The International Cessna^® 170 Association

Im going to suggest that if the airplane was certificated with a conventional gear, which includes "wheels"...then the pilot must meet the rule using wheels. If the airplane happens to have skis installed today....but the pilot is not legal to fly that same airplane with it's normal wheel undercarriage....then he's also not legal to fly it on skis. The rule implies that if the "aircraft" is certificated as a "tailwheel" airplane....then that airplane may not be flown by a pilot who does not qualify for tailwheel airplanes.

So George I think your saying the same thing I said or ment to say and that is a person who needs a conventional gear sign off would have to demonstrate that capability with a conventional gear aircraft with wheels installed otherwise they couldn't demonstrate a "wheel landing".

I'll have to ask my lawyer if I can say this publicly, but.....Yes....I think I am agreeing.

All airplanes on wheels should be required to have nose wheels!

blueldr wrote:All airplanes on wheels should be required to have nose wheels!

STANDBY FOR INCOMING

I thought if we ignored that nose wheel remark it would go away.

He didn't go away Bruce, so I will contribute. I think two laws need to be changed. On drivers license, I think everybody who gets a drivers license should be required to know how to drive a straight shift, and on pilot's license I think everbody who gets a pilot's license should be required to know how to fly a conventional gear. We have too many automobile steerers rather than drivers, and too many airplane drivers rather than pilots. IMHO.

Harold

The greatest airplane ever developed was the ERCOUPE!
Just think----- A nose wheel and NO rudder pedals. How could you possibly go wrong?

BL,

Do you have a airplane "drivers license" or a airplane "pilots license"?

Harold

blueldr wrote:The greatest airplane ever developed was the ERCOUPE!
Just think----- A nose wheel and NO rudder pedals. How could you possibly go wrong?

You could buy an Ercoupe!
I actually had one of those I'd agreed to buy for $500. It sat in my breezeway for almost 2 years. It had a 85 Continental on it, and nice wings ready for recover. No logs. Also, unfortunately, no clear title.
While I tried to clear up the title (I'd agreed to buy it only if I could get clear title) we'd start it up and taxi it around with no wings on it like a gyrocopter with no rotor.
The data tag was drilled off, but was found under the rear baggage floor. (It was one of the originals with convertible rudder pedals. All you had to do to activate the rudders was move two push-pins on a bellcrank beneath the baggage floor.) The FAA records revealed a lot about the plane, and some detective work determined that a previous owner was found sitting in it, dead from a gunshot to the forehead, ruled as a suicide. The next owner was the last registered owner (and not the person offering it to me.) The person offering it to me was an owner of a auto repair shop who said it was given to him by one of his mechanics. He had to get it off his property because the IRS was coming to take possession of his business. He said he wanted $500 for it. By the time I'd found the last registered owner, I quickly lost interest. He was in a Federal Prison for drugs. He'd gotten it directly from the person who'd "committed suicide", although it was never clear how the dead person executed (sorry for the pun) the bill of sale. A friend of mine (a judge) did some checking and discovered that the last owner's parole officer was also the girlfriend of the auto shop owner (the guy offering it for sale.)
Too much crookedness for me. I wanted it off my property. The judge issued a court order and confiscated it, and the state came and hauled it off after paying for the storage. The parole officer voluntarily reimbursed the state for the state's expenses, and court costs. Go figure.

gahorn wrote:Im going to suggest that if the airplane was certificated with a conventional gear, which includes "wheels"...then the pilot must meet the rule using wheels. If the airplane happens to have skis installed today....but the pilot is not legal to fly that same airplane with it's normal wheel undercarriage....then he's also not legal to fly it on skis. The rule implies that if the "aircraft" is certificated as a "tailwheel" airplane..

You're missing my point. I agree you can't fly a tailwheel airplane on skis if you have no "tailwheel endorsement". but in the course of getting that endorsement, you find someone in the dead of winter, on skis and you get the endorsement in that airplane. Are you legal if you do the "wheel landings" as required by the FAR with skis on?? If not, what do you call a wheel landing when you do it with skis on??

A ski landing.

S2D wrote:

gahorn wrote:Im going to suggest that if the airplane was certificated with a conventional gear, which includes "wheels"...then the pilot must meet the rule using wheels. If the airplane happens to have skis installed today....but the pilot is not legal to fly that same airplane with it's normal wheel undercarriage....then he's also not legal to fly it on skis. The rule implies that if the "aircraft" is certificated as a "tailwheel" airplane..

You're missing my point. I agree you can't fly a tailwheel airplane on skis if you have no "tailwheel endorsement". but in the course of getting that endorsement, you find someone in the dead of winter, on skis and you get the endorsement in that airplane. Are you legal if you do the "wheel landings" as required by the FAR with skis on?? If not, what do you call a wheel landing when you do it with skis on??

I got the point, I think, Brian. My opinion was "if the airplane was certificated with a conventional gear, which includes "wheels"...then the pilot must meet the rule using wheels."

I can get by the tail wheel endorsement. One more question though... If I now fly in an aircraft with a nose wheel will I have to get an endorsement? I now know about the "skid" endorsement but will I have to get an endorsement if the elevator sits in the front of the plane? thanks

There is no endoresment needed for a canard aircraft that I'm aware of