Ratings for an Amphibian

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

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

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

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...

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

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...

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