Giving float ratings

[PilotDAR]

It's the individual that will determine how much they learn

Yes, I very much agree. However, it is a rare pilot who will learn more than they are being taught. Thus, for the rest of the new pilots, who have learned what they've been taught, they will not, for some time, exceed the skill and experience presented to them by the instructor. So if that skill and experience is minimal, it will remain perpetuated there. The lack of a float endorsement test means that the inexperienced can lead and endorse the even more inexperienced, and nothing measures that adequacy of the training, until the insurance company gets involved - before, or after the accident.

threads theme has been going that the float rating training out there is not adequate

I share the opinion that the minimums for the float rating are inadequate to produce a competent float pilot post endorsement. It would appear that the statements about insurance being difficult for new float pilots (or students) to get support this.

[Taiser]

I share the opinion that the minimums for the float rating are inadequate to produce a competent float pilot post endorsement.

So what's the magic number to make somebody competent? They want 7... I took 9. There's a girl I know doing a float endorsement that is pushing 18 hours now because some things aren't sinking in! No doubt she'll eventually get it, but that's at the instructors discretion, which is the way it should be! A legit place isn't going to let you out on their expensive float plane without making sure you are qualified so in some cases who knows, it might be 15 or 20 or more hours before they let you out. If you follow the rules I don't see an issue. So if the number is low, what number do YOU think it should be? And where do you draw the line? Night rating, VFR OTT, taildraggers, aerobatics all don't have examiner rides AFAIK. Knowing the government they didn't pull the minimums out of their asses, they came from somewhere and they are MINIMUMS, don't mean it will happen in that time frame.

I don't see planes falling out of the sky too often, in fact in my job most of the plane crashes I go to in this area are commercial flights! I've been to about 8 in the last 10 years, only one was a private crash!!!

We are in probably one of the most regulated industry in Canada and some of you guys want to make it worse? Easy to say for the commercial guys who's company pays for check rides, medicals and training. The poor private guys like me though is getting raped by all this regulation. All I want to do is buzz around my part of the sky and doubt I'd go more than a few hundred miles out of here.

I fly when the sun is out, during the day with good weather forecasts. Sure the weather can turn on a dime and you do your best to avoid that, but that's when the training you do get comes in... but I've never had it happen to me yet and I got my license back in '86 so I'd like to think my "fly only when it's nice rule" is working for me and probably a lot of other guys who only do it for fun. Seems like some of you commercial guys seem to forget that.

Here's a rule for ya. Have a different set of requirements depending on the commercial or private use of the endorsement! Private guys going for floats can stay with the minimum 7 hours or until your instructor thinks you are proficient. Commercial endorsements should get 40 hours dual with a check ride with an examiner!!! Huh...HUH!!!! Whatcha think???

[iflyforpie]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but commercial pilots already have different standards... in the form of 50 hours on category of aircraft, 3 hours of initial company training, and a Pilot Competnecy Check before flying for hire.

[Taiser]

Aren't those company policies, mostly for insurance reasons? Don't think any of those are government rules...?

[PilotDAR]

what number do YOU think it should be?

I don't think that I've ever established a number, I don't think that's possible. I think the insurers and the regulator are equally under informed to quantify qualification too. They each to what they can. Earlier, I listed some items. When the new float pilot is competent at those, that's a good place to make a qualification milestone. I simply don't think that those skills can be taught and mastered in such a short time.

Letting alone the number applied to the training, an examination would be an objective assurance that minimum skills were mastered. This is not my problem to solve. It is a small problem, but it remains one. Float ratings are given out, when the minimum skills for safe self dispatch into new locations may not be there for the pilot.

Yeah, night, VFR OTT, and tailwheel have challenges too, but floatplanes with eager passengers become more of a "front page" type risk, because it is the nice days they go to remote places, then have a problem there, and it's bad. You can groundloop a taildragger and bugger a wing, but three or four people aren't going to be injured and drown when that happens. Happily, engine reliability is making night and VFR OTT seem more reasonable risks.

I am not a commercial floatplane pilot, I'm not even a very experienced one, by standards like Cat, and others here. But I do type checkouts in amphibs and I see what other pilots have yet to master, based upon what they demonstrate. Occasionally it's alarming, with a float rating, they should know, or be more proficient at these things.

[Shiny Side Up]

Aren't those company policies, mostly for insurance reasons? Don't think any of those are government rules...?

No, Pie is correct, though its a longer and more drawn out series of requirements all laid out in the various 72X standards section of the CARs. Too long to post here since its not all directly in one place and of course there are exceptions given certain criteria.

[trey kule]

some things aren't sinking in!

I think that is a good thing when it comes to float flying!

Seriously, in such type of ratings, the times set are minimums, and usually determined by the time necessary to complete all the required training exercises at least once. Kind of a bottom standard.

On the other hand we have instructors whose judgement is occasionally clouded by the limit of the students credit card. Discretion must be used properly. A nervous type, or inexperienced flight instructor is going to want more dual....just to be certain and safe....now who can argue with that.
If someone is not safe to cut lose after 18 hours of dual on floats, their instructor should be having a chat with them to reconsider the rating. It simply should not take that much dual.

The ppl thing makes it difficult. I know 2000 hour ppl pilots who can fly far better than almost every cpl I have ever met. On the other hand a non current, new ppl...big difference I would think.

Now what was the OP about?

[PilotDAR]

Now what was the OP about?

My hope remains that any pilot considering giving float ratings has read quietly to themselves, that which has been posted here about the quality and breadth of training which could be considered "adequate", and asked themselves: "Could I train all that if asked by my student?"

If that float rating trainer can answer yes, in good conscience, the next question becomes; how much flying will that take with the student, relative to what they are expecting it to cost?

Thereafter, for the prospective float students reading all of this, they should now be considering the minimums they think that they will be being trained to, and perhaps asking for more, just for its own sake.

I know that there are excellent float training providers out there (I was chatting with one of them yesterday). Discussion on the topic has the hope of keeping the training bar appropriately high - voluntarily - by agreement trainer to trainee, so we don't need more regulation....

[photofly]

Discussion on the topic has the hope of keeping the training bar appropriately high

In that case the bar is past the orbit of Jupiter, and still climbing

[PilotDAR]

the bar is past the orbit of Jupiter, and still climbing

Excellent, then good pilots will always be trying harder to reach it, and skills will constantly be improving.

[B-rad]

.

[trey kule]

Edited as was no longer relevant

[Shiny Side Up]

So it is a great idea to not argue with him ( or discuss as you put it) sit back, read and learn.

Anyone can argue with whomever trey, sort of the point of the site. Attacking his character for no reason though is pretty uncool. There are few posters around as reasonable to argue with as PilotDAR.

[Cat Driver]

To expand on what Trey K. said.

PilotDAR....

...the DAR stands for " design approval representative "....so the government thinks he knows something.

And he has been here in my house and examined my changes to my airplane and I trusted his opinion.

[PilotDAR]

I have not been through many terrible things at all - first hand, I avoid and prevent. When I test fly, I select conditions so that everything is as much in my favour as possible, but this is not about that, it's about pilot proficiency, and maintaining it. I have been a very lucky pilot! Some of that luck was receiving very good mentoring that I did not even know I needed, until I had received it.

Like Cat, I intend to be old, looking back on a lot of good memories, and typing something on to the internet, in the hope that it will inspire other pilots to fly long and safe.

My last three days of flying here at home have actually included power off landings onto the water and land, and actual glassy water landings, just to assure that this practice actually happened to me, so I can write about it with certainty!

What other pilots train, and the skills they maintain, does not really personally affect me. One could say "I don't care", but I do. Some of these newer pilots could perhaps benefit from some comradery in aspiring to fly more safely, and with more skill. It's just good for our lives and our industry as a whole. Our industry does not benefit at all from pilots thinking to themselves that they do not need more training and practice.

[pdw]

... sit back, read and learn.

Speaking of learning: On the previous page "Cat Driver" you mention the rear passenger's experience recounted to you personally ... of a water wheels-down landing where this man sees two commercial float pilots in the front seats killed and barely makes it out himself ...

Was hoping to 'sit back and read' some more if this is still happening too often ... and perhaps why ? ie: Was there a new take on it ... in your exchange with him?
For example it's difficult to read (and digest) how two proficient/commercial float-pilots up front have missed checking the amphib's 'wheels up for water landing' and how "careless" is automatically the right word with which to frame the origin of this tragedy, .. if no intent to omit that check (while also fully aware of its importance).

I never did get into piloting gear land-aircraft, nor amphib floats; but I can see there is a lot more to keep sorted when changing back an forth between all four types ...

[Cat Driver]

I never did get into piloting gear land-aircraft, nor amphib floats; but I can see there is a lot more to keep sorted when changing back an forth between all four types ...

There is not really "a lot " to learn as far as gear position is concerned.

There is only one thing to learn.

" Where am I landing and where is my gear "

If you never forget that check you will survive.

[PilotDAR]

There is only one thing to learn

Well.... two things.... You must remember to not be distracted, then you must remember to ask yourself;

" Where am I landing and where is my gear "

I have observed amphib pilots, who knew perfectly well where they were landing, forget to check gear, simply because they were distracted or fixated on something else. This is not only a low time pilot problem, though they are a bit more vulnerable. It's easy to get distracted by the environment, planning a landing into a new place, and chatting passengers, and simply forget the gear entirely. I have caught several pilots at this, one of whom has more landplane RG time than I have total time.

[Pop n Fresh]

. It's easy to get distracted by the environment, planning a landing into a new place, and chatting passengers, and simply forget the gear entirely. I have caught several pilots at this, one of whom has more landplane RG time than I have total time.

That can be a tricky situation in life. To speak up feels like the wrong thing to do sometimes. They must have some reason I don't know about to be waiting to lower the gear. I don't want to bother them by asking such an obvious question.

Edit:
Multiple private messages confirm the fact you are expected to shut up since I don't know anything about float planes.

I am going to go ahead and remove the offending part. Chao.

[pdw]

There is only one thing to learn.

" Where am I landing and where is my gear "

You are obviously keeping that lesson failsafe in your memory, at all costs.

distracted and fixated

The memory cue for that has to be bulletproofed, that's for sure !