A neighbor of mine told me last night that his examiner told him he didn't need a tail wheel endorsement to fly his Amature built aircraft since it was a Light Sport Aircraft. This doesn't seem right to me, and I don't recall seeing an exemption anywhere in the LSA rules. Anyone heard of this before?
Thanks.

Phil

I think I found my answer on sportpilot.org in their FAQ's. Apparently someone with only a sport pilot rating (or Private with expired medical operating as a sport pilot) is required to get endorsed for each group of aircraft. One group would be "land, tricycle, under 87kts max speed" So if the person in question gets endorsed in their homebuilt, then they can fly any "Land, tailwheel, under 87kts", but not a tricycle gear aircraft.

However, if they already have a Rec pilot or private pilot certificate then they have to get a regular tailwheel endorsement. This is because the LSP endosement groups do not apply to the higher pilot ratings.

This sound wrong or right to anyone else?
Thanks.

Phil

It really seems like the Sport Pilot certificate is structured to grant all priviledges on an ala carte basis. The basic cert with ASEL rating is pretty limited:

- no higher than 10,000 MSL
- Class E and G airspace only
- aircraft with less than 87 kts level max cruise
- day VFR only

In my reading it seems that several of these can be allowed with additional training and endorsements, with a "checkride" from a different CFI, not a DPE. I guess the pilots can tailor their rating to the activities they want to participate in. I suppose undercarriage configuration qualifies as ala cart?

The simplest and best approach is th learn in a Butt-Dragger FIRST.
Then the nose pushers become a trivial change.
Don't need no stinkin nose pusher endorsement.
Why,? Because, by then you then end up with the best of both worlds, when it comes to ground handling of either.

Still, I would never pass on a Turbo 206.

wanabe wrote:The simplest and best approach is th learn in a Butt-Dragger FIRST.
Then the nose pushers become a trivial change.
Don't need no stinkin nose pusher endorsement.
Why,? Because, by then you then end up with the best of both worlds, when it comes to ground handling of either.

Still, I would never pass on a Turbo 206.

Apparently light sport pilots DO need a nose wheel endosement if they learn in a tailwheel. I guess it makes some sense, nose wheels are easier, but they're also different.

Phil

I can't cite the paragraph of the FARs but I'm pretty sure you need a tailwheel endorsement for E-LSA. Putting it another way, no insurance company will cover you in a tailwheel aircraft if you don't have the tailwheel endorsement.

crazyivan wrote:I can't cite the paragraph of the FARs but I'm pretty sure you need a tailwheel endorsement for E-LSA. Putting it another way, no insurance company will cover you in a tailwheel aircraft if you don't have the tailwheel endorsement.

Apparently, it depends on if you have a private or Sport pilot certificate. If you have a private pilot you need a tailwheel endosement. If you have a Sport Pilot you need the appropriate group endorsement.

Phil

Seems pretty simple to hedge your bets and just have the instructor sign off the t/w endorsement. Then you're covered either way.

Eric

Well, if yer training in a tailwheel airplane, the point is moot. You've got the endorsement by virtue of having trained in one.
Without going into the rules too deeply (never cared for the language myself... but I gotta muddle through, required material...) I'd still think the insurance companies have a lot more interest in you proving proficiency than some clipboard wielding bureaucrat.

What I wonder is....

A tailwheel endorsed private pilot with a light sport instructor rating, doing
light sport instruction in a tailwheel aircraft, like a Champ or Cub. Can he or she train and sign off a private pilot's tailwheel endorsement?

looks up- "Where?"

A frozen duck, coming straight at you.............Duck.


Jeremy

a light sport instructor, without a CFI cannot sign off ANY endorsements, recommendations, or anything else that a CFI is authorized to do, relative to a PPL, CPL, ATP, etc. So, no, such a person could NOT sign off a tailwheel endorsement for a PPL, even if it was done in an LSA. They COULD endorse that person for LSA ops, but that endorsement would not apply when the person was exercising the priviledges of his or her PPL.

MTV

velojym wrote:Well, if yer training in a tailwheel airplane, the point is moot. You've got the endorsement by virtue of having trained in one.
.....................................
A tailwheel endorsed private pilot with a light sport instructor rating, doing
light sport instruction in a tailwheel aircraft, like a Champ or Cub. Can he or she train and sign off a private pilot's tailwheel endorsement?

1) By virtue of the training... not necesarily. The endorsement must be signed off, there's an appropriate pre-worded endorsement block in the back of most modern pilot logbooks. Til that's signed off, you've rec'd training but are not t/w legal IMHO.
2) The LS-Instructor can sign off on a tailwheel endorsement for a PP, but like MTV sez, it's only good for when that PP is exercising SP priveleges. Also, instruction has to be done in an LSA-compliant airplane. For example, J3 would be legal, C-140 would not -- not LSA-compliant, too heavy.

Eric

zero.one.victor wrote:

velojym wrote:Well, if yer training in a tailwheel airplane, the point is moot. You've got the endorsement by virtue of having trained in one.
.....................................
A tailwheel endorsed private pilot with a light sport instructor rating, doing
light sport instruction in a tailwheel aircraft, like a Champ or Cub. Can he or she train and sign off a private pilot's tailwheel endorsement?

1) By virtue of the training... not necesarily. The endorsement must be signed off, there's an appropriate pre-worded endorsement block in the back of most modern pilot logbooks. Til that's signed off, you've rec'd training but are not t/w legal IMHO.
2) The LS-Instructor can sign off on a tailwheel endorsement for a PP, but like MTV sez, it's only good for when that PP is exercising SP priveleges. Also, instruction has to be done in an LSA-compliant airplane. For example, J3 would be legal, C-140 would not -- not LSA-compliant, too heavy.

Eric

Ah, thanks for the correction. I actually was referring to a pilot having been signed off, but forgot to mention it.
Thanks for the clarification on the LSA side.