Tailwheel endorsement

taildrager · Post by **taildrager** » Mon Jul 04, 2005 5:20 am

After three decades of little or no flying I am trying to get up to date with lots of things. I have seen some talk about this "Tailwheel Endorsement" thing. Back in the old days when I learned to fly there was no such thing. Is this something mandatory or just a method for FBOs to extract more money in dual time? Taildrager

N2865C · Post by **N2865C** » Mon Jul 04, 2005 5:54 am

Yep, it's required and it's probably money well spent if you have a good instructor. Usually takes between 10 and 15 hours to get a tailwheel endorsement assuming you have decent flying skills. I'm over at Watsonville, and if you PM me I would be happy to give you my opinion (for what it's worth) on tailwheel instructors that I know in the area. There are fewer and fewer every year due to insurance costs.

jc

Mon Jul 04, 2005 11:12 am

Well taildrager if you logged pilot in command time of a tail wheel aircraft prior to April 15, 1991 then a tailwheel endorsement is not required for you to act as a PIC of a tail wheel aircraft.

Now being that you learned to fly before there was metal covering on wings chances are you flew a tailwheel aircraft prior to 1991 and aren't "required" to have an endorsement. Unless of course you learned to fly prior to the creation of log books where you would have logged the time.

Now that doesn't mean it wouldn't be smart to get some recurrent training.

Interesting there is no requirement to get an endorsement for rail launch or skid gear equipped aircraft something you may have experience with, ...or don't you go back THAT far.

Here for your reading pleasure is CFR 14 part 61.31 (h)(2)(I)(2)(i) which addresses this subject.

(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.

N2865C · Post by **N2865C** » Mon Jul 04, 2005 3:48 pm

And of course, Bruce is right on that. I got my TW endorsement in 94'. They told me about the grandfather clause, but being a grandfather my memory ain't what it used to be.

jc

taildrager · Post by **taildrager** » Tue Jul 05, 2005 1:34 am

Now being that you learned to fly before there was metal covering on wings chances are you flew a tailwheel aircraft prior to 1991 and aren't "required" to have an endorsement. Unless of course you learned to fly prior to the creation of log books where you would have logged the time.

Well I logged plenty of time as PIC before 1991 so it should be no problem I was just worried they would make me put those little castors out on the wing tips like you guys use.

I can just se my license now "airplane, single engine, land, tailwheel, skids". Back when I learned they wanted me to fly tricycle geared planes but I kept breaking the nose wheel off. Taildrager

Post by **GAHorn** » Thu Jul 07, 2005 4:27 am

So....I wonder if a B-52, B-47, or a Harrier (all having tandem/bicycle types) would qualify?

(And then there's the U-2... )

taildrager · Post by **taildrager** » Thu Jul 07, 2005 5:12 am

gahorn wrote:So....I wonder if a B-52, B-47, or a Harrier (all having tandem/bicycle types) would qualify?

(And then there's the U-2... )

I have admired all of those and even built models of some when I was a kid. I would think that if a person could handle any one of those he could easily fly an aircraft with a tailwheel. But then again all my time is flying with skids so what would I know. OF

phantomphixer · Post by **phantomphixer** » Thu Jul 07, 2005 10:30 pm

George,
Harriers are considered a quadracycle landing gear. (I'm a tech rep on Harriers) Our pilots still have to get a tailwheel endorsement.
Physical characteristics dictate that the weight is forward of the main gear. I understand ,from talking to our pilots, that it's still a handful in a bad crosswind.
If any of you ever want a tour, let me know. The Marine Corps can be very accomodating about visits. You'll have to come to Yuma AZ, and I suggest the wintertime. [/b]

Post by **GAHorn** » Fri Jul 08, 2005 1:03 am

HA! Of course my little diversion was only a joke....but if the FAA can decide a taildwheel endorsement is a requirement....why didn't they also require a tandem endorsement? (Answer: (for those who are as anal as myself)---- because they require a TYPE rating which would be aircraft specific anyway??)
Phantomphixer - I'm always amazed at the incredible diversity and wide expertise in our group of friends. What a great club we have!!
I have always admired the Harrier and the crews that fly and support that aircraft. Being an old/former BAe guy myself, I've got a soft-spot for the Brit's entire aircraft line.
When I was flying a HS-125 for an AMEX subsidiary, I had the pleasure of escorting/flying Tennesse Ernie Ford (the old pea-picker himself) to the CAF events down in Harlingen, TX where he would Emcee the later shows. One of the "one-liners" he'd deliver as the Marines would help push the Harrier back into it's flight-line position (after it's having performed an eye-catching flight demonstration) was: "Can you folks believe what you've just seen? That thing flying faster than Hades, hoverin' like a hummingbird, and backin' up at it's pleasure and bowing to the crowd.....then they gotta PUSH IT TO PARK IT!"

Romeo Tango · Post by **Romeo Tango** » Fri Jul 08, 2005 3:34 pm

Taildragger (I added the extra g, hope that's okay) - if you would like some instruction in conventional aircraft, I can recommend my flying club. It's a bit far for you (Palo Alto), but we have one of the largest fleets of rentable tailwheel aircraft (4 Citabrias, 2 Decathlons, 1 Husky and 1 PT-17 Stearman). And we have quite a few CFIs (myself included) who love to teach in tailwheel airplanes. Including teaching you in your own should you decide to purchase. Send me private email if you'd like more info.

Richard

taildrager · Post by **taildrager** » Sat Jul 09, 2005 9:23 pm

Romeo Tango wrote:Taildragger (I added the extra g, hope that's okay) - if you would like some instruction in conventional aircraft, I can recommend my flying club. It's a bit far for you (Palo Alto), but we have one of the largest fleets of rentable tailwheel aircraft (4 Citabrias, 2 Decathlons, 1 Husky and 1 PT-17 Stearman). And we have quite a few CFIs (myself included) who love to teach in tailwheel airplanes. Including teaching you in your own should you decide to purchase. Send me private email if you'd like more info.

Richard

Romeo Tango, I am working on a couple of projects which will allow me to fly again, providing I can still pass the medical. I am about two months away from this goal but still looking forward to getting back behind the yoke. Yes, I will be in touch and would like to stop by anyway and check out your facilities. I would at least need a bienial flight review.
Taildragger.

rudymantel · Post by **rudymantel** » Sun Jul 10, 2005 7:47 pm

I was n England some years ago and had the pleasure of meeting a Harrier instructor. I'll always remember his nervous twitch...
Rudy

S2D · Post by **S2D** » Sat Jul 23, 2005 11:55 pm

N9149A wrote:
(ii) Wheel landings (unless the manufacturer has recommended against such landings)

So could you legally get the endorsement on skis?? or only on wheel penetration skis? What do you consider the definition ofwheel landings? the act of landing on the main gear or actually landing on wheels?

Post by **Bruce Fenstermacher** » Sun Jul 24, 2005 1:52 am

That is an interesting question Brian. I have no time on skis so I can't make any judgment on how similar they are to land on and control the aircraft as wheels.

As an instructor I'd say you have to do it on wheels because that is what the FAR implies and once you had the sign off you'd be legal to fly a conventional gear aircraft on wheels.

Would you consider a person without a conventional gear sign off and who is not grandfathered, legal to fly a conventional gear aircraft on skis?

S2D · Post by **S2D** » Sun Jul 24, 2005 12:49 pm

N9149A wrote:
As an instructor I'd say you have to do it on wheels because that is what the FAR implies and once you had the sign off you'd be legal to fly a conventional gear aircraft on wheels.

Would you consider a person without a conventional gear sign off and who is not grandfathered, legal to fly a conventional gear aircraft on skis?

No on the last question, but a person is legal to fly an aircraft on skis if he has a tailwheel endorsement and has never been on skis.
I think it all depends on what the definition of a "wheel landing" is. ( which the FAA has conveniently not addressed.

In my mind, a wheel landing is the act of landing on the main gear without the tailwheel touching the ground.

The International Cessna^® 170 Association