Anyone have any suggestions on a decent school to do a float rating in either Alberta or BC? Preferably one with the least amount of bULL S. and the best rates you have seen

flyer 150

Do you want a good float rating or a cheap one ? The "value" of the training is determined by a lot more than the per hour dual rate.

I did mine in the spring with a fellow out on Vancouver Island. The price was right, and the instruction was amazing. I only wish I had more time to spend on it and get more than the basic 7 hours. Here's the website:
http://www.seaplaneacademy.ca/index.htm

hope that helps.

yzfer wrote:I did mine in the spring with a fellow out on Vancouver Island. The price was right, and the instruction was amazing. I only wish I had more time to spend on it and get more than the basic 7 hours. Here's the website:
http://www.seaplaneacademy.ca/index.htm

hope that helps.

I back this up too! Best price and most experienced seaplane Pilot you will find. It was a very personalized experience and felt I got very specific instruction. It was really comfortable and for doing a few hours (wish I could do more and I'm sure I'll go back when I do) it taught more then I figured was going to be covered. Have not heard any bad reviews of Randy Hanna or his operation. I hope you enjoy it too!

Edit

Thanks everyone. I appreciate the feedback!

Big Pistons Forever wrote:flyer 150

Do you want a good float rating or a cheap one ? The "value" of the training is determined by a lot more than the per hour dual rate.

I didnt mean for my post to come across like that. I am just looking for a place that actually wants to give good training, instead of just seeing dollar signs, if the rates are good, even better.

I did my canoe-plane rating with Air Hart. From what I've heard, they're one of the better FTU's for learning how to fly off of water, and their reputation helps a bit.

But I only have 600 hrs... what do I know.

I'll throw my hat in for Air-Hart in Kelowna as well. I did mine there this past February. Felt weird to drive from north of Vernon (3 feet of snow and -15) to Kelowna for those few days to Kelowna where there wasn't any snow and it was +12. Had a great time, instructor was very good (I think Dave was his name...) You've got the choice of a 172XP or a 180. Both planes pretty decent. I seem to think the 180 just got a new engine a coupla months ago.

I did mine over the summer at Seaplane Academy too! 50 hours. It was amazing ! A ton of different passenger scenarios and landing situations, great experience that will really prepare you for your first job. Got my first constant speed prop experience, saw whales, amazing views, and ask him to do a flight up to chatterbox falls and be sure to bring your camera !
Now I am just finishing my CPL, PM me if u have any other questions. Cheers

When did Float Safety came back into business. Last time I was looking for time at YVR south terminal, they folded and I later found their plane at Pitt Meadows. Pacific Rim Aviation also have a float, was looking into it before going for a night VFR instead.

http://www.pacificrimaviation.ca/

My vote is for air-hart in Kelowna as well. If you haven't already done your rating call them, they are great there and care about the students. They have a 172 XP and a 180 but if you can afford the extra cost, go for the 180 as 180 time look better on the resume. If you are looking to get a job in the bush, you won't be flying anyhting smaller to start.

When learning how to fly sea planes you will save a lot of money by flying the cheapest sea plane to operate you can find.

Jack Browns sea plane training in Florida have been in the business forever and they use the Piper J3.

Once you learn the basics of sea plane handling and get enough hours to be comfortable will be the time to check out on a bigger airplane.

The difference between small sea planes is nothing more than a check out on type.

This idea that learning to fly sea planes in an airplane with a constant speed prop is going to increase your chances for a job is flawed thinking...a constant speed prop is not really rocket science to operate.

The two most important issues when learning to fly sea planes is first and most important finding an instructor who knows the subject and can teach.

Second find the cheapest sea plane to operate.

superbflyer wrote: go for the 180 as 180 time look better on the resume.

Sounds like the typical sales propaganda the schools put out.

When you have little experiance/time nobody cares that you have 10 hours on anything, they still need to give you the same amount of training as the next guy.

Listen to Cat, he has it right, imagine that

Do yourself a favour, find the cheapest airplane with the best instructor

Lurch

So Cat, what you're saying is, if I could find one, you would suggest doing a float rating on a twin mini-turbine powered cri-cri?

So Cat, what you're saying is, if I could find one, you would suggest doing a float rating on a twin mini-turbine powered cri-cri?

It would have to be a two place Cri Cri and a certified airplane to allow you to train on it for the issuance of a sea plane rating in Canada.

What I am saying is something like a J3 Cub or a Champ with a high time bush pilot who is also a good teacher is the best way to learn how to fly floats.

Oh, I understood why/what you were saying Cat, it was more of a silly/reinforcing question. (Also... oh yeah, cricri's are single-place... I really need to open the vault of knowledge before posting stupid statements...)

J3 Cub or a Champ

That may be true elsewhere, but here in the saltwater environment fabric planes aren't a goood idea. Also, these little planes with their little floats don't afford advanced training that we have here on the coast: real rough water docks that are often too high to clear those low tails etc.

The reason we train with the 180 is that you can get into the rough stuff, the big water, the big docks and the salt. Also, it allows for flying in big wind with that big water getting arouns at quick speeds so that we can do a lot more in a few hours than slower aircraft.

That's our reasoning...

You have put forward some good points cessnafloatflyer and they have merit.

However you now have me worried about the machine I am flying.

How many docks are there around here that I won't be able to get into with the Husky?

Am I going to be screwed very many times and can't fly because of big winds and big water?

Well Cat... with all due respect... you don't agree that you'll not be putting in too many hours on the salt in your Husky? That's where i am 95% of the time and where most of the commercial seaplane docks are. As far as docks that could whack the elevator on the Husky is concerned there are plenty around that when the wind is blowing that roll. But specifically, parts of the dock at YVR, the Bayshore in Vancouver harbour, Lyall Harbour on Saturna, the big rolling ferry wakes in Miner's Bay on Mayne... shall i go on??

I agree that on smaller lakes and a basic endorsement, some people may be served by saving a few dollars and getting in a J3, but for the pilot looking for going distances and into big weather and water ther is more to be gained by getting there more quickly and thus getting more done in an hour, and getting into the salt water and all of the docks and challenges of terrain and the local docks.

Come on now, a J3 just can't go where a 180 goes and a 180 can't really always go into water that a Beaver goes and a Beaver can't go in the water that an Otter goes etc... it's about strenght of airframes and length of floats. The 180 seems to meet the most difficult and realistic scenerios at the most reasonable price as a Beaver is just too expensive. No?

Yes, we train to land in the smallest water that we can find on a given landing or to reject it and go elsewhere, i just think that the 180 afford the chance to land in more places in the commercial coastal scenerios that a student will find themselves in, in a plane that they will find themselves in. How many times have i landed in Ganges harbour, wind E @ 10+ with rollers that a J3 cant land and take off in without really beating it up and then a dock that is rolling with the waves that you just would have a risky time docking on without damaging the elevator. That's @ 10kts which it very often is.

We all have different opinions and that's ok too! I see your friend in Nanaimo has moved from a 172 to a 180... hmm.... i wonder why...

The problem with partaking in this forum and answering questions is one has to be prepared to reply to other posters who for what ever reason may disagree with what you say.

I know quite a few of you here either by having met you or through the jungle drums that beat constantly in this very small community.

Soooo I will with all due respect try and reply to your thoughts cessnafloatflyer

Well Cat... with all due respect... you don't agree that you'll not be putting in too many hours on the salt in your Husky?

The Husky is not mine, I fly it for a very close personal friend of mine and bought it for him for a specific use part of which will involve operating in salt water. However you are correct that a tube and fabric airplane will require very careful wash downs and careful maintenance inspections to check for corrosion so we will limit our salt water operations as much as we can.

To make the problem of salt water operations even more troublesome with the Husky is it cost approximately twice as much to buy as a Cessna 180 / 185.

I won't nit pick all the scenarios you posed except to say that I am well acquainted with West Coast sea plane operations having flown here since 1973 in all the airplanes you mentioned and quite a few more.....most of the docks I have seen on the coast that we operate sea planes from are floating docks and the Cub has sufficient tail plane clearance to use them, and if there was a concern PDM would take care of that issue.

If I were to get back into sea plane training I would operate both a Cub for economical flying ( there is no shortage of fresh water around here. ) and probably a early model Cessna 180 because they are a good choice for a float plane to use in training.

We all have different opinions and that's ok too! I see your friend in Nanaimo has moved from a 172 to a 180... hmm.... i wonder why...

Probably because he feels it is the best choice for what he is doing.

I hope this sets things a little more straight between us
cessnafloatflyer because it will serve no useful purpose for either of us to start a who knows more than who about flying sea planes.

I am not posting here to down grade what you are doing and wish you success in your training business.

Hey Cat -- we're just a couple of guys discussing ideas and points of view... nothing more.
When i say all do respect, i mean it!

The fact that i train with one aircraft and someone else prefers another is the spice of life. It's really up to the consumer in the end and the preference of the operator. I am just aware of the mentality in aviation of how can i do this in the cheapest possible way which is important but without thought of quality that of course saves lives and mitigates risk.

Whatever the aircraft the most important part of the equation is experienced teachers who know and care and are not teaching to build hours for the sole purpose of moving on. We agree on that! and i'm know a lot of other things too!

Would have done mine on the supercub but one of the charter pilots dove it into the water before I could get on it. Had to do it on the 180, cost me a fare bit more but I wanted to do it with someone with experience. Float training is not something you should skimp on. It doesn't matter what plane you do it on, a 180 is just as easy as a 172 in my opinion.