[Joe Dell]

Here's the scenario. Tailwheel pilot takes off. Non tailwheel pilot given control on climb-out and flies the route. Tailwheel pilot takes control for landing.

Can the non tailwheel pilot log the time in the air as P1?

[Barcli]

He can log it all ffs - unless it's a dc3 when u can share !

[Lockhaven]

You can log whatever you want in what ever book you want it's only when you count hours towards a license or rating then you need to differentiate.

[Genghis the Engineer]

I would say that he can't log any of it if he doesn't have tailwheel differences.

Trying to log PiC in an aeroplane you are not trained to land does not strike me as big or clever - anybody who is required to hand control to their passenger for (e.g. a forced) landing is not really captain.

G

[Maxthelion]

Whoever is P1 should be established on the ground, and then stuck to throughout the flight. If one pilot is qualified to fly the whole flight and another is qualified to fly only some of it, then as others have said, it's the former that should always be P1. This doesn't mean that there is any impediment to swapping around whoever is the handling pilot, but whoever is in command will always be in command and will be the only person that can log the time as P1. The other pilot could only legally log the time as passenger time, or as P/UT if it was a training flight.

[MichaelP]

Dangerous business as the person logging the airborne time can claim to have tailwheel experience. A big No No in my opinion.
Hours are claimed as experience for specific purposes such as maintaining a licence, insurance, or towards higher ratings.
In a way this justifies the new tailwheel rating so to speak, signed off as differences training.

I had one pilot with 80 hours total time who did the first solo in a tailwheel aeroplane towing a glider. 'Never went solo in one of my aeroplanes though had 20 hours training in both the Condor and T67A.
Unfortunately those were the days of P1/s where in one flight the pilot had to be checked out (P1 check pilot + P1/s pilot being checked out), and thereafter had to log P1 (PIC) even when 'Dual' unless the person giving the training was a rated instructor.
I frequently flew with pilots for many hours checking them out for tailwheel while they logged P1, and I did not log the flight at all.
It was that way with the Tiger Club too. Check pilots did not have instructor ratings and so the other pilot logged P1.

The person had 80 hours, with plenty of P1 tailwheel hours but not really Pilot In Command, and never solo.
The pilot died after being refused fuel at the gliding club as they said they got seven tows out of a Condor, while not remembering it had done several tows the day before out of that tank of fuel.

Ultimately the person who is really the Pilot In Command is the person who deals with an emergency and carries out the forced landing.

The answer is, would you let the person who is flying your aircraft fly it solo?
Or perhaps simply would you say the person logging the time be deemed competent to fly that aircraft alone?
Going to the limit, would you let this person take your most loved person or child flying?

I just did three flights:
CS DIH in Portugal, I don't have an EASA licence so I can't log it.
HS CUB and HS TCS, I don't have Thai validations to fly these aircraft.
In all these flights I flew the aeroplane, takeoffs to landings, did steep turns, stalls, and circuits, where the other person did not touch the controls except to hold her steady while I take a picture. Though I have thousands of hours more than the other pilots, they still have to log the PIC time, while I can't.
It's the way it is.

[Genghis the Engineer]

Ultimately the person who is really the Pilot In Command is the person who deals with an emergency and carries out the forced landing.

That is a really excellent principle that could be recycled a number of other contexts.

G

[Miscellaneous]

I'm of the opinion I only log what I absolutely know I can 'count', consequently I've flown quite a bit that never makes my log book. Another reason I won't log time, irrespective of whether licensed, is if I am not insured. In the scenario the OP gives I take it, by fact he does not fly tailwheel aircraft, that he is not insured for this particular aircraft. I'd suggest it is 'wrong' to log a flight in an aircraft one is not insured for.

I know I'm in the minority...but heh ho it's what I'm comfortable with.

[Lockhaven]

I would say that he can't log any of it if he doesn't have tailwheel differences.

Trying to log PiC in an aeroplane you are not trained to land does not strike me as big or clever - anybody who is required to hand control to their passenger for (e.g. a forced) landing is not really captain.

G

I fly and own a tailwheel aircraft in the UK and have never done a tailwheel differences course in 30 years ?

[foxmoth]

I fly and own a tailwheel aircraft in the UK and have never done a tailwheel differences course in 30 years ?

I think you have the "differences" via grandfather rights.

[Dave W]

As many of us do, you have grandfather rights having flown tailwheel Pre-JAR, then.

[flybymike]

I think Lockhaven’s point was in response to Genghis’s assertion that training should have been received and that he had not had any such training, rather than whether he was legally qualified.

[Dave W]

The point renains valid, though. Pre-JAR no training was explicitly required; post-JAR it is.

Over-analysing a generally correct but historically modified comment by GtE on an internet forum is fine, but don't lose sight of the essence of the discussion whilst doing so. In practice there is always training, even if it was self-teaching.

[Genghis the Engineer]

You can of course quibble over terminology and history, but ultimately either you are qualified to land the aeroplane, or you aren't. If you aren't, I maintain that you shouldn't be logging PiC in a single pilot aeroplane

G

[kanga]

I recall an Air Cadet Camp, '70s, at a FJ station. Chippies were deployed in for the Camp season. Based pilots could volunteer to fly Cadets, and several did, including several who had been on the 'all-jet' route, ie they had started on JPs and never flown piston or prop, let alone t/w. Operations were from a grass strip mown parallel to the FJ hard runway, with opposite direction circuits, so often with a crosswind.

The grizzled old (probably WW2 or National Service generation) AEF pilot checked out all these volunteers. He failed several, including some Very Senior ones, one of whom almost groundlooped.

[I have 'grandfather rights' to tailwheel, but after almost 50 years of only nosewheel I would certainly need 'refresher training' even if it was not formal 'differences']