Ratings for an Amphibian

[pittss1c]

I was wondering, does one require a seaplane rating to operate and
amphibian for land?

[Montblack]

("pittss1c" wrote)
>I was wondering, does one require a seaplane rating to operate and
>amphibian for land?


Hmm? Off the top of my head I'd have to say good question.


Paul-Mont

[Scott Skylane]

pittss1c wrote:
> I was wondering, does one require a seaplane rating to operate and
> amphibian for land?
>

I believe you do not, but a search of the regs to prove that has so far
proven fruitless for me.

Can anyone cite the reg that *requires* you to posses a sea rating to
operate on water? In the same vein, which reg *requires* you to posses
an instrument rating to operate in IMC?

Happy Flying!
Scott Skylane

[J. Severyn]

"Scott Skylane" > wrote in message
...
> pittss1c wrote:
>> I was wondering, does one require a seaplane rating to operate and
>> amphibian for land?
>>
>
> I believe you do not, but a search of the regs to prove that has so far
> proven fruitless for me.
>
> Can anyone cite the reg that *requires* you to posses a sea rating to
> operate on water? In the same vein, which reg *requires* you to posses an
> instrument rating to operate in IMC?
>
> Happy Flying!
> Scott Skylane

FAR 61.3(e) for the Instrument Rating
J. Severyn

[Scott Skylane]

J. Severyn wrote:


>
>
> FAR 61.3(e) for the Instrument Rating
> J. Severyn
>
>
OK, I glossed over that one (well, that's what getting up at 3am does
for ya ;)), but I'm still wondering where the reg is that essentially
says the same thing about operating on the water...

Happy Flying!
Scott Skylane

[Nathan Young]

On Fri, 15 Jun 2007 12:57:02 -0500, pittss1c >
wrote:

>I was wondering, does one require a seaplane rating to operate and
>amphibian for land?

A google search of the rec.aviation.* groups returned an interesting
thread, from 2002 culminating in this statement. Of course the old
FAA weblink is dead, but a websearch for Part 61 FAQ turned up the
following link www.ameliareid.com/documents/pt61FAQ.doc

-Nathan




***********************
FAA has a FAQ on Part 61 which addresses this, specifically it states:

QUESTION: What are the ratings needed to fly an amphibious
airplane (Lake, Grumman Goose, etc.)? Does the PIC need both land
and sea ratings, or can the pilot operate with only one of the ratings
if operations are only to/from the surface on which the pilot is
rated? I'd appreciate an "official" view. And we're not looking at
ME vs SE -- let's assume we're talking about a Lake Buccaneer, and a
pilot with only PVT-ASEL flying off land, or only PVT-ASES flying off
water.

ANSWER: Reference §61.31(d)(1). Only the appropriate rating
(land/sea) is required. To operate an amphibious airplane for water
operations using the float landing gear, one must hold the Airplane
Single Engine Sea or Airplane Multiengine Sea rating, as appropriate.
To operate an amphibious airplane for land operations using the
wheeled landing gear, one must hold the Airplane Single Engine Land or
Airplane Multiengine Land rating, as appropriate.
{Q&A-317}

The entire FAQ can be downloaded from the FAA at:

http://afs600.faa.gov/AFS640.htm
Click on the link for: FAQ 14 CFR, Part 61 & 141

******************************

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Scott Skylane" > wrote in message
...
>
> I believe you do not, but a search of the regs to prove that has so far
> proven fruitless for me.
>
> Can anyone cite the reg that *requires* you to posses a sea rating to
> operate on water?

§ 61.3 Requirement for certificates, ratings, and authorizations.

(a) Pilot certificate. A person may not act as pilot in command or in any
other capacity as a required pilot flight crewmember of a civil aircraft of
U.S. registry, unless that person-

(1) Has a valid pilot certificate or special purpose pilot authorization
issued under this part in that person's physical possession or readily
accessible in the aircraft when exercising the privileges of that pilot
certificate or authorization. However, when the aircraft is operated within
a foreign country, a current pilot license issued by the country in which
the aircraft is operated may be used; and

(2) Has a photo identification that is in that person's physical possession
or readily accessible in the aircraft when exercising the privileges of that
pilot certificate or authorization. The photo identification must be a:

(i) Valid driver's license issued by a State, the District of Columbia, or
territory or possession of the United States;

(ii) Government identification card issued by the Federal government, a
State, the District of Columbia, or a territory or possession of the United
States;

(iii) U.S. Armed Forces' identification card;

(iv) Official passport;

(v) Credential that authorizes unescorted access to a security
identification display area at an airport regulated under 49 CFR part 1542;
or

(vi) Other form of identification that the Administrator finds acceptable.


>
> In the same vein, which reg *requires* you to posses an instrument rating
> to operate in IMC?
>

§ 61.3 Requirement for certificates, ratings, and authorizations.

(e) Instrument rating. No person may act as pilot in command of a civil
aircraft under IFR or in weather conditions less than the minimums
prescribed for VFR flight unless that person holds:

(1) The appropriate aircraft category, class, type (if required), and
instrument rating on that person's pilot certificate for any airplane,
helicopter, or powered-lift being flown;

(2) An airline transport pilot certificate with the appropriate aircraft
category, class, and type rating (if required) for the aircraft being flown;

(3) For a glider, a pilot certificate with a glider category rating and an
airplane instrument rating; or

(4) For an airship, a commercial pilot certificate with a lighter-than-air
category rating and airship class rating.

[J. Severyn]

"Scott Skylane" > wrote in message
...
> pittss1c wrote:
>> I was wondering, does one require a seaplane rating to operate and
>> amphibian for land?
>>
>
> I believe you do not, but a search of the regs to prove that has so far
> proven fruitless for me.
>
> Can anyone cite the reg that *requires* you to posses a sea rating to
> operate on water? In the same vein, which reg *requires* you to posses an
> instrument rating to operate in IMC?
>
> Happy Flying!
> Scott Skylane

Seaplane:
Combination of 61.63(c) Additional class rating......
and Definitions and Abbreviations: FAR 1.1 Class(1) ".....examples include:
single engine; multiengine; land; water; gyroplane; helicopter; airship; and
free balloon....."

Instrument Rating: FAR 61.3(e)

J. Severyn

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Nathan Young wrote:
>
> ***********************
> FAA has a FAQ on Part 61 which addresses this, specifically it states:
>
> http://afs600.faa.gov/AFS640.htm
> Click on the link for: FAQ 14 CFR, Part 61 & 141
>
> ******************************

I looked all over for that FAQ because I knew the answer was in there and I
couldn't find it. And even with the link above I can't find it because it
gives a Page Not Found error.

[Scott Skylane]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:


>
>
> § 61.3 Requirement for certificates, ratings, and authorizations.
>
> (a) Pilot certificate. A person may not act as pilot in command or in any
> other capacity as a required pilot flight crewmember of a civil aircraft of
> U.S. registry, unless that person-
>
> (1) Has a valid pilot certificate or special purpose pilot authorization
> issued under this part in that person's physical possession or readily
> accessible in the aircraft when exercising the privileges of that pilot
> certificate or authorization. However, when the aircraft is operated within
> a foreign country, a current pilot license issued by the country in which
> the aircraft is operated may be used; and
>
> (2) Has a photo identification that is in that person's physical possession
> or readily accessible in the aircraft when exercising the privileges of that
> pilot certificate or authorization. The photo identification must be a:
>
> (i) Valid driver's license issued by a State, the District of Columbia, or
> territory or possession of the United States;
>
> (ii) Government identification card issued by the Federal government, a
> State, the District of Columbia, or a territory or possession of the United
> States;
>
> (iii) U.S. Armed Forces' identification card;
>
> (iv) Official passport;
>
> (v) Credential that authorizes unescorted access to a security
> identification display area at an airport regulated under 49 CFR part 1542;
> or
>
> (vi) Other form of identification that the Administrator finds acceptable.
>
>
/snip part referencing 61.3/

Hmmm, I still don't get where that says I have to posses a sea rating to
operate on the water.

Happy Flying!
Scott Skylane

[C J Campbell[_1_]]

On 2007-06-15 10:57:02 -0700, pittss1c > said:

> I was wondering, does one require a seaplane rating to operate and
> amphibian for land?

"Seaplane" is not defined precisely in the regulations. The regulations
only establish airworthiness standards for operations on water. Part
23, for example, says that seaplanes and amphibians must demonstrate
safe operation at a maximum wave height (kind of like maximum
demonstrated crosswind component). The FAA definitely considers an
amphibian to be a seaplane, however. Consider this bit from the Part 61
FAQs:

"QUESTION: A flight instructor in our district wants to know if he
needs an airplane/single-engine sea rating in order to give instrument
instruction in a Lake Buccaneer amphibian. There is some debate here in
our office. I cite ¤61.195(c) as making it a requirement for the
instructor to hold an airplane/single-engine sea. Can you shed some
light on this for us?
ANSWER: Reference ¤61.195(c). YES; As it states in ¤61.195(c), Ò . .
hold an instrument rating on his or her flight instructor certificate
and pilot certificate that is appropriate to the category and CLASS OF
AIRCRAFT in which instrument training is being provided." YES, a flight
instructor would have to hold an airplane single-engine sea rating on
his or her pilot certificate.
Some of you may have seen some of the past policy interpretations on
this kind of question, but ¤61.195(c) got changed on August 4, 1997 so
those policy interpretations are no longer valid. The new ¤61.195(c)
applies. As per ¤61.195(c), a person would have to hold an airplane
single-engine sea rating on his or her pilot certificate.
{Q&A-119}
QUESTION: Regarding FAR 61.195(c). The confusion arises about the
"instrument rating that is appropriate to the category and class of
aircraft". What is the intent or meaning here, instrument is not class
specific. Seems like it would be enough to say "...must hold an
instrument rating on his or her flight instructor certificate and pilot
certificate that is appropriate to the category of aircraft in which
instrument training is being provided."
Perhaps an example would help illustrate the issue. Could an instrument
rated instructor (CFII) give instrument instruction in a multiengine
airplane if the instructor did not have a multiengine instructor rating
or a multiengine
rating on their commercial pilot certificate? The traditional answer to
this question has been yes...but, make sure you don't get into the
realm of multiengine instruction by pulling an engine or doing
something else that would require multiengine skills. Has this changed
with FAR 61.195(c)? ANSWER: Reference ¤61.195(c), it states: (c)
Instrument Rating. A flight instructor who provides instrument flight
training for the issuance of an instrument rating or a type rating not
limited to VFR must hold an instrument rating on his or her flight
instructor certificate and pilot certificate that is appropriate to the
category and class of aircraft in which instrument training is being
provided.
In reference to your specific question, the answer is NO. A person that
does not hold an airplane multiengine rating on his pilot and flight
instructor certificate shall not give instrument training in a
multiengine airplane.
{Q&A-111} "

Now is it clear as mud? The question does not address anything except
whether a flight instructor with no seaplane rating may give
instruction in an amphibian. The followup answer using multiengine as
an example seems contradictory.

However, I think from reading this is that the FAA considers amphibians
to be both sea and land planes and that anyone acting as PIC in them
needs the appropriate category and class ratings. IOW, you have to have
both ASEL and ASES ratings when flying as PIC of a Lake Buccaneer. When
flying an amphibian, I log both land and sea plane time (for whatever
it is worth).
--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

[Scott Skylane]

J. Severyn wrote:


>
>
> Seaplane:
> Combination of 61.63(c) Additional class rating......
> and Definitions and Abbreviations: FAR 1.1 Class(1) ".....examples include:
> single engine; multiengine; land; water; gyroplane; helicopter; airship; and
> free balloon....."
>
> Instrument Rating: FAR 61.3(e)
>
> J. Severyn
>
>

Well, 61.63 just tells me what I have to do to apply for a sea rating,
not why I need to have one. As for the 1.1 definition of "Class", if
anything, a person might interpret that to mean you *do* have to have a
sea rating to operate a seaplane, regardless of where you take off and land.

Nathan Young's post of the part 61 FAQ is very interesting, as well.
Whoever authored the FAQ answer interpreted 61.31(d)(1) very
imaginatively, as the reg says *nothing* about where you are landing,
and only seems to address aircraft that require both a class *and* type
rating!

Interesting stuff, this!

Happy Flying!
Scott Skylane

[C J Campbell[_1_]]

On 2007-06-15 12:45:20 -0700, Scott Skylane > said:

> pittss1c wrote:
>> I was wondering, does one require a seaplane rating to operate and
>> amphibian for land?
>>
>
> I believe you do not, but a search of the regs to prove that has so far
> proven fruitless for me.
>
> Can anyone cite the reg that *requires* you to posses a sea rating to
> operate on water? In the same vein, which reg *requires* you to posses
> an instrument rating to operate in IMC?
>
> Happy Flying!
> Scott Skylane

¤Ê61.3ÊÊÊRequirement for certificates, ratings, and authorizations.
(a) Pilot certificate. A person may not act as pilot in command or in
any other capacity as a required pilot flight crewmember of a civil
aircraft of U.S. registry, unless that personÑ
(1) Has a valid pilot certificate or special purpose pilot
authorization issued under this part in that person's physical
possession or readily accessible in the aircraft when exercising the
privileges of that pilot certificate or authorization.
<end quote of reg> What this means is that you have to have the
certificate in your possession when exercising the privileges of that
certificate. Certificates grant privileges, so if you have ASEL you are
allowed the privilege of being PIC of an ASEL. You cannot be PIC of an
ASES because your certificate does not give you that privilege.
--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

[C J Campbell[_1_]]

On 2007-06-15 13:35:12 -0700, "Gig 601XL Builder"
<wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> said:

> Nathan Young wrote:
>>
>> ***********************
>> FAA has a FAQ on Part 61 which addresses this, specifically it states:
>>
>> http://afs600.faa.gov/AFS640.htm
>> Click on the link for: FAQ 14 CFR, Part 61 & 141
>>
>> ******************************
>
> I looked all over for that FAQ because I knew the answer was in there and I
> couldn't find it. And even with the link above I can't find it because it
> gives a Page Not Found error.

The FAQ is no longer available. The quote is from page 29. I can email
you a PDF copy if you like.
--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Scott Skylane" > wrote in message
...
>
> Hmmm, I still don't get where that says I have to posses a sea rating to
> operate on the water.
>

"Has a valid pilot certificate or special purpose pilot authorization issued
under this part in that person's physical possession or readily accessible
in the aircraft when exercising the privileges of that pilot certificate or
authorization."

[C J Campbell[_1_]]

On 2007-06-15 13:56:13 -0700, C J Campbell
> said:

> On 2007-06-15 10:57:02 -0700, pittss1c > said:
>
>> I was wondering, does one require a seaplane rating to operate and
>> amphibian for land?
>
> "Seaplane" is not defined precisely in the regulations. The regulations
> only establish airworthiness standards for operations on water. Part
> 23, for example, says that seaplanes and amphibians must demonstrate
> safe operation at a maximum wave height (kind of like maximum
> demonstrated crosswind component). The FAA definitely considers an
> amphibian to be a seaplane, however. Consider this bit from the Part 61
> FAQs:
>
> "QUESTION: A flight instructor in our district wants to know if he
> needs an airplane/single-engine sea rating in order to give instrument
> instruction in a Lake Buccaneer amphibian. There is some debate here in
> our office. I cite ¤61.195(c) as making it a requirement for the
> instructor to hold an airplane/single-engine sea. Can you shed some
> light on this for us?
> ANSWER: Reference ¤61.195(c). YES; As it states in ¤61.195(c), Ò . .
> hold an instrument rating on his or her flight instructor certificate
> and pilot certificate that is appropriate to the category and CLASS OF
> AIRCRAFT in which instrument training is being provided." YES, a flight
> instructor would have to hold an airplane single-engine sea rating on
> his or her pilot certificate.
> Some of you may have seen some of the past policy interpretations on
> this kind of question, but ¤61.195(c) got changed on August 4, 1997 so
> those policy interpretations are no longer valid. The new ¤61.195(c)
> applies. As per ¤61.195(c), a person would have to hold an airplane
> single-engine sea rating on his or her pilot certificate.
> {Q&A-119}
> QUESTION: Regarding FAR 61.195(c). The confusion arises about the
> "instrument rating that is appropriate to the category and class of
> aircraft". What is the intent or meaning here, instrument is not class
> specific. Seems like it would be enough to say "...must hold an
> instrument rating on his or her flight instructor certificate and pilot
> certificate that is appropriate to the category of aircraft in which
> instrument training is being provided."
> Perhaps an example would help illustrate the issue. Could an instrument
> rated instructor (CFII) give instrument instruction in a multiengine
> airplane if the instructor did not have a multiengine instructor rating
> or a multiengine
> rating on their commercial pilot certificate? The traditional answer to
> this question has been yes...but, make sure you don't get into the
> realm of multiengine instruction by pulling an engine or doing
> something else that would require multiengine skills. Has this changed
> with FAR 61.195(c)? ANSWER: Reference ¤61.195(c), it states: (c)
> Instrument Rating. A flight instructor who provides instrument flight
> training for the issuance of an instrument rating or a type rating not
> limited to VFR must hold an instrument rating on his or her flight
> instructor certificate and pilot certificate that is appropriate to the
> category and class of aircraft in which instrument training is being
> provided.
> In reference to your specific question, the answer is NO. A person that
> does not hold an airplane multiengine rating on his pilot and flight
> instructor certificate shall not give instrument training in a
> multiengine airplane.
> {Q&A-111} "
>
> Now is it clear as mud? The question does not address anything except
> whether a flight instructor with no seaplane rating may give
> instruction in an amphibian. The followup answer using multiengine as
> an example seems contradictory.
>
> However, I think from reading this is that the FAA considers amphibians
> to be both sea and land planes and that anyone acting as PIC in them
> needs the appropriate category and class ratings. IOW, you have to have
> both ASEL and ASES ratings when flying as PIC of a Lake Buccaneer. When
> flying an amphibian, I log both land and sea plane time (for whatever
> it is worth).

I like Nathan Young's answer better than mine. He quoted from page 29
of the FAQ:

QUESTION: What are the ratings needed to fly an amphibious airplane
(Lake, Grumman Goose, etc.)? Does the PIC need both land and sea
ratings, or can the pilot operate with only one of the ratings if
operations are only to/from the surface on which the pilot is rated?
I'd appreciate an "official" view. And we're not looking at ME vs. SE
-- let's assume we're talking about a Lake Buccaneer and a pilot with
only PVT-ASEL flying off land, or only PVT-ASES flying off water.
ANSWER: Reference ¤61.31(d)(1). Only the appropriate rating (land/sea)
is required. To operate an amphibious airplane for water operations
using the float landing gear, one must hold the Airplane Single-engine
Sea or Airplane Multiengine Sea rating, as appropriate. To operate an
amphibious airplane for land operations using the wheeled landing gear,
one must hold the Airplane Single-engine Land or Airplane Multiengine
Land rating, as appropriate.
{Q&A-317}

So what John Lynch said is that you cannot give instrument instruction
in an amphibian unless you have a seaplane rating, then he turns right
around and says the seaplane rating is not necessary to act as PIC!
HAHAHA. Who says the FARs are not fun?
--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

[Scott Skylane]

C J Campbell wrote:

snip/
> <end quote of reg> What this means is that you have to have the
> certificate in your possession when exercising the privileges of that
> certificate. Certificates grant privileges, so if you have ASEL you are
> allowed the privilege of being PIC of an ASEL. You cannot be PIC of an
> ASES because your certificate does not give you that privilege.

Ok, now that is starting to sink in to this thick skull ;> I guess what
I really want to see, then, is where are the priveleges of any
particular kind of certificate spelled out? I.E., where do I find the
words "those in possession of a sea rating May: and May Not:"?

Happy Flying!
Scott Skylane

[Ron Natalie]

Scott Skylane wrote:

>
> Hmmm, I still don't get where that says I have to posses a sea rating to
> operate on the water.
>
Where it talks about category and class ratings being required.
Seaplane is a class of the category airplane.

This is like the first week of ground school.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

C J Campbell wrote:
> On 2007-06-15 13:35:12 -0700, "Gig 601XL Builder"
> <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> said:
>
>> Nathan Young wrote:
>>>
>>> ***********************
>>> FAA has a FAQ on Part 61 which addresses this, specifically it
>>> states: http://afs600.faa.gov/AFS640.htm
>>> Click on the link for: FAQ 14 CFR, Part 61 & 141
>>>
>>> ******************************
>>
>> I looked all over for that FAQ because I knew the answer was in
>> there and I couldn't find it. And even with the link above I can't
>> find it because it gives a Page Not Found error.
>
> The FAQ is no longer available. The quote is from page 29. I can email
> you a PDF copy if you like.

Yes please do. I would like to have a copy.

wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net

Just change the CAPS to . & @

[john smith[_2_]]

In article >,
pittss1c > wrote:

> I was wondering, does one require a seaplane rating to operate and
> amphibian for land?

I have a PPC with ASEL/IR ratings, tailwheel, high performance and
complex endorsements.
I have 20 hours in an Osprey II amphibean, all land takeoffs and
landing. I flew it to and from Oshkosh in 1989 for the owner/builder.
No big deal except that I am 6'2" and had to slouch down in the seat to
keep my headset from contacting the canopy. Landing with your butt less
than 12" off the ground is interesting.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Ron Natalie" > wrote in message
m...
>
> Where it talks about category and class ratings being required. Seaplane
> is a class of the category airplane.
>

Actually, I believe the class is "water".


>
> This is like the first week of ground school.
>

Agreed.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

pittss1c > wrote in :

> I was wondering, does one require a seaplane rating to operate and
> amphibian for land?
>


No, you don't.

In fact, I even instructed in a non-amphib Cessna 185 completely legally
without ever having had a seaplane rating..


How's that for a brain teaser?


Bertie

[Newps]

pittss1c wrote:

> I was wondering, does one require a seaplane rating to operate and
> amphibian for land?



No, but you need the retractable sign off.

[Nathan Young]

On Fri, 15 Jun 2007 15:35:12 -0500, "Gig 601XL Builder"
<wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote:

>Nathan Young wrote:
>>
>> ***********************
>> FAA has a FAQ on Part 61 which addresses this, specifically it states:
>>
>> http://afs600.faa.gov/AFS640.htm
>> Click on the link for: FAQ 14 CFR, Part 61 & 141
>>
>> ******************************
>
>I looked all over for that FAQ because I knew the answer was in there and I
>couldn't find it. And even with the link above I can't find it because it
>gives a Page Not Found error.
>

Reference the other link in the top part of my post... It works (at
least as of yesterday).

[[email protected][_2_]]

Ok, so I have a related question:
With these new LSA amphibs coming out (like the Mermaid), does one fly
them using "sport pilot" privledges? Or does one have to go out and
get SES rating for it? Let's say I buy one and I have a SEL rating
only, can I fly it under sport pilot rules without going out and
getting a SES rating...? I'm inclined to think so, but I'd like to
hear what people say.

What the insurance company says is a whole different can of worms, I
realize! I'm just talking strictly about the FAR's (or the CFR Part
blah, blah, blah...they're still FAR's to me)

-Ryan in Madison, WI

[[email protected]]

> wrote:
> Ok, so I have a related question:
> With these new LSA amphibs coming out (like the Mermaid), does one fly
> them using "sport pilot" privledges? Or does one have to go out and
> get SES rating for it? Let's say I buy one and I have a SEL rating
> only, can I fly it under sport pilot rules without going out and
> getting a SES rating...? I'm inclined to think so, but I'd like to
> hear what people say.

> What the insurance company says is a whole different can of worms, I
> realize! I'm just talking strictly about the FAR's (or the CFR Part
> blah, blah, blah...they're still FAR's to me)

> -Ryan in Madison, WI

I would think you would need a sea rating to one or the other.

Which brings up another question, can one hold two different types
of certificates, i.e. private single engine land and light sport
rotorcraft, at the same time?

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Judah]

john smith > wrote in news:46730b3b$0$3100
:

> In article >,
> pittss1c > wrote:
>
>> I was wondering, does one require a seaplane rating to operate and
>> amphibian for land?
>
> I have a PPC with ASEL/IR ratings, tailwheel, high performance and
> complex endorsements.
> I have 20 hours in an Osprey II amphibean, all land takeoffs and
> landing. I flew it to and from Oshkosh in 1989 for the owner/builder.
> No big deal except that I am 6'2" and had to slouch down in the seat to
> keep my headset from contacting the canopy. Landing with your butt less
> than 12" off the ground is interesting.

That doesn't describe anything about the regs, only about the intensity with
which you follow them (or perhaps don't).

[Judah]

Bertie the Bunyip > wrote in
.130:

> pittss1c > wrote in :
>
>> I was wondering, does one require a seaplane rating to operate and
>> amphibian for land?
>>
>
>
> No, you don't.
>
> In fact, I even instructed in a non-amphib Cessna 185 completely legally
> without ever having had a seaplane rating..
>
>
> How's that for a brain teaser?
>
>
> Bertie

I hope it was before August 1997...

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Judah > wrote in
:

> Bertie the Bunyip > wrote in
> .130:
>
>> pittss1c > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>> I was wondering, does one require a seaplane rating to operate and
>>> amphibian for land?
>>>
>>
>>
>> No, you don't.
>>
>> In fact, I even instructed in a non-amphib Cessna 185 completely
>> legally without ever having had a seaplane rating..
>>
>>
>> How's that for a brain teaser?
>>
>>
>> Bertie
>
> I hope it was before August 1997...

Doesn't matter when, It was legal, definitely. Local GADO sed so too.

Bertie
>

[John Godwin]

" > wrote in
ups.com:

> With these new LSA amphibs coming out (like the Mermaid), does one
> fly them using "sport pilot" privledges? Or does one have to go
> out and get SES rating for it? Let's say I buy one and I have a
> SEL rating only, can I fly it under sport pilot rules without
> going out and getting a SES rating...? I'm inclined to think so,
> but I'd like to hear what people say.
>

From what I've read, here's what I found:

Since the Mermaid has a Vh of greater than 87 KCAS you must have:
A Sport Pilot Certificate with an AP-8 Endorsement ... or
A Recreational Pilot Certificate with SES rating ... or
A Private, Commercial, or ATP with SES rating.

--

[Montblack]

("John Godwin" wrote)
> Since the Mermaid has a Vh of greater than 87 KCAS you must have:
> A Sport Pilot Certificate with an AP-8 Endorsement ... or
> A Recreational Pilot Certificate with SES rating ... or
> A Private, Commercial, or ATP with SES rating.


I found it on page 13 of:
"CFI’s Guide to Sport Pilot and Light-Sport Aircraft"

Appendix 4
Sets of Aircraft

Example: A sport pilot received all of her training in an Aeronca Champ. She
is signed off for the set "Airplane, < 87 KCAS, tailwheel" (set "AP-2"). She
is able to fly, without any additional training or endorsement, any
tailwheel airplane that is sport pilot eligible and has a VH of 87KCAS or
below.

She is interested in buying one of the new, fast tricycle-geared S-LSAs.
Before she can act as PIC of the aircraft she purchases, she will need to
train with a CFI in a sport pilot-eligible tricycle geared aircraft with a
VH of > 87 KCAS and receive an endorsement for aircraft set "AP-5".

A sport pilot could end up with up to 8 logbook endorsements in order to fly
every type of sport pilot-eligible airplane.


Airplane: 87 KCAS (VH) or BELOW
-----------------------------------------------
Tricycle gear ....... (AP-1)
Tailwheel ............. (AP-2)
Ski equipped ...... (AP-3)
Float equipped ... (AP-4)

Airplane: 87 KCAS (VH) and ABOVE
-------------------------------------------------
Tricycle gear ........ (AP-5)
Tailwheel .............. (AP-6)
Ski equipped ....... (AP-7)
Float equipped .... (AP-8)
Turbine ................. (AP-9)

http://tinyurl.com/2f9xl3
(same link as below)

<http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:519iekDeR5wJ:www.sportpilot.org/learn/cfi_guide.pdf+Sport+Pilot+Certificate+AP-8+Endorsement&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=us&client=firefox-a?


Bad Paul-Mont. Bad
Just checking who's checking :-)

[Dave S]

Scott Skylane wrote:
As for the 1.1 definition of "Class", if
> anything, a person might interpret that to mean you *do* have to have a
> sea rating to operate a seaplane, regardless of where you take off and
> land.
>

If you operate an amphib solely off of land, you do not need a seaplane
rating.

If you operate an amphib solely off of water, you do not need a
landplane rating.

Although capable of conversion, an airplane can occupy only one class at
one time. There is no special rule for amphibs.

Once you land on water, its a seaplane... until it lands on land
again..then its a landplane.

Dave

[Dave S]

wrote:
Let's say I buy one and I have a SEL rating
> only, can I fly it under sport pilot rules without going out and
> getting a SES rating...? I'm inclined to think so, but I'd like to
> hear what people say.

If its experimental, and Im prolly wrong here...,

but you are not required to have category and class in an experimental..
UNLESS passengers are carried.

In other words, you can go experiment on your own, but you have to be
rated to take someone with you.

Dave

[Dave S]

> I would think you would need a sea rating to one or the other.
>
> Which brings up another question, can one hold two different types
> of certificates, i.e. private single engine land and light sport
> rotorcraft, at the same time?
>

Its not uncommon to see that at all...

My father had among other things,
Rotorcraft - Commercial
AMEL - ATP
ASEL - Commercial
Instrument, Airplane

Each of those was a different checkride at some point in time.

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Dave S" > wrote >

> If its experimental, and Im prolly wrong here...,
>
> but you are not required to have category and class in an experimental..
> UNLESS passengers are carried.
>
> In other words, you can go experiment on your own, but you have to be
> rated to take someone with you.

True, I believe.

We had a FAA type guy at a local EAA fly in speaking on inspecting new
homebuilts, and that question was asked.

His response was yes, that was true, but he said that if a guy had built a
seaplane, and did not have a seaplane ticket, he would assign a fly off
period with restrictions like, "to be flown only on the first Tuesday of the
month, within a 2 mile radius of the airport (or seaport) on a day with a
full moon the following night, with a fly off time of 100 hours."

In other words, you will have to have the rating, as far as he is concerned.
--
Jim in NC

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote >>> In fact, I even instructed in a
non-amphib Cessna 185 completely
>>> legally without ever having had a seaplane rating..
>>>
>>>
>>> How's that for a brain teaser?
>>>
>>>
>>> Bertie
>>
>> I hope it was before August 1997...
>
> Doesn't matter when, It was legal, definitely. Local GADO sed so too.

Took off on floats from snow or wet grass.
--
Jim in NC

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

"Morgans" > wrote in news:0nnfi.1911$es3.939
@newsfe02.lga:

>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote >>> In fact, I even instructed in a
> non-amphib Cessna 185 completely
>>>> legally without ever having had a seaplane rating..
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> How's that for a brain teaser?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Bertie
>>>
>>> I hope it was before August 1997...
>>
>> Doesn't matter when, It was legal, definitely. Local GADO sed so too.
>
> Took off on floats from snow or wet grass.


Nope, but a good one I sure never would have thought of.
No, I was giving instrument instruction to a guy who had a 185 on floats.
We would do an approach into the airport near the lake where he parked the
thing and then divert from minimums over to the lake.
He did most of his instrument training like this.


Bertie

[Judah]

Bertie the Bunyip > wrote in
:

> Nope, but a good one I sure never would have thought of.
> No, I was giving instrument instruction to a guy who had a 185 on
> floats. We would do an approach into the airport near the lake where he
> parked the thing and then divert from minimums over to the lake.
> He did most of his instrument training like this.

If you aren't rated in the plane, how can you instruct in it? Or even be a
safety pilot?

"§ 91.109 Flight instruction; Simulated instrument flight and certain
flight tests. ...
(b) No person may operate a civil aircraft in simulated instrument flight
unless—

(1) The other control seat is occupied by a safety pilot who possesses at
least a private pilot certificate with category and class ratings
appropriate to the aircraft being flown."


Do you have category and class ratings appropriate to a Cessna 185 with
floats?

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Judah > wrote in
:

> Bertie the Bunyip > wrote in
> :
>
>> Nope, but a good one I sure never would have thought of.
>> No, I was giving instrument instruction to a guy who had a 185 on
>> floats. We would do an approach into the airport near the lake where
>> he parked the thing and then divert from minimums over to the lake.
>> He did most of his instrument training like this.
>
> If you aren't rated in the plane, how can you instruct in it? Or even
> be a safety pilot?
>

A, it's called an airplane.

B. I only instucted him in instrument flight, so the boots didn't matter
since inever landed it.

> "§ 91.109 Flight instruction; Simulated instrument flight and
> certain flight tests. ...
> (b) No person may operate a civil aircraft in simulated instrument
> flight unless—
>
> (1) The other control seat is occupied by a safety pilot who possesses
> at least a private pilot certificate with category and class ratings
> appropriate to the aircraft being flown."
>
>
> Do you have category and class ratings appropriate to a Cessna 185
> with floats?
>



Nope, but the FAA decided it was legit so we did it.


Bertie

[Judah]

Bertie the Bunyip > wrote in news:Xns995A219B0F554****upropeeh@
207.14.116.130:

> Judah > wrote in
> :
>
>> Bertie the Bunyip > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>> Nope, but a good one I sure never would have thought of.
>>> No, I was giving instrument instruction to a guy who had a 185 on
>>> floats. We would do an approach into the airport near the lake where
>>> he parked the thing and then divert from minimums over to the lake.
>>> He did most of his instrument training like this.
>>
>> If you aren't rated in the plane, how can you instruct in it? Or even
>> be a safety pilot?
>>
>
> A, it's called an airplane.

"plane" Dictionary.com. Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1). Random House,
Inc. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/plane (accessed: June 24,
2007).
–noun
5. Aeronautics. a. an airplane or a hydroplane: to take a plane to Dallas.

> B. I only instucted him in instrument flight, so the boots didn't matter
> since inever landed it.
>
>> "§ 91.109 Flight instruction; Simulated instrument flight and
>> certain flight tests. ...
>> (b) No person may operate a civil aircraft in simulated instrument
>> flight unless—
>>
>> (1) The other control seat is occupied by a safety pilot who possesses
>> at least a private pilot certificate with category and class ratings
>> appropriate to the aircraft being flown."
>>
>>
>> Do you have category and class ratings appropriate to a Cessna 185
>> with floats?
>
> Nope, but the FAA decided it was legit so we did it.

I highly suspect that the entire FAA didn't decide it was legit, in
contrast to the paragraph I quoted earlier. I rather suspect that some guy
who works at a FSDO gave you his opinion over the phone, and had you been
caught in the act by another guy from another FSDO (or maybe even the same
FSDO), who happened to be a hardass, he might not have been so lenient.

As I have demonstrated above, one can find a source to say nearly anything,
but that doesn't make it accurate. In the relatively few years that I have
been involved in aviation, I have found this to be especially true with
respect to piloting, FAA regulations, and Aerodynamics.

There is more folklore being spewed about aviation than all the old wives
tales ever conceived, let alone spoken.

[Denny]

Ahh, seems like we always get into the "angels dancing on the head of
a pin" discussions... The ways of the FAA are not that mysterious if
you look at the big picture...
It is simulated IFR - this is the key to the whole situation
"simulated"...
The student is PIC of the airplane - being already rated and current
for VFR flight...
The CFII has to be rated - in this case ASEL - to provide instruction
and to act as safety pilot...
The water takeoff is VFR and the student is rated and in command...
During all phases of flight where the CFII is responsible for the safe
operation of the aircraft - during simulated IFR in flight - the
aircraft was ASEL, or could be made ASEL by the student re-taking
command of the flight in VMC if the wheels were in fact retracted - in
either case the CFII was appropriately rated for the instruction
given, which did not include take off or landing...
At some agreed upon point during the simulated circling approach the
IFR training stopped, the PIC assumed command of his aircraft under
VFR conditions at which point the CFII became a simple passenger for
the ensuing water landing...
Doesn't look a bit iffy to me...

Now, the plot thickens... Had this been an actual IMC day, with say a
500 foot ceiling, where the student would have had the aircraft in
visual conditons at the MAP, would this have been legal with this
instructor?
The answer is no...
Because, a filed IFR flight plan where the field is declared by the
controller to be IFR does not become VFR at the moment the pilot can
see the field for the approach and landing, or circling approach to
the waterway... It remains an IFR flight until the airplane has
completed the landing and exited the active runway (or waterway)..
Then and only then is it no longer legally an IFR operation... For
this instruction the CFII would need the amphib rating...
Likewise the takeoff on a declared IFR field would have need the
rating also...

denny

[Bertie the Bunyip]

On Jun 25, 3:33 am, Judah > wrote:
> Bertie the Bunyip > wrote in news:Xns995A219B0F554****upropeeh@
> 207.14.116.130:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Judah > wrote in
> :
>
> >> Bertie the Bunyip > wrote in
> :
>
> >>> Nope, but a good one I sure never would have thought of.
> >>> No, I was giving instrument instruction to a guy who had a 185 on
> >>> floats. We would do an approach into the airport near the lake where
> >>> he parked the thing and then divert from minimums over to the lake.
> >>> He did most of his instrument training like this.
>
> >> If you aren't rated in the plane, how can you instruct in it? Or even
> >> be a safety pilot?
>
> > A, it's called an airplane.
>
> "plane" Dictionary.com. Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1). Random House,
> Inc.http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/plane(accessed: June 24,
> 2007).
> -noun
> 5. Aeronautics. a. an airplane or a hydroplane: to take a plane to Dallas.


For the great unwashed maybe, but not for a pilot, net nanny.
>
>
>
>
>
> > B. I only instucted him in instrument flight, so the boots didn't matter
> > since inever landed it.
>
> >> "§ 91.109 Flight instruction; Simulated instrument flight and
> >> certain flight tests. ...
> >> (b) No person may operate a civil aircraft in simulated instrument
> >> flight unless-
>
> >> (1) The other control seat is occupied by a safety pilot who possesses
> >> at least a private pilot certificate with category and class ratings
> >> appropriate to the aircraft being flown."
>
> >> Do you have category and class ratings appropriate to a Cessna 185
> >> with floats?
>
> > Nope, but the FAA decided it was legit so we did it.
>
> I highly suspect that the entire FAA didn't decide it was legit, in
> contrast to the paragraph I quoted earlier. I rather suspect that some guy
> who works at a FSDO gave you his opinion over the phone, and had you been
> caught in the act by another guy from another FSDO (or maybe even the same
> FSDO), who happened to be a hardass, he might not have been so lenient.
>
> As I have demonstrated above, one can find a source to say nearly anything,

You've not demonstrated anything. I got approval, because it seemed so
gray.


> but that doesn't make it accurate. In the relatively few years that I have
> been involved in aviation, I have found this to be especially true with
> respect to piloting, FAA regulations, and Aerodynamics.
>
> There is more folklore being spewed about aviation than all the old wives
> tales ever conceived, let alone spoken.- Hide quoted text -


Not an old wives tale. I did it and it was legal, period.

I also could have taught in a multi engine airplane with no multi-
engine instructor's rating (never arose) and I know of two guys who
flew a twin with no licence whatsoever. And they broke no law. And I
can probe that the FAA had no trouble with them either.


Fjukkwit.



Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip]

On Jun 25, 1:27 pm, Denny > wrote:
> Ahh, seems like we always get into the "angels dancing on the head of
> a pin" discussions... The ways of the FAA are not that mysterious if
> you look at the big picture...
> It is simulated IFR - this is the key to the whole situation
> "simulated"...
> The student is PIC of the airplane - being already rated and current
> for VFR flight...
> The CFII has to be rated - in this case ASEL - to provide instruction
> and to act as safety pilot...
> The water takeoff is VFR and the student is rated and in command...
> During all phases of flight where the CFII is responsible for the safe
> operation of the aircraft - during simulated IFR in flight - the
> aircraft was ASEL, or could be made ASEL by the student re-taking
> command of the flight in VMC if the wheels were in fact retracted - in
> either case the CFII was appropriately rated for the instruction
> given, which did not include take off or landing...
> At some agreed upon point during the simulated circling approach the
> IFR training stopped, the PIC assumed command of his aircraft under
> VFR conditions at which point the CFII became a simple passenger for
> the ensuing water landing...
> Doesn't look a bit iffy to me...
>
> Now, the plot thickens... Had this been an actual IMC day, with say a
> 500 foot ceiling, where the student would have had the aircraft in
> visual conditons at the MAP, would this have been legal with this
> instructor?
> The answer is no...
> Because, a filed IFR flight plan where the field is declared by the
> controller to be IFR does not become VFR at the moment the pilot can
> see the field for the approach and landing, or circling approach to
> the waterway... It remains an IFR flight until the airplane has
> completed the landing and exited the active runway (or waterway)..
> Then and only then is it no longer legally an IFR operation... For
> this instruction the CFII would need the amphib rating...
> Likewise the takeoff on a declared IFR field would have need the
> rating also...
>

It's a floatplane.

you can't land it at a field anyway..



Bertie

[Judah]

Bertie the Bunyip > wrote in
ups.com:

> You've not demonstrated anything.

I demonstrated a source that says a "Plane" is an "Airplane".

> I got approval, because it seemed so gray.

Did you get it in writing? I sure hope so.


> Not an old wives tale. I did it and it was legal, period.

You misunderstood my point. I believe your story. I just think that in
today's society of "sue first, ask questions later", in combination with
the amazingly folklor-ish state of aviation, if you didn't have it in
writing from your FSDO, your verbal opinion from a guy at a FSDO was woth
about as much as a verbal opinion from my 2 year old son.

> I also could have taught in a multi engine airplane with no multi-
> engine instructor's rating (never arose)

How so? Are you intending to imply that if one of the engines is powered
off the plane magically transforms into an ASEL?

> and I know of two guys who
> flew a twin with no licence whatsoever. And they broke no law. And I
> can probe that the FAA had no trouble with them either.

Was there an instructor in the plane when this happened?

> Fjukkwit.

Right back atchya babe...

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Judah > wrote in
:

> Bertie the Bunyip > wrote in
> ups.com:
>
>> You've not demonstrated anything.
>
> I demonstrated a source that says a "Plane" is an "Airplane".
>
>> I got approval, because it seemed so gray.
>
> Did you get it in writing? I sure hope so.

Why?
>
>
>> Not an old wives tale. I did it and it was legal, period.
>
> You misunderstood my point. I believe your story. I just think that in
> today's society of "sue first, ask questions later", in combination
> with the amazingly folklor-ish state of aviation, if you didn't have
> it in writing from your FSDO, your verbal opinion from a guy at a FSDO
> was woth about as much as a verbal opinion from my 2 year old son.

Then you don't understand my story.
>
>> I also could have taught in a multi engine airplane with no multi-
>> engine instructor's rating (never arose)
>
> How so? Are you intending to imply that if one of the engines is
> powered off the plane magically transforms into an ASEL?
>

Nope, just showing you can't think through time.

>> and I know of two guys who
>> flew a twin with no licence whatsoever. And they broke no law. And I
>> can probe that the FAA had no trouble with them either.
>
> Was there an instructor in the plane when this happened?

Nope.

They also had no licence and they still weren't in violation of any
FARs. And it wasn't an ultralight.
>
>> Fjukkwit.
>
> Right back atchya babe...
>
Aww, an IKYABWAI insult.


You're just adorable!


Bertie

[Judah]

Bertie the Bunyip > wrote in news:Xns995B9961D3BEA****upropeeh@
207.14.116.130:

> Then you don't understand my story.

Apparently we are fated to be unable to understand each other.

> Nope, just showing you can't think through time.

Or don't really care enough to research the timing of the laws you are
referencing...

> Aww, an IKYABWAI insult.

I guess you've never made it to New York...

[Bertie the Bunyip]

On 26 Jun, 22:22, Judah > wrote:
> Bertie the Bunyip > wrote in news:Xns995B9961D3BEA****upropeeh@
> 207.14.116.130:
>
> > Then you don't understand my story.
>
> Apparently we are fated to be unable to understand each other.

Oh, I understand you.
>
> > Nope, just showing you can't think through time.
>
> Or don't really care enough to research the timing of the laws you are
> referencing...

Awww, sour grapes.
>
> > Aww, an IKYABWAI insult.
>
> I guess you've never made it to New York...


Snort!


Bertie