a class rating and type rating are required) for the
aircraft to be flown;

(2) Be receiving training for the purpose of obtaining an
additional pilot certificate and rating that are appropriate
to that aircraft, and be under the supervision of an
authorized instructor; or

(3) Have received training required by this part that is
appropriate to the aircraft category, class, and type rating
(if a class or type rating is required) for the aircraft to
be flown, and have received the required endorsements from
an instructor who is authorized to provide the required
endorsements for solo flight in that aircraft.

(e) Additional training required for operating complex
airplanes. (1) Except as provided in paragraph (e)(2) of
this section, no person may act as pilot in command of a
complex airplane (an airplane that has a retractable landing
gear, flaps, and a controllable pitch propeller; or, in the
case of a seaplane, flaps and a controllable pitch
propeller), unless the person has-

(i) Received and logged ground and flight training from an
authorized instructor in a complex airplane, or in a flight
simulator or flight training device that is representative
of a complex airplane, and has been found proficient in the
operation and systems of the airplane; and

(ii) Received a one-time endorsement in the pilot's logbook
from an authorized instructor who certifies the person is
proficient to operate a complex airplane.

(2) The training and endorsement required by paragraph
(e)(1) of this section is not required if the person has
logged flight time as pilot in command of a complex
airplane, or in a flight simulator or flight training device
that is representative of a complex airplane prior to August
4, 1997.

(f) Additional training required for operating
high-performance airplanes. (1) Except as provided in
paragraph (f)(2) of this section, no person may act as pilot
in command of a high-performance airplane (an airplane with
an engine of more than 200 horsepower), unless the person
has-

(i) Received and logged ground and flight training from an
authorized instructor in a high-performance airplane, or in
a flight simulator or flight training device that is
representative of a high-performance airplane, and has been
found proficient in the operation and systems of the
airplane; and

(ii) Received a one-time endorsement in the pilot's logbook
from an authorized instructor who certifies the person is
proficient to operate a high-performance airplane.

(2) The training and endorsement required by paragraph
(f)(1) of this section is not required if the person has
logged flight time as pilot in command of a high-performance
airplane, or in a flight simulator or flight training device
that is representative of a high-performance airplane prior
to August 4, 1997.

(g) Additional training required for operating pressurized
aircraft capable of operating at high altitudes. (1) Except
as provided in paragraph (g)(3) of this section, no person
may act as pilot in command of a pressurized aircraft (an
aircraft that has a service ceiling or maximum operating
altitude, whichever is lower, above 25,000 feet MSL), unless
that person has received and logged ground training from an
authorized instructor and obtained an endorsement in the
person's logbook or training record from an authorized
instructor who certifies the person has satisfactorily
accomplished the ground training. The ground training must
include at least the following subjects:

(i) High-altitude aerodynamics and meteorology;

(ii) Respiration;

(iii) Effects, symptoms, and causes of hypoxia and any other
high-altitude sickness;

(iv) Duration of consciousness without supplemental oxygen;

(v) Effects of prolonged usage of supplemental oxygen;

(vi) Causes and effects of gas expansion and gas bubble
formation;

(vii) Preventive measures for eliminating gas expansion, gas
bubble formation, and high-altitude sickness;

(viii) Physical phenomena and incidents of decompression;
and

(ix) Any other physiological aspects of high-altitude
flight.

(2) Except as provided in paragraph (g)(3) of this section,
no person may act as pilot in command of a pressurized
aircraft unless that person has received and logged training
from an authorized instructor in a pressurized aircraft, or
in a flight simulator or flight training device that is
representative of a pressurized aircraft, and obtained an
endorsement in the person's logbook or training record from
an authorized instructor who found the person proficient in
the operation of a pressurized aircraft. The flight training
must include at least the following subjects:

(i) Normal cruise flight operations while operating above
25,000 feet MSL;

(ii) Proper emergency procedures for simulated rapid
decompression without actually depressurizing the aircraft;
and

(iii) Emergency descent procedures.

(3) The training and endorsement required by paragraphs
(g)(1) and (g)(2) of this section are not required if that
person can document satisfactory accomplishment of any of
the following in a pressurized aircraft, or in a flight
simulator or flight training device that is representative
of a pressurized aircraft:

(i) Serving as pilot in command before April 15, 1991;

(ii) Completing a pilot proficiency check for a pilot
certificate or rating before April 15, 1991;

(iii) Completing an official pilot-in-command check
conducted by the military services of the United States; or

(iv) Completing a pilot-in-command proficiency check under
part 121, 125, or 135 of this chapter conducted by the
Administrator or by an approved pilot check airman.

(h) Additional aircraft type-specific training. No person
may serve as pilot in command of an aircraft that the
Administrator has determined requires aircraft type-specific
training unless that person has-

(1) Received and logged type-specific training in the
aircraft, or in a flight simulator or flight training device
that is representative of that type of aircraft; and

(2) Received a logbook endorsement from an authorized
instructor who has found the person proficient in the
operation of the aircraft and its systems.

(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.

...

| "Jim Macklin" > wrote
in message
| news:QCZ2g.7750$ZW3.3692@dukeread04...
| >I had an Air Force KC 135 command pilot come to me to get
a
| > CFI. His ratings at the time were ATP MEL Boeing 707.
He
| > had not single-engine rating.
| > [lengthy narrative snipped]
|
| Your own personal experience does not constitute
rule-making.
|
| Under what rule was that pilot allowed to fly solo without
the necessary
| category and class rating? On what Student Pilot
certificate did you make
| the required solo endorsement?
|
|

[Sylvain]

Jim Macklin wrote:

> To train him for the single-engine CFI he needed training
> and solo practice.

just a question: you say that he needed solo practice
because he wished to do so, right? (twould make sense,
to get a bit more stick time in the aircraft without having
to pay an instructor); but he actually was not required to
fly solo to get his single engine class rating if I understand
61.63(c)(4) correctly...

--Sylvain

[Bob Moore]

Peter Duniho wrote

> Under what rule was that pilot allowed to fly solo without the
> necessary category and class rating? On what Student Pilot
> certificate did you make the required solo endorsement?

Not the same situation, but......

(k) Exceptions.

(2) The rating limitations of this section do not apply to—

(i) An applicant when taking a practical test given by an examiner;

(ii) The holder of a student pilot certificate;

(iii) The holder of a pilot certificate when operating an aircraft under
the authority of—

(A) A provisional type certificate; or

(B) An experimental certificate, unless the operation involves carrying
a passenger;


If one builds a homebuilt twin, he does not need a MEL Certificate
in order to fly it solo.

However, if it is a homebuilt tailwheel airplane, he must have the
tailwheel endorsement because by being a "additional training
requirement" instead of a "rating requirement" it is not waived by
k(iii)(B)

Bob Moore

[Jim Macklin]

WE decided that since so much of his time was multi jet time
in a crew as both SIC and PIC he needed to get comfortable
with such things as P-factor and grass strips. He didn't
need to pay for me and I did have other students. I always
tried to save then students as much money as possible, so I
signed him off for solo and let him get comfortable.


--
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.


"Sylvain" > wrote in message
...
| Jim Macklin wrote:
|
| > To train him for the single-engine CFI he needed
training
| > and solo practice.
|
| just a question: you say that he needed solo practice
| because he wished to do so, right? (twould make sense,
| to get a bit more stick time in the aircraft without
having
| to pay an instructor); but he actually was not required to
| fly solo to get his single engine class rating if I
understand
| 61.63(c)(4) correctly...
|
| --Sylvain

[Peter Duniho]

"Jim Macklin" > wrote in message
news:Jk_2g.7756$ZW3.7214@dukeread04...
> [...]
> (d) Aircraft category, class, and type ratings: Limitations
> on operating an aircraft as the pilot in command. To serve
> as the pilot in command of an aircraft, a person must-
> [...] or
>
> (3) Have received training required by this part that is
> appropriate to the aircraft category, class, and type rating
> (if a class or type rating is required) for the aircraft to
> be flown, and have received the required endorsements from
> an instructor who is authorized to provide the required
> endorsements for solo flight in that aircraft.

Thank you. It seemed like such a regulation must have existed, but I
couldn't find it (and to be fair, you weren't providing it earlier).

That was exactly the information I needed to be properly informed.

[BTIZ]

as others have stated... 61.31(d)(3) is the paragraph used to solo flying of
power rated pilots working to get their glider rating.. it is an
"authorization to act as PIC in an aircraft that he does not hold the
appropriate category or class rating.

reference is AC61-65E, Appendix 1, published 11/29/2005, item 62

see also, 61.63(b) and 61.63 (c) for endorsements for recommendation to take
the practical test

BT


"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
> "Jim Macklin" > wrote in message
> news:QCZ2g.7750$ZW3.3692@dukeread04...
>>I had an Air Force KC 135 command pilot come to me to get a
>> CFI. His ratings at the time were ATP MEL Boeing 707. He
>> had not single-engine rating.
>> [lengthy narrative snipped]
>
> Your own personal experience does not constitute rule-making.
>
> Under what rule was that pilot allowed to fly solo without the necessary
> category and class rating? On what Student Pilot certificate did you make
> the required solo endorsement?
>

[Peter Duniho]

"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]

We all were says 61.31, that is more than just the tailwheel
verbiage. Glad it was final resolved.


"Peter Duniho" > wrote in
message ...
| "Jim Macklin" > wrote
in message
| news:Jk_2g.7756$ZW3.7214@dukeread04...
| > [...]
| > (d) Aircraft category, class, and type ratings:
Limitations
| > on operating an aircraft as the pilot in command. To
serve
| > as the pilot in command of an aircraft, a person must-
| > [...] or
| >
| > (3) Have received training required by this part that is
| > appropriate to the aircraft category, class, and type
rating
| > (if a class or type rating is required) for the aircraft
to
| > be flown, and have received the required endorsements
from
| > an instructor who is authorized to provide the required
| > endorsements for solo flight in that aircraft.
|
| Thank you. It seemed like such a regulation must have
existed, but I
| couldn't find it (and to be fair, you weren't providing it
earlier).
|
| That was exactly the information I needed to be properly
informed.
|
|

[Jim Macklin]

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
|
|

[Peter Duniho]

"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]

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
|
|

[Peter Duniho]

"Jim Macklin" > wrote in message
news:Dam3g.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

[.Blueskies.]

"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...

[Jim Macklin]

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...
|
|