Giving float ratings

[cessnafloatflyer]

TC requires proof of insurance from operators who submit ratings to avoid this. If the insurance isn't there, the rating is not issued.

[Cat Driver]

The five solo take off and landing requirement adds a very expensive operating cost on the owner of the airplane through the extra cost of insurance.

A test flight by an approved examiner would save that extra insurance cost.

[Cat Driver]

I get suicidal when I hear people say sending them solo means you are showing that you are confident they are safe.

That is a weak argument because if the requirements were a test flight you have to be confident at least two people have determined the student has been trained to the standard.....which for sea plane ratings are a sad joke to start with.

[pdw]

Yeah, maybe not even so much about the actual insurance premium for letting the low-time float flier do some solo. If the soloist cracks yours up ... "oh I'm sorry"... there are often those impossible insurance increases to follow, or a payout shortfall, or where a portion of the relatively short revenue-season is lost ... or completely (a lot bigger financial risk for this negligeable portion of the overall revenue).

[cessnafloatflyer]

eah, maybe not even so much about the actual insurance premium for letting the low-time float flier do some solo. If the soloist cracks yours up ... "oh I'm sorry"... there are often those impossible insurance increases to follow, or a payout shortfall, or where a portion of the relatively short revenue-season is lost ... or completely (a lot bigger financial risk for this negligeable portion of the overall revenue).

Not to mention possible, death, injury or 3rd party property or personal damages. But more than anything, what does the rating actually prove without a flight test? Not too much. Something, but not much.

[Cat Driver]

The issue will not be resolved because the regulator is on another planet and has no clue.

However they do still get their bonuses the same as if they actually performed a useful function.

[Shiny Side Up]

I get suicidal when I hear people say sending them solo means you are showing that you are confident they are safe.

No one is "safe", not from when you leave the womb. But one can do somewhat to mitigate the risk of getting dead too quick.

That is a weak argument because if the requirements were a test flight you have to be confident at least two people have determined the student has been trained to the standard.....which for sea plane ratings are a sad joke to start with.

I'm not confident that flight tests make sure pilots are at a standard either, or "safe" for that matter. I'm not sure what kind of confidence you have in our regulator, but I have none that any test and standards they could come up with would do anything worthwhile. Is it proven that American trained float pilots are safer than Canadian ones? Take a look at some of the ridiculous things they have on the PPL, CPL, ME, and IFR tests. The tests have become beasts of their own.

I would go as far as to say that a seaplane rating is as good as you want it to be, just like the rest of the licenses. While I don't like insurance companies any more than the next guy, I don't think the sole purpose of nixing the solo requirement should be to make for cheaper seaplane ratings. Again, from my experience there seems to be a tourist culture around seaplane ratings where its important for anyone who pays to get the paper must get it over the course of a holiday.

In all honesty, most of the seaplane training accidents I've seen happen dual. Privately owned seaplanes crash I suspect from a hideous lack of currency.

Do we perceive the main problem is the cost of solo take offs and landings?

[Cat Driver]

Sorry for using the word safe in my posts.

I am living in the past where our main objective was to teach each individual to a skill level that would make them as safe as possible.

Of course there is no sure way to ensure that any student is " safe " because human nature is not predictable.

Maybe the best way to solve this training issue is to get rid of all qualifications to teach flying and let everyone teach them self.

[Big Pistons Forever]

Last year I flew with a guy with a month old float rating obtained on on his buddies rag wing Piper. He wanted to try a Cessna and I was asked to give him an hour of dual on our training machine. It did not go well and without my intervention we would have crashed at least 3 times.

It was obvious to me that he and his buddy just flew around for 7 hours and then he signed him off. I absolutely am certain that this guy never flew solo. I agree with . on this, a flight test at least provides some level of quality control on the float rating process.

BTW when I send a float rating student solo, I stay at the dock and the student goes to a bay about 5 miles away. If I am not happy to see him fly out of sight around the corner and go do the 5 landings and takeoffs on his own then he/she doesn't go solo.....

[Cat Driver]

Requiring a flight test would also help keep the quality of instruction acceptable because multiple failures for any given instructor would raise a red flag as to said instructors ability to teach the subject.

[B-rad]

All of you on commenting on this topic alone are making me sick of this AvCanada bitch fest. You are making it sound like the system is worse then it is. How many fresh float pilots are crashing?? If it were half as bad as you make it out to be then it would be stopped in a heart beat.
The reality is a float rating is a licence to learn and added on top of already licensed pilots.
Some of you are commenting that a pilot should display an expert level of skills before getting a rating. This is absurd as it takes experience to become an expert and you can not expect someone who is just starting out to be an expert. The system is working and while many pilots don't experience truly glassy water landing while obtaining their rating, the have been exposed to the knowledge needed to know what to do.
It seams that the general theme is thinking a float pilot is going to find himself in the most challenging situation on their first flight with as much experience as they have flying a space ship.
In my opinion the biggest challenge of float flying is handling the aircraft navigating on the water and docking in windy situations. The rest of it comes in due time and is not that big of a leap from what we already know of flying a wheeled plane. If you think a brand new float pilot is going to put themselves into the same situations a seasoned float pilot would then give your head shake and stop your bitching.
On one hand I'm hearing that the solo requirement is a joke and then in the next post someone says they flew with someone who probably never even went solo!
The real joke of float flying is every one hear complaining about it

[Shiny Side Up]

BTW when I send a float rating student solo, I stay at the dock and the student goes to a bay about 5 miles away. If I am not happy to see him fly out of sight around the corner and go do the 5 landings and takeoffs on his own then he/she doesn't go solo.....

Well ideally that's the way it should work.

Maybe the best way to solve this training issue is to get rid of all qualifications to teach flying and let everyone teach them self.

In a perfect world, that's all we'd need to do. Good instructors could be left to license students at their own discretion, but alas, its not a perfect world.

I guess my problem is that I don't have much faith in the testing process anymore, so before we start going about mandating more tests, it needs to be overhauled.

But I'd agree on the point that the float process needs to be changed to make it higher quality, but I feel it would actually be somewhat detrimental if we instituted a testing system with the main goal of making it easier (ie cheaper) for schools to give out float ratings. We'd see a lot of more fly by night places show up, many with their own in house examiner getting the plum "seaplane tester" and kids churned out by the hundreds with fresh float ratings to go along with their other stack of "qualifications". Zero risk to the school since they aren't the ones ever taking the risk (and thus undergoing the fatigue of training to mitigate it) and that being turned over to the industry. Possibly more dangerous you will start more of the inbreeding already endemic to this part of flight training and getting more instructors teaching instructors till no one can fly floats well.

Right now, the main risk of overnight float ratings is those in the private flying, which in my experience the insurance companies are already doing a good job of gatekeeping since for the most part they're mandating way steeper requirements than the basic float rating for owner pilots. There are of course the usual scabs who cheap out and somehow get flying float planes as BPF has mentioned, the folks who are often getting what they're paying for.

To me, one of the main problems with private float flyers is obvious - Most of the water in Canada is frozen for six months out of the year. How many guys are out of currency when they take their family out to the lake for their first flight of the year?

[Spokes]

Wouldn't they do 5 to/landing solo before they take the family out?

[PilotDAR]

How many fresh float pilots are crashing?

Well, enough that it is concerning to me, but worse, when a floatplane comes to grief, it is usually much more serious than that accident would have been at an airport in a landplane.

So I guess that makes me one of the bitchfesters here. I have never given a float rating, though I am entitled. I know a good local FTU, whose instructors will be walking up from the dock when students are flying solo. I send pilots there. I do water type training though. I have yet to type train a float pilot whom when I began, I thought was ready to safely handle conditions they could encounter on the next local flight to a new lake.

We learn to control and handle an aircraft. Then, we learn how to "operate" it in an environment. The operating learning can hardly begin, until the pilot is very comfortable handling the aircraft, and that certainly is not the case in ten hours for most pilots. So while the student is just figuring out the aircraft for the first ten hours of the float rating, that student is hardly absorbing any "operational" training which might be also happening, if the instructor them self has the experience to provide it.

When, with a hundred or so hours on floats, I was trained in Lake Amphibians, I was checked out on the runway, then sent for several hours of solo flying, including stalls, slow flight, and every type of land landing, before I did any water flying in it. By the time I got to the water, it was only the water characteristics I was learning. I was required to demonstrate more than 40 landings in every type of condition before I was sent solo. After that, I was ready to begin learning on my own. In doing so, I still learned many new operational things.

In my opinion the biggest challenge of float flying is handling the aircraft navigating on the water and docking in windy situations.

Yes, this can be a very challenging aspect of float flying, but aside from some costly dock rash, it rarely results in an injurious "crash"

The rest of it comes in due time and is not that big of a leap from what we already know of flying a wheeled plane. If you think a brand new float pilot is going to put themselves into the same situations a seasoned float pilot would then give your head shake and stop your bitching.

I disagree. There are huge differences in selecting a landing or takeoff path between float flying and landplane flying on "runways". It's not that the new float pilot chooses to put themselves into the dangerous situations, its that they don't know enough to keep themselves out of them. And when, at a non water aerodrome landing place, they have a water landing/takeoff accident, it is likely to be very serious.

A plug for Bryan Webster's dunker course: Any floatplane pilot who takes that course should, in my opinion, get five hours of float flying time credit. This is simply to acknowledge the excellent wisdom in how to avoid dangerous conditions which is passed along in that course.

Insurers are well positioned to impose more appropriate experience requirements for new float pilot, other than many new float pilots I have known don't even bother insuring their aircraft for hull insurance, so the insurer does not have much leverage. Yes, I know 185 amphibian and Lake amphibian owners who fly with only liability insurance - they cannot get hull insurance.

It's fine to say that float flying is safe, and generally it is, but there's more luck involved than land flying. But when it goes bad, it goes bad much worse than the land, and pilots are not competent until they can anticipate and mitigate these circumstances.

[LousyFisherman]

As an amateur who got his ticket last November, 7 hours was not enough for me to feel comfortable taking passengers. 7 hours is enough to learn the basic skills of landing and takeoff on floats. The biggest problem is there is not enough time to learn the operating environment which is very different than land.

So as the subject is float training, the scenario is that new float rating pilot arrives to your dock, and would like to rent your C 180 straight floatplane. What water flying skills are you going to want to see actually demonstrated to you, before you set this pilot loose with the plane?
For me, in order of importance to me:
A few actual glassy water landings well executed

I have been lucky, I have 5-10 partial glassy landings under my belt. Most amateurs I know have none. Unless the weather co-operates if can be very difficult to get real experience. Especially since you would like to have an instructor/safety pilot there when it happens the first time.

Actual forced landings onto the water, with a plan to shore. If your forced landing is going to be onto glassy water, what will you do?

An actual forced landing? ie The engine really failed? I suspect there are very few who meet that criteria. As for the forced onto glassy, set up for a glassy water landing, and be prepared for your sphincter to really tighten up.

Estimating with accuracy or conservatism, water run available and required for landing and takeoff of an unknown body of water
Determining wind direction, intensity, and effects of terrain or obstructions on the wind.
Planning arrival and departure paths on an unknown body of water
Assessing the bottom at shore, and hazards in the water.

Basics that are (at least for me) covered in the 7 hours

Securing the aircraft against bottom/an object, and preventing damage to the float.
Takeoff path including a heading change, and takeoff from one float.
Arresting a porpoise.

While I had some of these in the 7 hours there is not enough time to learn them all properly.

Assessing shore for beaching or landing -what will the plan be?

This is the big one that is not trained in the 7 hours. Prep for landing at a land airport is relatively trivial compared to landing at a unknown waterdrome.
Doing a slow taxi around a protected dock is not the proper way to find the entrance

I just completed another 20 hours floats in Manitoba. (refresher/training/practice)
- My landing attitude was correct from day 1
- My navigation skills were fine from day 1
- My docking/beaching skills and landing site assessments were deficient.
- My knowledge of procedures at waterdromes was deficient.

After 27 hours total, I am quite comfortable taking passengers with me into remote areas. However, I will take a basic refresher every year after the winter layoff.
I think the proper way to teach a float rating is to extend the time to 15 hours, and the test is a XC to a dock or lake/beach that is unknown to the candidate.

Letting a city boy/girl fly into remote areas of Canada with 7 hours is just stupidity.

IMHO
LF

[Cat Driver]

But I'd agree on the point that the float process needs to be changed to make it higher quality, but I feel it would actually be somewhat detrimental if we instituted a testing system with the main goal of making it easier (ie cheaper) for schools to give out float ratings.

Once again may I point out that the requirement for five solo take offs and landings in a sea plane adds a significant cost to the owner of the airplane for insurance coverage.

Once again may I point out that replacing the five solo flights with a flight test with an independent flight test examiner would save money for the operator of the airplane.

Why are there no requirements for solo for the multi engine rating and the instrument rating, but there is a flight test.

[cessnafloatflyer]

An actual forced landing? ie The engine really failed? I suspect there are very few who meet that criteria. As for the forced onto glassy, set up for a glassy water landing, and be prepared for your sphincter to really tighten up.

How can you do a glassy water landing without power? By definition it is a power on landing. Sounds like struts through the floor to me, which of course is a crash. We all can learn here, but from what I know there is no glassy water / engine failure from altitude landing.

Letting a city boy/girl fly into remote areas of Canada with 7 hours is just stupidity.

But if you live rural it's alright?

[PilotDAR]

How can you do a glassy water landing without power?

If I were faced with a power off landing, and glassy water was the only water choice, I'd be looking for a very narrow body of water, so shore was a reference, or land right tight to shore without looking at the water much, or a swamp or clear land, any of which increase your visual cues.

There's no way it's going to work out great, you just aim for survivable at that point.....

[Shiny Side Up]

Once again may I point out that the requirement for five solo take offs and landings in a sea plane adds a significant cost to the owner of the airplane for insurance coverage.

Once again may I point out that replacing the five solo flights with a flight test with an independent flight test examiner would save money for the operator of the airplane.

I'm missing something here. I don't believe there's a public mandate to save people money. If an operator can't make a go of charging what needs to be charged to make his business viable, then he shouldn't be operating. There is no "right" to affordable float ratings in this country.

Ultimately this is putting the insurance companies as the gate keepers again. But it does beg the question of how many operators aren't insured for solo flights, are skating around the by selling instructor ride along "PIC" time as "meeting the requirements", and thus are able to give away crappy float ratings. Maybe instead of a flight test, we just need for the regulator show up and see if people are actually going solo. Might make a lot of operators squirm - or make some do better training so we might see less weekend float courses and more 20 - 30 hour float ratings. The main thing is this though:

independent flight test examiner

Until we have movement on that end for change, all of what you propose just helps the crooked operators make more money, and does zero to the QC of float ratings. I'm thoroghly against helping crappy operators make more money.

[PilotDAR]

It's funny, I spent a few years dragging out my helicopter training, because I was insured to fly solo as a student, but I was told that I would not be able to rent, once licensed. Thus, I had a number of solo cross countries in the helicopter, and all was fine. Then one day, I was offered a type endorsement, on a larger helicopter. 'Problem was, I did not have a license to endorse. So, I finished my license, got the type endorsement, and I have not flown a helicopter solo since! Insurers say no. So as a student, I'm insurable, but as a pilot, I am not. It seems the reverse must be true in float training.

That said, one of my recent "students" was simply unable to get hull insurance for his seaplane, so he flies at his own risk. My other recent "student" does have insurance, but the cost is immense.

All said and done, if a pilot wants a low use, minimalist "sea" rating on their license, just for show, go do the minimum. If that pilot actually wants to go somewhere in a floatplane, and be safe about it, the fresh float rating is not going to be enough, pay willingly for the training you should have. I estimate 20 hours of training provided by a well experienced water pilot.

[Cat Driver]

I'm missing something here. I don't believe there's a public mandate to save people money. If an operator can't make a go of charging what needs to be charged to make his business viable, then he shouldn't be operating. There is no "right" to affordable float ratings in this country.

My motivation to offer sea plane training is monetary with very little altruistic drive.

As long as I have to pay excessive insurance to offer the sea plane rating I have zero intrest in that part of training.

Conversely I am interested in offering advanced sea plane training to licensed pilots with sea plane ratings on a privately registered float plane.

Ultimately this is putting the insurance companies as the gate keepers again.

They already are.

[Shiny Side Up]

My motivation to offer sea plane training is monetary with very little altruistic drive.

As long as I have to pay excessive insurance to offer the sea plane rating I have zero intrest in that part of training.

I'm still missing something. Why wouldn't you charge enough to cover that cost of operation? That's like saying you have no interest in running a flying business because fuel is too expensive, or your AME's shop rate is too high. That said, if the market won't bear your price that covers that cost, then you don't sell it.

For some reason I find this all across flight training (and actually, aviation in general), a reluctance to make the customer bear the price that covers the cost of operation. It always seems like its ten years behind the rest of the world with pricing and would always rather hit the customer with paper-cut type price increases than straight up increases in prices. Personally I'd wager that (like the way things have gone with the price of fuel) the market can bear a substantial price increase, they'll be unhappy, they'll complain, but in the end they'll get used to paying for it since they want it bad enough.

[Cat Driver]

I'm still missing something. Why wouldn't you charge enough to cover that cost of operation?

Because I believe that T.C.'s requirement for solo is flawed and replacing it with a flight test would be far better...so why would I be content to have to build in an extra cost to operate my business when I do not believe it is necessary?

That's like saying you have no interest in running a flying business because fuel is too expensive, or your AME's shop rate is too high. That said, if the market won't bear your price that covers that cost, then you don't sell it.

I had no problem with my price for training when I was doing it full time, and my price was a lot more than a FTU charges.

I seldom flew for less than $1000.00 a day.

And T.C. had zero input into my flight training business.

And never will.

[trey kule]

I have been lucky, I have 5-10 partial glassy landings under my belt

What is a partial glassy water landing?

I think that the issue is/was, that for a commercial operator, you can train one of your pilots in about 5 hours. But then two things happened. The new float pilot got supervised, and experience came quick.
Also, in many cases the flying was to the same places for awhile so the learning curve was not necessarily as steep...it worked out pretty well IIRC.

The recreational float endorsement, or add on without immediately going off to work changes things dramatically. And I think this is where the danger lies. A bare rating and then turned loose.
You really need to be in that environment where there are older wiser experienced types who provide daily mentoring while you build experience. The "bush" course, from what I have seen, do not address this issue, particularly those with inexperienced float pilots as instructors.

In the US, solo time is not required. And I suspect that maybe why insurers here are reluctant. Just a guess.
But I see nothing wrong with solo time for the rating. Over the years I did a large number of ratings, and it was never a problem , though the odd guy took more than 3 hours before solo (it was a five hour rating back then). I should add the caveat that all the students were CPL. rated. Not sure how it would be with someone with a fresh ppl wanting to do a rating....though these days it seems it takes about 100 hours to get a ppl....

[Cat Driver]

While we are talking about cost and reward for teaching the sea plane rating how much would I get paid if I were to do it part time for a Canadian FTU?