....So, you sign that statement for Joe, who you flew with in a ski equipped Champ on skis, and sign him off. He goes out and buys a Cessna 185, and promptly ground loops it, tearing out the gearbox and one wing. He was perfectly legal (assuming he had a high perf. Endorsement), but was he qualified to fly a tailwheel airplane? I think not, at least based on just flying a ski plane....
So...........when I'm in my J4 on edo 1320s with a T bar on the back end where the TW was am I logging TW time?
Glenn
People (including the FAA) make things way too complicated. In the early days of SC.org, we used to argue whether one could solo a student pilot who had only flown on skis. I maintained you could, some argued you couldn't because of the wheel landing issue, but that makes it just as vague as the tailwheel issue when its a tailski. Wheel landings are a type of landing, not what you have on the axles.
If I were still instructing, I would have no problem with either. Solo endorsement or tailwheel endorsement on skis. But I would have the proper limitations I deemed necessary to go along with it.
But then I'd probably have lost my CFI and saved myself a lot of future aggravation.
If your skis go up and down, it is a retractable. You got constant speed prop also? Complex. Note, a Husky with the 180 hp is not high performance though.
Now, if I was standing in front of any FAA guy, even the most novice, I would not be able to tell him "nope, that champ has a tail-ski, so no need for a tailwheel endorsement." Yea, I better be handing him a beer and a cigar. Note, that somewhere skis are called 'wheel replacement' skis. Going down that road is why we get the FAA making crazy rulings- we get out of line they have to crack down.
Now, would I sign Glenn off for flight in tailwheel if he had is skid on the back but on floats- Glenn, if you are using that skid while on floats we have a much larger conversation needed.
Depends on the pilot as far as turning them loose with ski instruction, and conditions. If all you have done is go land in 2' of powder, directional control is a matter of dragging the tail. Put that plane on glare ice and holy cow it is a different kettle of fish.
As far as a champ sign off on skis and the guy jumping into a 185 on wheels. Ok, what about a champ sign off on wheels and the guy jumping into a Maule or big engine pacer the next day??? Some guys have zero understanding as to their limitations, and sometimes you get folks that just should not be signed off. For everything else there are discussions and common sense.;-)
Here is a reminder about how you can sign a person off in a plane yet they don't have the ability to fly it in all parts of the envelope::roll::roll:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YVwlodvWh7w
Was this that particular Mr. FAA's opinion or did he have an official FAA legal stance on the topic?..was told this by (ready for this?) the FAA!
Was this that particular Mr. FAA's opinion or did he have an official FAA legal stance on the topic?
It is also my opinion that the FAA persons who wrote 61.31 (i) likely did not know that some nuts like us actually use skis on an airplane. They likely think that skis are for people on slopes or behind boats.
Great Question. My understanding this is the current position of the entire office. It is not an official legal interpretation.
The responses from everyone above pretty much validates the belief my buddie and myself have held for more than a few decades of being CFI’s. I suspected it was somewhat unanimous in the CFI community. I wanted to ensure we were not alone in our understanding of this basic rule as how it pertains to skis. These beliefs were:
1. A wheel landing is a type of landing regardless of what is attacked to your axles.
2. “Tailwheel airplane” is synonymous with conventional gear airplane.
3. A CFI should use caution when issuing any log book endorsement when not administering the instruction in the most challenging example of equipment and conditions that endorsement allows.
This new (a least to us) position left my buddy so unsettled he is currently requesting an official legal interpretation from FAA legal in D.C.