tailwheel instructors

[cfiatzph]

SO FELLOWS. How many lawyers are tail dragger instructors? Since the topic of this thread is "tail wheel instructors" I thought I'd being it back on subject.

More often that not a thread over 4 pages should be locked, this topic only took 3 pages to reach that point.

I've always wondered my REAL liability toward signing off endorsements/bfrs/checkrides etc. I still don't know what it is, which is why I choose my students wisely now. There is just certain people on the airport I refuse to fly with. I see their behavior and even if its different in the cockpit its just not worth the stress. Each and everyone flying a a/c is responsible for recieving the correct training and responsible for our actions while we are by ourselfs. I have always wondered what will happen if I give somebody a fresh BFR and they kill four people?

[thammer]

You should be ok provided you can show that you covered all the requirements for the BFR. A checklist or something for that pilot. It would leave no doubt you covered all the items required. Your defense lawyer oughta be able to make the argument that the person is likely to have disguised bad behaviors in order to pass the BFR. A BFR also doesn't account for the once in a lifetime (last) poor decision.

At least that is my take as what I consider to be a "reasonable person".

tye

[cfiatzph]

Me too. I give BFRs based on on the flying behaviors. Say for instance I have a neighbor that has a J-3 and a Champ. Both VFR only, day time only. I give my BFRs based on the fly that people do, I always ask at the beginning what type of flying do yo do? I ALWAYS include engine outs, emergencies and go around etc. The stuff you will enocunter in a emergency situation!

[voorheesh]

When you sign off a BFR make sure you log the ground training and the flight training as well as endorsing satisfactory completion in the pilot's logbook (61.51&56). CZFIATPZ (sp?) is correct, a CFI does not need a tail wheel endorsement to do a BFR in a tail wheel aircraft. The Part 61 FAQs were cancelled by the FAA last year when the agency completed ISO 9000 registration. Where an issue might come up is if an incident/accident occurs during the BFR. The FAA or NTSB would certainly question why a CFI was "supervising" a BFR in an airplane he/she was not technically qualified in. The FAA will usually attempt to hold the CFI responsible for anything that happens during instruction/flight training. Incidently, the only "legal opinions" that are valid regarding FAA regulations are NTSB decisions (The NTSB is the "judicial" panel with the legal authority to make rulings). Such decisions have been litigated and are legally binding. The FAA General Counsel office will issue a written "legal Interpretation" in response to a request from the public but that interpretation is only valid for the specific circumstances contained in the request and only specifies what the current FAA enforcement policy is regarding the regulation in question. FAA regulations should speak for themselves ie. we shouldn't "read" things into them that are not stated. When in doubt, be safe.
I am a CFI/CE-170 owner at Fresno Chandler Airport and would be happy to do a BFR if someone nearby needs one.

[hilltop170]

I have seriously thought about letting my CFI of 23 years expire in May, 2007 because of the potential liability as discussed in the other posts. I don't make enough with it to keep it active and put up with any liability problems. But then I think about the pilot population decreasing and know it probably won't improve without CFIs like us who take the time to teach the new guys what they need to know.

I have spent the majority of my CFI time volunteering with the Civil Air Patrol and feel very strongly about helping them out. I want somebody to come look for me if I don't come home some day. But now CAP management has started assessing damages to air crews that screw up when CAP determines they were negligent. That's a tough pill to swallow when I'm volunteering in the first place. It might be different if I was getting paid. I teach the CAP folks the same way I would anyone else and take care of the CAP aircraft just like it is my own. And I've never had an accident, incident, or damaged any aircraft, so to put myself in a position to be Monday-morning-quarterbacked by someone who wasn't there is something I'm not sure I want to do anymore.

[bradbrady]

Richard,
Like you I have thought of letting my CFI laps for the same reasons you interated! But I worked to hard for it! so I will keep it going even thoe I don't use it enough to pay for the upkeep. Having a CFI and having no intention to use it to build time for the airlines is a very good way to starve to death. (I say a very good way, because I can't think of a better way to starve to death). In the vein of this thread, I'm a grandfathered tail wheel instructor. I go to the FAA (des. examnitor) to renew my CFI so we do the ground work and fly (so I get my BFR at the same time) yet I have never used a tail wheel airplane for my reneual. Any thoughts on that
brad

[GAHorn]

... Where an issue might come up is if an incident/accident occurs during the BFR. The FAA or NTSB would certainly question why a CFI was "supervising" a BFR in an airplane he/she was not technically qualified in. The FAA will usually attempt to hold the CFI responsible for anything that happens during instruction/flight training. Incidently, the only "legal opinions" that are valid regarding FAA regulations are NTSB decisions (The NTSB is the "judicial" panel with the legal authority to make rulings). Such decisions have been litigated and are legally binding...

If the FAA can question why an instructor ...."was not technically qualified"... then they would only do so if they expect a flight review performed in a tailwheel airplane to be conducted by an authorized instructor. I intend to get a written statement from FAA on this issue, and will post the results.

While the NTSB investigates some accidents, they do not investigate all of them, and I believe it's correct to say they never have authority with regard to a pilot certificate. Only the FAA may take certificate action. The FAA and NTSB disagree in many cases, and the FAA has never been held to obey NTSB recommendations. (Think of all the AD notes demanded by NTSB which FAA ignores.)

[jrenwick]

Isn't this in a way similar to the situation where the instructor doesn't have a current medical certificate? He or she can still give a flight review if the pilot is fully qualified to act as PIC during the flight portion of the review.

[cfiatzph]

... Where an issue might come up is if an incident/accident occurs during the BFR. The FAA or NTSB would certainly question why a CFI was "supervising" a BFR in an airplane he/she was not technically qualified in. The FAA will usually attempt to hold the CFI responsible for anything that happens during instruction/flight training. Incidently, the only "legal opinions" that are valid regarding FAA regulations are NTSB decisions (The NTSB is the "judicial" panel with the legal authority to make rulings). Such decisions have been litigated and are legally binding...

If the FAA can question why an instructor ...."was not technically qualified"... then they would only do so if they expect a flight review performed in a tailwheel airplane to be conducted by an authorized instructor. I intend to get a written statement from FAA on this issue, and will post the results.

While the NTSB investigates some accidents, they do not investigate all of them, and I believe it's correct to say they never have authority with regard to a pilot certificate. Only the FAA may take certificate action. The FAA and NTSB disagree in many cases, and the FAA has never been held to obey NTSB recommendations. (Think of all the AD notes demanded by NTSB which FAA ignores.)

This would be interesting. Since the regs are'nt really written like that. The regs should be written more black and white. As I posted before a regular CFI without a tailwheel endorsement with a current tailwheel pilot can give a flight review. Messed up yes, loophole YES, smart NO but if you want us to follow the regs we need to have a little more guidance. The perfect thing would be a LEGAL letter from a attorney at the FAA, that would be standing not a FAQ (which has been removed from the FAA website) or our interpretation. Anything else, the word or letter from a FAA inspector at the FSDO is not standing, they cannot give legal advice.
This really is'nt a issue but some CFI without a required endorsement could technically give a BFR, how can a CFI with zero tailwheel experience be legit in giving a BFR yet the regs are written this way technically.

[iowa]

my brother norm in minnesota
keeps his CFI up to date
but has not given flt instruction
for a couple of years now.
he too is worried about liability.
hopefully it won't reach the point
where no one will do it.
BTW, he flys out of Fergus Falls
iowa

[cfiatzph]

Isn't this in a way similar to the situation where the instructor doesn't have a current medical certificate? He or she can still give a flight review if the pilot is fully qualified to act as PIC during the flight portion of the review.

This is exactly the same situation. He holds a commercial (or atp) category and class and a CFI with a single engine (or multi engine note not sea or land because CFIs are'nt written that way). So yes you are right. CFI instruction does not mean he has to be the PIC yet there is times where he does. (private students nobody in the a/c legal to act as PIC) Regs are regs and in my opinion if they are written that way they stand that way unless there is a legal interpreation, with a letter SIGNED. by a FAA lawyer.

[GAHorn]

Isn't this in a way similar to the situation where the instructor doesn't have a current medical certificate? He or she can still give a flight review if the pilot is fully qualified to act as PIC during the flight portion of the review.

The word used by the FAA is "authorized". A CFI does not have to be PIC if the pilot is already qualified and current in the aircraft. If he isn't acting as a PIC, then he doesn't have to have a medical.
I get this all the time at work. No medical is required for simulator instructors, since they're not actually acting as a pilot of an aircraft, but they must still otherwise be qualified (and if it's a C or D-level sim, they nonetheless may log the time as PIC as if in an actual airplane.)

[voorheesh]

The NTSB does more than investigate accidents and make recommendations. The NTSB is responsible for the judicial review of most aviation regulations. The NTSB employs administrative law judges who hold legal proceedings for individuals charged with violations of the code of federal regulations. These proceedings occur when an alleged violator elects to appeal an order by the administrator of the FAA. If the alleged violator disagrees with the NTSB judge, the case can be appealed to the full NTSB which is then responsible for issuing what is in effect a legal opinion that has precedent and can be cited as a definitive ruling concerning the regulation in question. If the alleged violator still disagrees with the opinion of the full NTSB, an appeal can be filed with the United Staes Court of Appeals having jurisdiction but the basis for such an appeal must involve a procedural or constitutional issue as opposed to some mundane question such as whether or not a flight instructor giving a BFR in a Cessna 170 needs a tailwheel endoresement. Like it or not, this is the way "administrative regulations" such as we deal with in aviation are handled. The process, incidentally is quite expensive/time consuming and involves everyone's favorite folks: lawyers!
Have a nice day.

[voorheesh]

There is no specific rule in part 61 that requires a CFI giving a flight review to have any qualification other than category/class/type rating. (61.195 b.1.). An authorized instructor is a person who holds a current flight instructor certificate (61.1b.2.ii). An authorized flight instructor does not need to hold a medical certificate provided he/she is not pilot in command 61.3 c. 2. viii.) If you are giving a tailwheel endorsement you must have a medical and a tail wheel endorsement because you (the CFI) are PIC until the pilot gets the endorsement. If you are giving a BFR and the pilot is acting as PIC, you do not need a medical or tailwheel endorsement, why? Because the regulation does not specifically require it. I am sure there are FAA Inspectors who would strongly disagree with this but I would ask them to show it to you in writing. If you want a legal opinion, write an inquiry to the General Counsel of the FAA in Washington D.C. and in about 6 months to a year, I predict you will get the same "opinion" that I have just given you tonight.
Now lets consider what is really important here which is a CFI's responsibilities. The general aviation community is dependant on CFIs to maintain the standards of safety that will make or break the future of our endeavors. Just look at the accident reports on NTSB.GOV and ask yourself who in the aviation community has the experience and knowledge to change these trends? Answer: CFIs. The comments I have read in these pages are very reassuring that members of the Cessna 170 Association have an obvious commitment to safety and the CFIs quoted have above average experience and high standards. My advice is that we put all the above to good use and accept the possibility that someone might try and blame us for a pilot's future mistakes or "monday morning quarterback" us if, god forbid, an incident or accident occurs while we train/instruct. That is the risk you take by being a CFI and if you don't like risk then there are plenty of other things to do like collecting stamps or reading books. We need to be promoting the idea that a CFI is probably the cheapest and best insurance any pilot can invest in (following keeping the a/c airworthy) and that includes us CFIs too. I always benefit from a flight with a fellow instructor and I don't wait two years to do it. If we keep holding high standards we have little to fear from the FAA or others. We can only enhance and improve what got us into this in the first place- the love of flying.

[Plummit]

All of this musing reminds me of the story that supposedly happend several years ago, where a pilot was issued a DC-3 type-rating even though he didn't have a multi-engine rating (ASEL only). IIRC, the type rating was not (at least at the time) dependent on having a Multi-rating. That's how I remember it anyway.
As always, YMMV.

regards

~Marc