The International Cessna^® 170 Association

A CFI does not require a tailwheel endorsement to conduct a flight review in a tailwheel airplane unless that CFI is the pilot in command during the flight. If the person taking the BFR is current and qualified to be PIC (current flight review, medical, 3 t.o. & lndg in preceeding 90 days) he/she is PIC and the CFI is acting as an instructor only. That CFI must be willing to accept the responsibility for instructing and evaluating as necessary to complete the flight review (including the evaluation of takeoffs/landings/ground handling) as required by the regulation. The PIC (person taking the flight review) is entirely in charge of and is responsible for the safe conduct of the flight. The CFI giving the review needs to understand and be comfortable with that. If you read the regulation requiring a tailwheel endorsement carefully, you will note that it only applies to PIC qualifications. If you read the sections on CFI privileges and the definition of an authorized instructor carefully, I believe you will find that they do not specifically restrict an authorized instructor from conducting a flight review under the circumstances that I have described above.
A CFI training someone who does not have the tailwheel endorsement or is instructing a tailwheel pilot who is unable to act as PIC, must have the tailwheel endorsement to perform that training (The CFI has to be PIC). Having said all this, it is obviously preferable to get your flight review with a CFI who is qualified and experienced in tailwheel airplanes because you will likely get better instruction and evaluation that way.

Yes, Bruce, you are correct, we have had this conversation before, and the FAA at my workplace gave the same opinion as both you and "voorheesh" just did. I guess I had another BFR (Brain FaRt).

I just cannot get it into my head that the FAA will "authorize" an instructor to give instruction that he is unqualified to give. If he's not tailwheel qualified....then how is he supposed to know if the applicant is doing it right? I suppose by allowing HIM to choose what to critique!

Thanks to both of you for reminding me. Again.

I agree with Bruce and Voorheesh....you don't need a tail wheel endorsement to give a BFR in a taildragger, as long as the pilot is current......but your an idiot if you do!!! Unless you are a novice instructor that implicitly trusts the pilot that you are flying with.....It's a cheep way to your own tail wheel endorsement

voorheesh's interpertation of the Regs is correct. It is up to the PIC to decide what he/she wants to improve upon in the BFR and to decide upon the best CFI to provide that guidance. An example would be getting some hood time in the 170, etc rather than going around the pattern a few times doing a few wheel landings.

Don't feel bad George, we are talking about a "technicality". The pilots who have chimed in on this subject want to keep their skills up and that is the important message. A GOOD CFI AND REGULAR PRACTICE IS THE BEST INSURANCE FOR AVIATION SAFETY!!

gahorn wrote:I just cannot get it into my head that the FAA will "authorize" an instructor to give instruction that he is unqualified to give. If he's not tailwheel qualified....then how is he supposed to know if the applicant is doing it right? I suppose by allowing HIM to choose what to critique!

Actually the first thing I did when the word training was associated with the annual flight review in this thread was reread the FAR. I was very surprised to read the word training used in FAR 61.56 (a) (

a) Except as provided in paragraphs (b) and (f) of this
section, a flight review consists of a minimum of
1 hour of flight training and 1 hour of ground
training. The review must include:..

I've always been told and under the impression that the flight review was just that and not training. I admit that it's been a rare flight review that I've given that some training or study hasn't taken place.

In review of the FAR on-line I happened upon a PDF by the AOPA discussing the flight review. http://www.aopa.org/asf/publications/sa03.pdf . I find it curious that except for quoting the actual FAR the AOPA document discusses a review specifically. They don't discuss how training should take place.

Training is the development of knowledge and/or skills to an acceptable standard. It derives from the concepts of order and predictabilty. The teacher communicates and directs while the student communicates and performs. A CFI conducting a flight review leads the candidate through a prearranged series of knowledge areas and flight maneuvers instructing as necessary to achieve a standard that, in the CFI's judgement, indicates the airman is a safe and competent pilot. In some cases, a pilot can demonstrate acceptable performance without any input from the CFI other than him/her posing a question or asking for a demonstration. This is still training. It is just being conducted at a different level from primary training or introduction of new equipment or rating. This needs to be reinforced by CFIs and GA pilots should be encouraged to fly with an instructor more often than every 24 months. Some pilots believe it is admitting lack of skill to go out and fly with a CFI when they should see it as a lack of currency and feel good about getting some help.

Just a quick update on my BFR.

I used the CFI that had been away from taildraggers for a while. We determined that I would be PIC and took him around the pattern for a demo. He was satisfied, so onward with the BFR.
Cross-wind t.o.'s & lndg's, slow flight, shallow turns, steep turns, power-on, power-off stalls, VOR tracking, control tower work, simulated engine failure, pilotage, short, soft field landing. All went good. Then an hour and a half of ground. Weights, plotting a course, wx briefing, flight plan procedures, PIREPS. Very interesting. Touched alot of areas that I was a little grey with.
I got the sign-off, so I'm still legal for another 2 years!

Then we went out and I let him shoot some take-offs. He did very well for being away from tailwheels for a while.
Logged almost 4 hours of pure fun this week-end

gahorn wrote:I just cannot get it into my head that the FAA will "authorize" an instructor to give instruction that he is unqualified to give.

That is not the only time they do that.

Since I was already an Airplane Single Engine Instructor, when I passed my Commercial Airplane Single Engine Sea check ride with a grand total of 4 hours seaplane time, I was a "qualified" seaplane instructor as well.

AOPA, in last week's email says that a CFI is not considered a passenger by the FAA. The message quoted an FAA legal interpretation that allowed a pilot and a CFI, both of whom were not current to fly at night, to fly together at night to obtain currency. They seem to be saying that if the CFI is willing to accept that role, his/her currency is not an issue. I will try and research this and see if it would also apply to the tailwheel question.

AOPA could also be wrong. I'd want to see the FAA letter for myself so that I can prepare my defense before I break the FARs.