BC Float rating cost

[Hot Wings]

Hi, I've been looking for somewhere to do my float rating. I was looking at Pacific Seaplanes on Vancouver Island, and they're offering it for $1699. That's much more affordable than the average, is it not?

[I_Heart_Seaplanes]

That is a pretty good price. Make sure you ask: What type is it on? Does it include taxes? is there a fuel surcharge?. For comparison Fort Langley Air is on a C180 and $2450 all in.

[7ECA]

When I did my rating back in 2012 at Pacific Rim they charged $1500 all in on a 172. Sadly Jim died in October 2012 in a crash on Pitt Lake.

[bcsaltchucker]

Hi, I've been looking for somewhere to do my float rating. I was looking at Pacific Seaplanes on Vancouver Island, and they're offering it for $1699. That's much more affordable than the average, is it not?

Victoria Flying club has a 172 on floats doing instruction now too. min is around $1500 or so
http://www.flyvfc.com/seaplane-rating

[CpnCrunch]

Victoria Flying club has a 172 on floats doing instruction now too. min is around $1500 or so
http://www.flyvfc.com/seaplane-rating

Not quite. Their dual rate is currently $270/hr, so it comes to $1890. Then you have to add $100 for the seminal and training manual, and $60/hr for briefings, so minimum is over $2000.

[awitzke]

I did my rating and some additional renting at Fort Langley Air. Paid IIRC about 2.2k for the rating and additional rentals were about $350? for solo flight. Real solo.

It was on a C180 on Edos, and when I was job hunting I did get a few comments from CP's that the C180 time was favorable and they liked to see that vs. cub/172 time. Given most jobs will likely start on a C180 or possibly a 206.

[awitzke]

Something I'll add... One of the reasons I really liked training in Ft. Langley was the fact Pitt, Alouette, Stave and Harrison were all very close by. Additionally once you went to another location with the instructor you were cleared to go there alone. I'm not sure how other schools take care of real solo rentals? I spent two flights going to Victora, Bedwell Harbour, Saltspring, S. Terminal, Powell River, Chatterbox Falls, Schelt, Nanimo and Victoria (airport) and afterwards spent a ton of time flying around by myself and with some friends. I learned a lot flying alone and going out into the Strait is pretty fun. Talking with Van Tower etc. going into YVR gives you a good taste of what your job would be like if you worked for Harbour Air or one of the other Van float operators.

Had a lot of fun and highly recommend doing a bit more than just the minimum float time. Although I didn't end up working a float job I know if I would have started a job with just 7 hours (let alone finding a job with 7 hours) it would have been a pretty steep learning curve. Not to say it can't be done, it can.. but a few extra hours under your belt solo goes a long way for your confidence. No saying go fly 50 hours, but an extra 5-10 hours certainly can't hurt and will put you over the top against other people applying to jobs with 7 hours.

[Chuck Ellsworth]

It was on a C180 on Edos, and when I was job hunting I did get a few comments from CP's that the C180 time was favorable and they liked to see that vs. cub/172 time. Given most jobs will likely start on a C180 or possibly a 206.

What exactly did you learn about float plane flying on the Cessna 180 that you would not have learned on a Cub or a Cessna 172?

Did you learn you spent more money than was necessary flying a more expensive float plane?

[SuperchargedRS]

It was on a C180 on Edos, and when I was job hunting I did get a few comments from CP's that the C180 time was favorable and they liked to see that vs. cub/172 time. Given most jobs will likely start on a C180 or possibly a 206.

What exactly did you learn about float plane flying on the Cessna 180 that you would not have learned on a Cub or a Cessna 172?

Did you learn you spent more money than was necessary flying a more expensive float plane?

Have you ever flown a 172 vs a skywagon, I know you have and I know you know they handle differently, especially when you learn to use that Johnson bar flap to your advantage, and can make the cowl flaps, CS prop, trims, etc all sing in harmony.

Also if you're starting on a C180/5 most insurance Co.s want XX time in type, already having some hours saves the company some money, plus you're already familiar.

Learning to fly a larger bird on smaller floats takes a bit more work compared to a way over floated and very simple PA18 sitting on a couple barges worth of floatation, as many a trainer float plane is configured.

[Cat Driver]

Have you ever flown a 172 vs a skywagon, I know you have and I know you know they handle differently, especially when you learn to use that Johnson bar flap to your advantage, and can make the cowl flaps, CS prop , trims, etc all sing in harmony.

I will apologize for forgetting how much more complex those Cessna 180's are compared to a Cub or a Cessna 172.

How stupid of me to forget that float flying is all about working those difficult to operate items such as cowl flaps, CS prop, trims, etc on the water.

I'm sorry to have expressed my personal opinion on float plane training so back to the other forum for me.

[awitzke]

I was specifically talking about time on type, .. I flew a Super Cub after I flew the C180 and I feel like what I learned in the 180 allowed me to fly the Cub quite easily. It pops off the water no problem, very forgiving plane... IMO. It wants to fly. Learning on a C180 taught me to FLY the plane off the water and onto the water. The step is not as forgiving as a Cub. It's heavier, turns differently and requires a bit more work to fly and monitor given the constant speed prop. Now had I done my rating on a Cub (which by the way I LOVE flying and after now having flown one really want to purchase one for fun) the transition to a Cessna 180... be it even a 172 would have been a bit more work. Again... not saying it's not possible as many have done it before me without trouble.. but the time I had on the 180 led to a job offer. Had all my time been on a Cub that likely wouldn't have been offered that position due to insurance requirements with time on type.

Again, I have to add the disclaimer that I didn't end up pursuing a float job and only have about 50 hours of float time. So take my opinion for what it is. I'm just giving my input based on my experience job hunting with minimal time and what situations I ran into.

[Cat Driver]

No need to explain this stuff to me awitzke you guys try and give me some slack here because some day you to will be in the same position as me when age creeps up on you and you become senile and can't remember how difficult this float plane flying really is.

Anyhow I seldom post here on this forum for the simple reason it is really embarrassing to see how dumb I must appear to all the experts here.

So the very fact I do realize that shows I do have the odd lucid moment.

[Cat Driver]

Seeing as I am involved in this discussion I would like to comment on low powered sea planes versus high powered sea planes.

The most demanding flying machine I ever flew was way over powered for the airframe and had a weird thrust line that was not only a high thrust line but it was quite far forward.

The engines were so far forward you had to lift the wing in a turn to see ahead on the down wing side of the turn...a real pain in the ass when skud running close to the water.

Single pilot water operations on that sucker was just plain frightening at times when you had to leap out of the thing at the dock and tie it up with the prop spinning really close to the dock.

And the thing would porpoise like a bastard in swells.

Google the Grumman Turbo goose and look at the pictures of the thing at a dock to see how low the props are.

[PilotDAR]

For the purpose of considering training choices, I support the remarks which awitzke has made in this thread. Training in the 180 at Fort Langley will make you that little bit better ready to present yourself for a job flying a 180! I don't know of many jobs flying 172 floatplanes!

[BeaverDreamer]

For the purpose of considering training choices, I support the remarks which awitzke has made in this thread. Training in the 180 at Fort Langley will make you that little bit better ready to present yourself for a job flying a 180! I don't know of many jobs flying 172 floatplanes!

How about 172 float time with 400ish hours of 182/185 wheel time? Went the 172 route thinking it would give me better actual float skills other than mastering the extremely demanding task of managing a CS prop and cowl flaps... Maybe I screwed that up

[PilotDAR]

400 hours on 18x Cessnas is a good foundation for getting your float rating on a 172 floatplane, and it's being well received by potential employers. The CS prop and cowl flaps really are not an element of a float rating, and if it's a concern, look for the 172 floatplane so equipped. The different inertia and manual flaps of the 180/185 are good experience to train with if you can get it. That said, float training in 172 will teach the student that just because you can get it into the cabin, does not mean you can get it of the water!

[Cat Driver]

A few more thoughts.

Not all pilots learn to fly floats to fly them commercially, however if a pilot with a commercial license has problems flying airplanes with cowl flaps and a C S prop his / her lack of flying skills will be evident to most employers during a check ride.

Getting the rating in the 172 saves money and the rating is the same.

In the world of flying I came from different ratings are....training to be competent to fly a different category of airplane.

[Cat Driver]

Back to the first post here.

The most important issue about learning to fly floats is " who " is doing the teaching not what airplane it is done on.

Does anyone here know a more experienced float plane pilot offering training than Randy?

If money is no problem then go see Randy , he can train you on a 172, a 180 or the Beech 18.

If a new float plane pilot showed up at an operator looking for a new start float plane pilot for sure the pilot who got his float plane rating on the Beech 18 would stand out over someone trained on one of those complex Cessna 180's.

[altiplano]

When I did my float rating years back the reason for going to Fort Langley was Dave Hamel, not the 180. Finest instructor I ever met.

If his successor is as qualified an instructor I would certainly look there - otherwise all conditions equal do it the cheapest.

[oldncold]

+1 onthat dave was great though he didscared the piss out me flying under the powerline on the way to harrison said 'you should wait till you have several hundred hours before doing that yourself' . point made leave that for the redbull types and cat

[Cat Driver]

Dave Hamel was a real loss to aviation and I was shocked when we lost him.

[Cat Driver]

+1 on that dave was great though he did scared the piss out me flying under the powerline on the way to harrison said 'you should wait till you have several hundred hours before doing that yourself' . point made leave that for the redbull types and cat

Flying under or through things is really not all that difficult, it is sort of like landing with the nose wheel on the centre line.

The big thing about doing it for Red Bull is it pays real good.

[CpnCrunch]

Does anyone here know a more experienced float plane pilot offering training than Randy?

If money is no problem then go see Randy , he can train you on a 172, a 180 or the Beech 18.

If a new float plane pilot showed up at an operator looking for a new start float plane pilot for sure the pilot who got his float plane rating on the Beech 18 would stand out over someone trained on one of those complex Cessna 180's.

+1 for Randy. I recently finished my float rating with him in his 172, and I would definitely recommend him. He is highly experienced, and will give you some of the best training that it's possible to get. It's pretty reasonably priced, at $1699 (+tax) for the seaplane rating on the 172, or $2800 on the 180. Ground school and briefings are included in the price.

http://pacificseaplanes.ca/training/

Randy recommends training initially on the 172, then moving onto the 180 later.

[Saxub]

Do you know why he says to recommend the 172 first?

I did my initial on a 180 and didn't find it all that hard to get a handle on. It was nice flying a bigger plane too with a constant speed.

[CpnCrunch]

Do you know why he says to recommend the 172 first?

I did my initial on a 180 and didn't find it all that hard to get a handle on. It was nice flying a bigger plane too with a constant speed.

IIRC the main reason is because takes longer to get onto the step and takeoff, due to having limited power, whereas the 180 is a little bit easier because it comes off the water that much quicker.

Also, if the student hasn't any experience on anything larger than a 172, you're obviously going to have a certain learning curve there on top of the float training itself.

And as . says, the 172 is cheaper, so it would seem to make sense to learn the basics of float flying on the cheaper plane.