As far as the insurance goes, it is expensive.

Exactly, that is why I plan on doing sea plane training on a privately registered sea plane.

Why go through the mind numming money intensive B.S. that T.C. demands just to hold a FTU-OC.

Let the schools pay the big expenses and I will take the pilots with that new sea plane rating and finish their training.

Cat Driver wrote: Of all the sea plane ratings that have been finished in Canada in the past twenty years how many have taken longer than the seven hour minimum under the present rules?

I don't know. It would be interesting to know some stats on it though. To me it would seem suspicios that we have a wide variance of people going solo on wheels, but not on floats. But then I also know of at least half a dozen instructors who went with students who were "solo" on floats, so its no wonder float rating holders are so poor in ability, there is currently no real QC at the end. Given that so many places are getting around things with "supervised solo" I don't have a lot of faith that a testing system would produce better results.

I do think though there's something with the culture of, as you put it "weekend float ratings", that needs to be changed for some reason my impression has been that few actually engage in the training with the seriousness it needs to be.

The sea plane rating is more knowledge intensive than a multi engine rating therefore the minimum requirements should be the same as the multi engine rating....when the student can demonstrate the knowledge and flying skills they are recommended for a flight test.

I would submit that the multi rating probably suffers from the same problems the float rating does, where individuals are put through regardless of actual ability. This has been my experience with new holders of multi ratings. A scary lack of flying ability, but somehow they get through a test and get a rating.

Either way, so far my original float rating training hasn't failed me, in spite of the few and irregular hours I do on the water. But then, someone was confident enough to let me go by myself, but then, I'm also the type who bothers to seek out recurrent training.

but somehow they get through a test and get a rating

At least there is a flight test where the candidate has to demonstrate skills within limitations. The seaplane rating is none of that.

It is in no way unreasonable for a seaplane instructor to have to demonstrate skills to be an instructor and then students who have to do the same. Skill levels go up, accidents go down, public safety is increased. Schools get more work as they have to teach skills to be demonstrated and then there is some credibility. As it stands the seaplane rating proves very little, not even a quiz on the dangers of seaplane flying and what to watch for. Why is it the only rating of license that does not require skills to be demonstrated? It's nonsense. 50 hours on type qualifies a pilot to sign off on others with no other qualification; it ridiculous.

Why is it the only rating of license that does not require skills to be demonstrated?

It isn't. A landplane rating, should you need one, is fewer hours, and also doesn't require a skills test. See 421.38(2).

Nor does a night rating, nor a VFR-OTT rating.

Bottom line is a class 4 instructor with 300 hours or less total time and seven hours on floats can give someone a sea plane rating in a weekend.

Great system.

At least there is a flight test where the candidate has to demonstrate skills within limitations. The seaplane rating is none of that.

You're missing what I'm saying. Currently the testing isn't acting as a QC barrier as it should, so in the current incarnation of training, introducing it to the float rating would make zero improvement, besides potentially being a cash cow for flight schools. I just don't think more regulation is going to help the problem. I would go as far to say that flight testing in Canada period needs some serious overhauling, and until that happens, requiring more of it isn't a solution.

In an ideal world, yes you'd be right, but at the moment other things need to happen for that to then be useful.

I mean part of the problem now is that you have people going to take float ratings who can't even fly land aeroplanes. I'm not sure how we could expect different results when so few of the gatekeepers of safety are functioning.

After all, being on the water takes some skill, practice and a bit of brain power, but its not rocket science.

Side note, I found that since I learned how to waterski before I learned how to fly, stuff you need to do on floats didn't seem like that much of a stretch in thought. But then so do a lot of things if one has a reasonable amount of world experience that one brings to the table.

Bottom line is a class 4 instructor with 300 hours or less total time and seven hours on floats can give someone a sea plane rating in a weekend.

You could, just like you could get all sorts of unexperienced people to give you all sorts of training, if that's what you want to pay for. Like all flight training, customers also need to exert their power. Does it really take a lot of brain power to ask what your instructor's qualifications are before you fork over cash?

Cat Driver wrote:Bottom line is a class 4 instructor with 300 hours or less total time and seven hours on floats can give someone a sea plane rating in a weekend.

Great system.

Really a 200 hour pilot that did 50 hours of his CPL training on floats could give you a rating... no instructor rating needed. Same goes for multi though.

Does it really take a lot of brain power to ask what your instructor's qualifications are before you fork over cash?

Probably more than a passing amount. How would a very new pilot know what experience is a reasonable minimum? They depend upon what the regulator says, and the regulator entitled this instructor to instruct. When I started taking helicopter instruction, I asked; Instructor one = 21,000 hours, instructor two 12,000. I got the good instruction I paid for. The next helicopter type endorsement, mentor pilot had 23,500 hours.

To the piece of cheese the plastic knife seems sharp enough - it did the job. The cheese does not know how much better a sharp metal knife would be, and how many more things it could cut well....

Perhaps prospective float rating candidates are a little wiser about who to seek out for training, for reading this thread....

Really a 200 hour pilot that did 50 hours of his CPL training on floats could give you a rating... no instructor rating needed. Same goes for multi though.

Yup..

Great system.

PilotDAR wrote:

Does it really take a lot of brain power to ask what your instructor's qualifications are before you fork over cash?

Probably more than a passing amount. How would a very new pilot know what experience is a reasonable minimum?

It doesn't take a lot of thought to look around and realise that there is some selection, just like if you were shopping for an iPhone. Obviously some instructors will have more, some less experience. Check into some previous students. Do a bit of research, you know, do some comparisson. That's just to start. one might also ask different places how the training is going to be accomplished, what's going to be covered. Ten to one you'll get different answers.

But then I'm on this topic all the time. People just aren't choosy when it comes to getting flight training, lot of people only chasing the paper out there, and that's what they end up with: paper licenses.

Here is an interesting question.

How many sea plane ratings are given with zero landings on true glassy water?

Here is another question.

Is there really any difference in practicing glassy water landing technique on water with wind blowing and true glassy water?

Cat Driver wrote:Here is an interesting question.

How many sea plane ratings are given with zero landings on true glassy water?

Probably a similar ratio of PPLs issued with zero crosswind landings, CPLs issued with zero real soft field landings or crosswind landings or solo cross country time, Instrument ratings issued with zero in cloud time....

In my recollection, the effort made to instruct the student correctly on all things regarding glassy water landings ... was very complete.

Allowing the 'sink' to develope with flap-on and nose-high seemed to be a very straightforward thing.

That second question (Cat Driver) ... is an interesting curve ... if it's possible to experience true glassy water in a crosswind approaching onto a narrow channel, that up to the point of touchdown had not so much as a ripple ? One float a bit lower wouldn't be so great a glassy water approach in that case ... would it ?

Probably a similar ratio of PPLs issued with zero crosswind landings, CPLs issued with zero real soft field landings or crosswind landings or solo cross country time, Instrument ratings issued with zero in cloud time....

True.....

However the risk of being killed when landing on glassy water with the wrong attitude at touch down is far greater than landing on a runway with poor cross wind skills.

For sure issuing an IFR rating to a pilot who has zero time in cloud taught by instructors with zero time in cloud is really stupid....

...then again as I have previously said, one should not expect much from the regulators in a third world mentality country.

Page 2 was shaping up to be quite amusing until this.

Given that so many places are getting around things with "supervised solo"

Maybe I shouldn't even bother logging time in a book. Is it solo or not. How depressing that a person would count time with an instructor as solo.

I'm starting to see why some people are against doing the CPL 300 nautical mile cross country with another PPL.

I acted very strictly as a passenger when my buddy took me along for his but it's only our word that proves it. I then did the return trip solo since he had to ride the bus home for work. Moot because neither of us finished CPL but I'm babbling away anyhow.

Cat Driver wrote:However the risk of being killed when landing on glassy water with the wrong attitude at touch down is far greater than landing on a runway with poor cross wind skills.

True, but more airplanes are probably damaged on a daily basis from the latter. Either way...

...then again as I have previously said, one should not expect much from the regulators in a third world mentality country.

While that is true, they don't deserve all the blame. People are getting the flight training they want. How its regulated to some degree reflects that. People shop by convinience, seconded by price. Just like I could go get a hot dog for lunch today, and that's perfectly legal, that doesn't mean its necessarily the best choice. Part of the freedom that we enjoy to continue aviation as it is, comes at the price that with such a free market friendly set up that it has, there also be Wal-Mart style quality available.

Beef-Pop wrote:Maybe I shouldn't even bother logging time in a book. Is it solo or not. How depressing that a person would count time with an instructor as solo.

It is depressing. But in the end all that matters is that how honest you are with yourself and your own capability. Unfortunately for the world, some people have somewhat less personal integrity.

On topic, if I was shopping for a place to get my float rating, I'd ask the hard question about how they handle the solo requirement. Am I going to be trained sufficiently to be trusted in this regard? Or is the instructor going to "ride-along-solo"?

Or is the instructor going to "ride-along-solo"?

If the instructor rides in the airplane and signs the training records as solo the instructor is committing fraud.

If the student goes along with such an act the student is complicit in the fraud.

Cat Driver wrote:If the student goes along with such an act the student is complicit in the fraud.

My point exactly. Its bad that its being offered, its worse that its being accepted, and worst, in some cases specifically sought out.

My point exactly. Its bad that its being offered, its worse that its being accepted, and worst, in some cases specifically sought out.

Exactly.

See we do agree on a lot of things.

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

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?

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.

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

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.

Other skills?

How to judge weight and balance out of limits by looking at the floats in the water.

Pretty sure instructor can ride along. Student acts as PIC.

Pretty sure instructor can ride along. Student acts as PIC.

When did they change the regulations?

Scudrunner703 wrote:Pretty sure instructor can ride along. Student acts as PIC.

Nope. The standard requires solo, not PIC. Solo is always PIC, but PIC is not always solo.

421.38 Requirements

(1) Seaplane Rating - Requirements

(a) Experience

(i) An applicant for a seaplane rating shall complete a total of 7 hours of seaplane training, including:
(amended 1998/03/23; previous version)

(A) a minimum of 5 hours dual instruction, and
(amended 1998/03/23; previous version)

(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.

Flying the plane solo without the rating is too expensive for the FTU to insure ?

OK, so then it's the insurance company / policy requiring/dictating it to be a "two crew aircraft " in those circumstances. Ie: what's the TC fine for NO insurance ?

Giving PIC time as "solo" makes perfect sense ... a sensible loophole ...