Seaplane Rating Requirements

[Right Seat Captain]

I don't currently have a seaplane rating, nor am I planning to get one in the near future (due to finance and no opportunity, not because I don't want one). Anyways, today I just happen to come across the Sea Plane requirements in the CARs, and I noticed something in particular.

From what I understand, it is pretty standard practice for flight schools to get their students to do their 'PIC' requirement with an instructor on board, as an 'observer', to keep the insurance folks satisfied. But in the CARs regarding the experience requirements, the following line is found:

421.38(1)(a)(i)
(B) a minimum of 5 takeoffs and landings as sole occupant of the aeroplane, except for two crew aircraft, in which case the takeoffs and landings shall be done as pilot-in-command.

Maybe I'm way off the mark with this, and I'm crazy in understanding that FTUs do this practice. But I somehow doubt that a C-180 on floats can count as a two crew aircraft. So how do schools get away with this?

[Tango01]

Nobody needs to know that Joe is in the right seat. Shhh, it's our little secret

[TheHub]

It's not legal to have the instructor in the aircraft for the pupose of 5 solo take-offs and landings. The ones who do this end up getting caught by transport...

[costermonger]

I remember seeing something similar on the summary of fines that TC gives out (it was posted in my flight school, I personally have no idea where else to find this list). In that case a rotary wing instructor was riding along with one of their students, but the student logged the time as solo (and the instructor didn't log the time at all). If I recall correctly the instructor's license was suspended for 30 days. So yeah, bad things happen if TC figures out this is going on.

[Right Seat Captain]

Hmmm, I see. I understood it to be common practice and well known, but I guess one wouldn't want this to be known if they are doing this. I had originally thought this to be the case, since insurance companies don't necessarily want to insure a pilot with only 5 hours of float time.

[Cat Driver]

It is a well known fact that the practice of riding along on the solo has been common for decades.

It is a form of insurance to make sure your airplane is not wrecked during the five solo take offs and landings that are manditory for the seaplane rating.

One of TC's people started an investigation in the Pacific Region and alledgedly caught a saeplane instructor riding in the airplane during the solo flying and all hell broke lose resulting in pilots having their seaplane ratings cancelled...

....I know one person who was intimidated by TC into giving up information and for his co-operation lost his seaplane rating. Gives one a real sense of security when dealing with these people in TC flight training,
I told him not to trust TC and to give out nothing, but he thought I was paranoid and went ahead and co-operated and lost his rating.

I have commented many times on this subject and believe the solo should be done away with and a test flight be used to determine the skill level of the applicant.

Makes more sense and would also lower the insurance costs for the company and the rental cost to the students.

Cat

[Right Seat Captain]

agreed.

[Shiny Side Up]

So by extension of this then really we'd never be able to send a fledgling seaplane pilot solo? No wonder the insurance companies don't want to insure float pilots - we're turning them out not being able to trust them to fly by themselves. No wonder anyone who hires a float pilot wants at least 500hrs on type - maybe the pilot will have built up his ability by then to be trusted with an aircraft then.

Here's the scoop on the float rating - if your instructor doesn't have the confidence in you to send you out by yourself - then probably you shouldn't be going by yourself and shouldn't get your float rating signed off. Maybe the insurance companies could be persuaded to lower their rates if they knew that anyone being trained on floats, was being signed off properly rather than the silly time building excersise most schools and instructors seem to take it for.

[Cat Driver]

" Here's the scoop on the float rating - if your instructor doesn't have the confidence in you to send you out by yourself - then probably you shouldn't be going by yourself and shouldn't get your float rating signed off. "

Shiney Side..........Don't give me this crap about " here's the scoop on the float rating "...or if you do want to impress me at least lay out your background so I can analyze how much validity your ideas really have.

.......My take on this is if an instructor has confidence in his students ability to pass a flight test he / she will recommend them for a flight test, then if the student performs to the flight test standards they get a rating.

What is wrong with that senario?

The up side to this will be cheaper insurance for the people giving sea plane ratings and the newly licensed pilots can worry about insurance.

But of course I am pissing into a hurricane trying to reason with the mindset of a lot of the people involved in flight training in todays world.

Has it ever occured to some of you instructors out there that some of us actually do know what we are talking about? GGGrrrrrrrrr I get so f.ckin discouraged with flight training and some of the caveman ideas about how to teach flying..

Cat

[Tango01]

Cat:

You're fighting a corrupted system designed by retards that know shit about flying in the first place.

It seems like everything they do is opposite of what makes sense. Sometimes I think they do it on purpose. But this is not the only case, I came up with the conclusion that most branches of the government are like it. Too many insecure people running the show.


T

[Cat Driver]

Amen, Tango..

That is why the old Cat is here trying to pound some sense into all the sheep out there.

I am at an advantage in this regard because I've been flying long enough that I am no longer afraid to take on all the meatheads that emotionally and intellectually sodomize all you young people that only want to be the best you can be as pilots...

..so you all just listen to the Cat and digest what I tell you, if you disagree that is fine, lets argue our positions...then we can reach a common ground that will elevate us above the norm.

Cat

[neechi]

I personally think solo time is a good thing and should be kept. If any changes should be made TC should increase the time total time required to get signed off and be fussier on who they let give the float endorsement. High time and properly trained float instructors should be the NORM and if you’re going to make anyone do a formal test from TC then it should be a test to TEACH float flying.

TC did the right thing in BC and need to chase down and crucify the rest of these schmuk operators who are pumping out improperly trained pilots who are in alot of cases an accident waiting to happen. I checked out a guy on a 180 who did the 50 hour seaplane course at 1,000,000,000 island air seaplane school in s.ontairio....he asked me how to step taxi. 7 hour endorsent and 43 hours riding around on charters making the operator rich.

Until we start training seaplane pilots properly we are not going to see a drop in accident rates.

I think a swing towards the Helicopter flight training units would be a step in the right direction. There are no time building instructors teaching helicopter lessons.........and for a damn good reason. Helicopter student pilots are insured to go solo UNTIL they get their license only...after you’re signed off you no longer qualify for student insurance. Why couldnt they do the same thing with seaplanes and turn out some properly trained pilots with some decision making skills learned from flying the plane solo?

[Tango01]

That's gonna get the juices flowing.

[Cat Driver]

Neechi:

You sure need a reality check about this subject, you said:


" TC did the right thing in BC and need to chase down and crucify the rest of these schmuk operators who are pumping out improperly trained pilots who are in alot of cases an accident waiting to happen. "

The issue of a student going solo has zero to do with the quality of training in seaplanes, TC's vendetta against one, get that one person here in the Pacific Region went way beyond reasonable when they TC cancelled a bunch of seaplane ratings even though the holders of same had been flying for months if not years. One of the inspectors who was ramrodding this fiasco should be kicked out on the street instead of working in TC payed for by you and me.

How come only "ONE" person has been charged when it has been known for decades that many, many training outfits rode with them during the solo part of their training ?

I agree that there is a lack of quality in a lot of seaplane instruction, but the answer is not having TC determine who is qualified to teach because you would be right back where you are now. In otherwords you would have a situation where you could get a TC inspecror testing on a subject he / she has no understanding of except their inflexible rules for what they think is the answer.

Why not have designated flight test examiners from the industry that must have say ten years of seaplane flying experience in commercial aviation to give the flight test, at least they would understand the subject.

Remember if you let TC do it then you open yourself up to any TC inspector testing you, remember once they get in there they do not need to know how to wipe their ass to be allowed to test an applicant on any subject.

As to solo once again it is a stupid, stupid requirement for learning how to fly seaplanes because the student is taking dual to learn, so why send him / her out solo to teach themselves?? stupid, stupid...first learn then take a flight test.

By the way having experience does not mean that TC will approve you to teach, these pricks here in Vancouver have stated clearly that they will not approve any training that I do.

But then again maybe I'm just to inexperienced to teach so you guys should grease yourself up and bend over for your favourite TC goon.

And the quality of training will remain pathetic like it is now.

Cat

[Shiny Side Up]

Appologies earlier Cat, I meant no offense or to question your experience.

But lets put extend the thought of keeping your insurance cost low by not letting float students really go solo - why not do the same thing with wheel training in the PPL or Rec licences? We could probably then cut cost for customers on two ends - lower insurance prices, means lower operating costs, and secondly, every pilot should effectively get his licence in the 45hrs since with an instructor riding along all the time you don't have to worry about wasting flight time making sure a student is qualified to go solo. Even the only time they "go solo" they're with the examiner so no risk to the flight trainer.

.......My take on this is if an instructor has confidence in his students ability to pass a flight test he / she will recommend them for a flight test, then if the student performs to the flight test standards they get a rating.

An instructor is also required to sign a student off for their first solo as well - which is more the parallel I'm trying to draw here. I mean I sure wouldn't feel right about getting them with the bucket of water if robbed them of the satisfaction of doing it themselves.


Of course my question is does the instructor get paid for these "solo" flights?

[Cat Driver]

Hey, Shiny Side no big deal I never took it that way at all.

Your suggestion is interesting, however there is a great difference between a student just starting to learn to fly and one getting an add on rating. When training for the saeplane rating we expect the student to already know how to fly and are only teaching them a new type of landing gear with a whole new world of problems to deal with during water operations, so why f.ck around with letting them solo?

I'm off to the airport to finish an annual on one of my Cessnas...don't let TC know I'm working on a Certified airplane because they know I don't hold a Canadian AME license and I am just terrified one of them may show up at my hangar and get himself hurt. You know how it is with liability in a workplace if you allow morons to wander around where they don't belong and they get hurt.

Cat

[Shiny Side Up]

I amended a bit above there Cat, but to sum up - to me it just irks me that on the flip side we have float pilots who are being turned out who are just meeting hourly and landing requirements - and this is probably a bit of what's behind the insurance company's reluctance to insure floatplanes.

After all why else would transport require you only to have about 7hrs to fly a float plane, but an insurance company require 50?

[Tango01]

The system is set up to fill the government's pocket. They stipulate a solo rule (which is dangerous since 7 hours won't make you a safe float pilot) and because of insurance/saftey reasons, instructors normally ride along and that's where they get you. How about designing a training program that gives students the skills and confidence to be great seaplane pilots?

[neechi]

Cat, know your facts b4 you try to sell your conspiracy theories okay?


The reason TC had an aneurism and pulled a bunch of endorsements was a very good one. The pilot giving the endorsement was not only giving endorsements without letting people go solo; he was giving endorsements to people who were in the back seat, and to people who were not even in the plane.


It makes a hell of a lot of sense to me to yank everyone’s ticket that had anything to do with this guy until they found out who got real training and who got a rating without flying. Sorry, but I don’t want anyone I know being a passenger with someone who got his endorsement this way. As for tc being staffed by aliens, ghost, government black suits, and zombies, I’ll buy that conspiracy.

How come only "ONE" person has been charged when it has been known for decades that many, many training outfits rode with them during the solo part of their training ?
Cat

As for tc being staffed by aliens, ghost, government black suits, and zombies, I’ll buy that conspiracy.

[Cat Driver]

neechi :

I of course do not know all the facts, however I do know several people who got caught in this mess and one of them was an instructor who was intimidated into admitting that the person that trained him was riding in the airplane when he did his "solo". When he admitted this to TC they pulled his seaplane rating, that is pure B.S. because hundreds of pilots got their ratings exactly the same way, his problem was co-operating with that prick in TC.

Of course he now understands the folly of co-operating with TC.

Anyhow you say;

" The pilot giving the endorsement was not only giving endorsements without letting people go solo; he was giving endorsements to people who were in the back seat, and to people who were not even in the plane. "

I would like you to show proof of this statement as no one that I have talked to said that ratings were given without actual flight training.

So PM me and give me some facts, and by the way that was about two years ago what exactly happened to the instructor that TC charged?

Cat

[Dog]

This argument is an old one. I'll ad my two cents worth:
If someone is not an acceptalble risk to act as PIC in an airplane (without a safety pilot), why in the world should he/she be allowed to hold a seaplane rating?
I've done a dozen or so ratings on 180/185 and everyone has gone solo. They don't all do it in seven hours and if they need hands and feet work I send them away to practice on something cheaper. When I sign off a rating I simply ask myself if I would feel safe to have this person fly my family. That includes knowing that the person has enough judjment recognize there limited experiece.

Before Capt. Porno calls me a ninny, here's my resume 6000+ west coast float time (all PIC). DHC-3T, DHC-2 , C-180/185/208, G-21...

I really like the idea of a ride, by the way. If simply just to reduce the liability of the poor f***er signing his house away on some guys rating.

[Cat Driver]

" Before Capt. Porno calls me a ninni, here's my resume 6000+ west coast float time (all PIC). DHC-3T, DHC-2 , C-180/185/208, G-21... "

Why would I call you a ninni, whatever that is, hell this whole discussion is only personal opinions on how to make the seaplane rating more affordable and improve the training.

I still can't connect the dots on why solo is not a requirement for the multi engine rating and the IFR rating?

If solo is not required for those two ratings what makes the seaplane rating any different?

And I would like to once again clairify the simple fact that it really does not matter to me what TC or the instructors do, I no longer do this stuff in Canada anyhow.


By the way Dog with 6000+ hours West Coast seaplane time you have to know how to do it by now or you would not be here.

Cat

[Cat Driver]

I just remembered something, when I give type ratings and seaplane ratings on the PBY the pilots cannot fly without me in the airplane until they pass a CAA flight test, and the same holds true here in Canada, last time I did type ratings on a Canadian Cat was in 1999 there were five civilians and two TC inspectors and they sure as hell could not go solo without a check ride by TC.

Cat

[Right Seat Captain]

After all why else would transport require you only to have about 7hrs to fly a float plane, but an insurance company require 50?

To understand insurance underwriters, one must be a statistician. To understand TC, one must be a politician. However I am neither, but I'll try to put some input into this.

Insurance is based solely on statistics. That means statistically and historically, pilots have more accidents in float planes if they have less that 50 hours of flying on floats. This doesn't mean you need 50 hours to be proficient. Someone who has a licence and flies with someone on floats, whether they are instructed or not, are bound to at least pick up the basics after 50 hours of flying. The insurers aren't pilots, nor do they know a thing about aviation beyond how many occurances, accidents and claims happen.

So maybe its the training, as some here suggest. Maybe if you have better training in those 7 hours, then you might see lower float minimums for the insurance.

As a side note, I know around here, private float insurance requires 25 hours. Maybe it's reduced lately? I don't know.

[neechi]

Cat,


No proof. Just word from the horses mouth (TC). Its unfortunate that people had to get their lives interrupted (I was one of them) and threatened (I again was one of them) but in hindsight I do believe that what TC did was justified and it was a safety issue.

The people who got their ticket revoked (not I, as I knew the rule and insisted) knew that going solo was a requirement of the rating and I feel they got what they deserved. Why do you feel sorry for them? They broke the rules and were offered immunity for cooperating, fair deal considering they could have been charged with fraud(or something) and have been dragged though the mud with the schmuk instructor. You say your friend "now understands the folly of co-operating with TC", by that do you mean he learned his lesson about conspirering to break regs and then admit to it?


To answer your question; I don’t know what happened to the "instructor", that is a loose term btw, but TC still has my logbook. Last I heard was last year,(grapevine) TC were flying people in from all over the world to testify. The guy who was giving the ratings relative was a hot shot lawyer and came out of retirement to defend him. Haven't heard much else Cat.

Now, if hundreds of people are getting their float ratings this way they should be revoked to. I'm not saying that people are safer with 5 T's and L's under their belts but those are the rules. Do you have some proof that TC knows this is going on? You can pm me if you want but I have no problem sharing what I/we know on the forum.


The diffrence between the IFR/MULTI and float rating.......you do a ride with TC(or a DFTE) AND you are solo on your ride, logged as pic...AND your instructor is NOT on the aircraft with you.

Cheers.