Hopefully with getting on for 100hrs tailwheel it should be enough to not need a signature?
I would assume it's not the hours that count but the number of landings.
Given that Vigi G1 sorties were typically 20 or 30 mins and that I typically fly similar short trips in the Cassutt I'm probably looking at 200 or so tailwheel landings..
Nevertheless, I don't know of any exception to the "instructor to annotate the logbook to confirm training has successfully taken place" requirement. So without a logbook signature somewhere you may well be flying illegally.
I did search LASORS and the ANO but couldn't readily find the actual regulations. I suspect they're in JAR-FCL somewhere but I don't have those to hand. The only reference in LASORS and the ANO to "tailwheel" was in the context of an NPPL with a SSEA rating.
But isn't there some sort of annotation in your VGS logbook that you are endorsed to fly the Vigilant? Because that would then imply a tailwheel endorsement.
Alas not seen my Vigi logbook in years. The VGS flying used to be regulated by RAF Central Flying School and as such it was deemed military flying, there were G1 rated pilots with no PPL or other flying licence of any sort so its not just an endorsment rather a military qualification with an entire associated Ab-initio training sylabus. Back when I last flew the Vigi it could be logged as a Group A type however a few years ago it changed and any hours after a certain date could only be logged as TMG / SLMG.
So am I therefore right in thinking that if someone has been flying tailwheel for the last 20 years that they had to go out and get and endorsment in their logbook from an instructor to carry on doing exactly what they'd been doing for the last 20 years ? Doesnt sound right, surely there must be some sort of grandfather rights ? I'll do some more digging myself methinks....