My opinion on this topic is that there seems to be a loophole with respect to the tailweel endorsement with an Experimental aircraft. I think this a result of allowing an "Experimental" aircraft to be somthing entirely new, where their may not be a flying example of such a craft. For example, assume someone developed a vertical takeoff and landing aircraft using some new technology. Then you could build it and fly it and be within the FARS -- Experimental.
However, since the KR is a conventional aircraft, and the "intent" of the regulation on tailwheel aircraft is for the pilots safety, I think it is not too much of a leap to assume that it is in your best interest to have an up to date tailwheel endorsement in your logbook before flying. Also a pilot attempting to maintain "currency" in a KR with a tailwheel should observe the regulations with respect to full stop landings. I'm not saying that you have to, but if you do, there would be no question in the case of an accident over the FAR's. If you do have an incident in your KR, in my opinion, you want to be in as much a position of strength as possible. If you have your tailwheel endorsement, and you have followed flight advisor recommendation on transition training, you will be seen as a careful pilot. And that would in my opinion help you out in case of some other human error that could happen. Thats just my 2 cents. What this thread sounds like is the following: "Hey, it looks like there is a loophole that will save me about $700 on flight training before I fly my KR". Probably. On Mon, 12 Jan 2004 22:00:19 -0500 (GMT-05:00), Brian Kraut <eng...@earthlink.net> wrote: > > It gets more and more confusing. I looked at my operating limitations > and this is the statement I found: > > "The pilot in command of this aircraft must, as applicable, hold an > appropriate category/class rating, have an aircraft type rating, have a > flight instructor's log book endorsement or posses a "Letter of > Authorization" issued by an FAA Flight Standards Operations Inspector." > > My operating limitations were from April 14, 1991 and Order 8130.2 > probably did not exist at the time. Rev E was fairly recent so if the > order did exist it was at least a different revision. I suspect that > operating limitation issued today would be as Dan stated. > > The weird part is that you must meet paragraph (j) requiring the > tailwheel signoff "as appropriate", but paragraph (k) says that this > section does not apply to an aircraft with an experimental type > certificate so now I don't really know what the answer is and the FAA > inspector I spoke to would also probably scratch his head if I put all > the rules in front of him ans asked what they meant. > > I suppose that the FAA could, and probably, would put specific > endorsement and training requirements in your operating limitations if > you built an experimental 400 mph multi-engine tailwheel turbojet > aircraft. > > Some may think this is wasted bandwith, but I do find it interresting. > If anyone other than me wants to see a definitive answer from an > authority on this let me know and I will see if I can get a > clarification from the FAA. > > > Dan Heath wrote: > > This was sent to me. Don't know if any of it makes sense, but I thought > you > should have the info. > > > > Though it isn't spelled out in the FARs, it will be in > > the Operating Limitations. Under FAA Order 8130.2E > > there must be included a paragraph that states: > > > > "The pilot in command of this aircraft shall hold a > > category/class rating, or an authoriized instructor's > > logbook endorsement. The pilot in command must meet > > the requirements of para. 61.31(e), (f), (g), (h), > > (i), and (j) as appropriate." > > > > Hope this helps clear things up. It really is > > confusing. > > > > > > > _______________________________________ > to UNSUBSCRIBE from KRnet, send a message to krnet-le...@mylist.net > please see other KRnet info at http://www.krnet.org/instructions.html -- Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/
