Amphibious plane and ASEL

Old97

Old97

Pre-takeoff checklist
Joined
Jan 6, 2014
Messages
306
Location
Bayou City
Display Name
Display name:
Old97
If i have a PP-ASEL, and a tailwheel endorsement, lets say, is it legal for me to fly a Searey from land airport to land airport?
 
Yes.

Further, the Searey is an LSA. You don’t need to hold a seaplane rating to takeoff and land on water in one. Training is still required however.
 
mondtster said:
Yes.

Further, the Searey is an LSA. You don’t need to hold a seaplane rating to takeoff and land on water in one. Training is still required however.
Click to expand...
So the same would be true for a 172 on amphib floats, logically?
 
Old97 said:
So the same would be true for a 172 on amphib floats, logically?
Click to expand...

First part yes, second part no (obviously). I have a friend that had a cub on amphibs for a couple of years before he finally got around to get a seaplane rating.
 
mondtster said:
Yes.

Further, the Searey is an LSA. You don’t need to hold a seaplane rating to takeoff and land on water in one. Training is still required however.
Click to expand...

Not all seareys are lsa, some are EAB, for those the op limits will most likely call out that you have a SES.
 
unsafervguy said:
Not all seareys are lsa, some are EAB, for those the op limits will most likely call out that you have a SES.
Click to expand...

This is true, I suppose a builder could set the MGW higher than the LSA weight. Those would be a unique case.

I have never seen an op limits that specifies what certificate a user must hold however.
 
mondtster said:
This is true, I suppose a builder could set the MGW higher than the LSA weight. Those would be a unique case.

I have never seen an op limits that specifies what certificate a user must hold however.
Click to expand...

Eh? It doesn't need to. It's inherent in 61.13. You need a pilot certificate with the appropriate category or class if you are carrying passengers.
 
flyingron said:
Eh? It doesn't need to. It's inherent in 61.13. You need a pilot certificate with the appropriate category or class if you are carrying passengers.
Click to expand...

That was my point. The claim I was quoting was that the requirements would be in the oplims. They aren’t, or at least haven’t been on any I’ve seen.
 
Old97 said:
If i have a PP-ASEL, and a tailwheel endorsement, lets say, is it legal for me to fly a Searey from land airport to land airport?
Click to expand...
I say "no". You can't fly a seaplane without a seaplane rating (or endorsement, for LSA).
 
Kenny Phillips said:
I say "no". You can't fly a seaplane without a seaplane rating (or endorsement, for LSA).
Click to expand...
When flying from a land airport to a land airport, you aren't flying a seaplane. You also can't log it as SES for purposes of insurance. But you CAN call it amphib, which is a non-category category that insurance companies care about. Furthermore, it's retractable. And tailwheel!

So the answer to the OP is Yes.
 
So I can fly a twin with one engine inop with my ASEL rating! Cool!
 
Many pilots log anytime they have floats under them as sea time.
Most insurance Cos will charge you amphib rates even if you never touch water.

But yeah, you CAN do it with a SEL, not sure why you wouldn’t just get your SES if you have access to the plane though
 
MIFlyer said:
I believe you'll need a complex endorsement if the gear is retractable.
Click to expand...

Amphibious has no bearing on whether or not a complex endorsement is required when operating a seaplane. Hint: a Cessna 180 on straight floats will be high performance and complex.
 
mondtster said:
Amphibious has no bearing on whether or not a complex endorsement is required when operating a seaplane. Hint: a Cessna 180 on straight floats will be high performance and complex.
Click to expand...

But if it’s a amphib it’s probably going to be complex, so as a SEL you’ll need the ink in your logbook, and also likely a high performance too as most amphibs are north of 200hp
 
James331 said:
But if it’s a amphib it’s probably going to be complex, so as a SEL you’ll need the ink in your logbook, and also likely a high performance too as most amphibs are north of 200hp
Click to expand...

There are plenty of super cubs on amphibious floats that are not complex.
 
"A complex airplane is an airplane that has a retractable landing
gear, flaps, and a controllable pitch propeller. In lieu of a
controllable pitch propeller, the aircraft could also have an
engine control system consisting of a digital computer and
associated accessories for controlling the engine and the
propeller. A seaplane would still be considered complex if it
meets the description above except for having floats instead
of a retractable landing gear system."
https://www.faa.gov/regulations_pol...ation/airplane_handbook/media/13_afh_ch11.pdf

No controllable pitch propeller on a Searey - it's an LSA.
 
James331 said:
But if it’s a amphib it’s probably going to be complex, so as a SEL you’ll need the ink in your logbook, and also likely a high performance too as most amphibs are north of 200hp
Click to expand...
that's what i thought. as a land airplane, it has retractable gear, thereby requiring complex endorsement
 
mondtster said:
This is true, I suppose a builder could set the MGW higher than the LSA weight. Those would be a unique case.

I have never seen an op limits that specifies what certificate a user must hold however.
Click to expand...
Weight has nothing to do with it. If it's a kit built searay it can be EAB.

As to op limits, please refer to:
https://www.faa.gov/documentlibrary/media/order/faa_order_8130_2h.pdf
appendix c table c-1 line 7 it should be applied to all EAB's and should be in the op limits for every airplane.

my op limits were issued in 2003 and it says:
"the pilot in command of this aircraft shall hold a catagory/class rating,or an authorized instructors logbook endorsement. The pilot in command must meet the requirements of 61.31 (e), (f),(g), (h), (I), and (j) as appropriate.
 
Last edited:
MIFlyer said:
that's what i thought. as a land airplane, it has retractable gear, thereby requiring complex endorsement
Click to expand...

I should have mentioned the CS prop
 
Lindberg said:
The seaplane rating part is. You only need the seaplane rating if you're considering water operations.
Click to expand...

This seems bonkers to me. It's like saying "you can fly a retractable without a complex endorsement, as long as you never bring the gear up".
 
kath said:
This seems bonkers to me. It's like saying "you can fly a retractable without a complex endorsement, as long as you never bring the gear up".
Click to expand...

Why does it seem odd? Seaplane training and the checkride really doesn’t cover things that would be involved with operating an amphibious airplane on land. It is all about water operations so if a person were to get into an amphibious airplane with no checkout in the plane it is likely they would never be taught about things specific to amphibs.

It really isn’t any different than flying something like an original Swift or Mooney mite. A person could fly those without a complex endorsement and no training, despite the gear being retractable.

I suspect the number of people/airplanes involved in these loopholes is small enough that there is little need for additional regulation.
 
unsafervguy said:
Weight has nothing to do with it. If it's a kit built searay it can be EAB.

As to op limits, please refer to:
https://www.faa.gov/documentlibrary/media/order/faa_order_8130_2h.pdf
appendix c table c-1 line 7 it should be applied to all EAB's and should be in the op limits for every airplane.

my op limits were issued in 2003 and it says:
"the pilot in command of this aircraft shall hold a catagory/class rating,or an authorized instructors logbook endorsement. The pilot in command must meet the requirements of 61.31 (e), (f),(g), (h), (I), and (j) as appropriate.
Click to expand...

Thanks. I’ve looked at a number of operating limits, not sure how I’ve always missed this.
 
mondtster said:
Why does it seem odd? Seaplane training and the checkride really doesn’t cover things that would be involved with operating an amphibious airplane on land.
Click to expand...

It seems odd because the FAA is so good everywhere else of divorcing the question "are you qualified to fly this aircraft?" from the question of "what do you intend to use it to do?"

You can't fly a complex without a complex endorsement, and explain to the ramp checker "Oh, don't worry, it's OK because I'm not going to use the flaps."
You can't escape needing a high-altitude endorsement in an aircraft equipped for such, just by saying, "Well, I'll never take this thing above 10,000 feet, and I'm not going to use that oxygen system, so it's OK."
You can't walk into an instrument checkride in an airplane with an ADF in it, and explain to the examiner "Oh, you can't ask me to demonstrate proficiency with that, because I don't intend to use it for anything."
...So why can you take an amphib, and fly it without an SES, just by saying, "Well, I don't intend to use it on water."?

I would have thought the FAA's approach would be "if it's got floats, you'd better know how to use 'em." Because that's how they approach everything else; where it's *the aircraft* and its capabilities that determines the ratings you need to fly it, not your *usage* of the aircraft. That's why it seems weird to me. Any why I'd love to see this backed up in the regs...

Edit: Until someone can point to specific text suggesting otherwise, I'll continue to believe that you'd need both the SEL and the SES to fly an amphib.
 
Last edited:
kath said:
It seems odd because the FAA is so good everywhere else of divorcing the question "are you qualified to fly this aircraft?" from the question of "what do you intend to use it to do?"

You can't fly a complex without a complex endorsement, and explain to the ramp checker "Oh, don't worry, it's OK because I'm not going to use the flaps."
You can't escape needing a high-altitude endorsement in an aircraft equipped for such, just by saying, "Well, I'll never take this thing above 10,000 feet, and I'm not going to use that oxygen system, so it's OK."
You can't walk into an instrument checkride in an airplane with an ADF in it, and explain to the examiner "Oh, you can't ask me to demonstrate proficiency with that, because I don't intend to use it for anything."
...So why can you take an amphib, and fly it without an SES, just by saying, "Well, I don't intend to use it on water."?

I would have thought the FAA's approach would be "if it's got floats, you'd better know how to use 'em." Because that's how they approach everything else; where it's *the aircraft* and its capabilities that determines the ratings you need to fly it, not your *usage* of the aircraft. That's why it seems weird to me. Any why I'd love to see this backed up in the regs...

Edit: Until someone can point to specific text suggesting otherwise, I'll continue to believe that you'd need both the SEL and the SES to fly an amphib.
Click to expand...

It is what it is, whether it makes sense or not. And like I alluded to in post #2, if the searey in question is an LSA, a private helicopter pilot (or higher grade certificate) could fly this off either land or water without holding a fixed wing rating.
 
James331 said:
Most insurance Cos will charge you amphib rates even if you never touch water.
Click to expand...

Many years ago when I entertained the idea of a sea plane rating, the insurance guy told me after I get the rating, I would need 100 hours float flying to be insurable. He said I could get the 100 hours and never get the plane wet..... meaning I did not have to have any water landings to be insurable.
 
Lindberg said:
I would say that you are wrong abbot the FAA, but smart to be skeptical.

See the first FAQ:

https://www.seaplanepilotsassociation.org/resources/faq/airman-issues/

If it affects you, you might want to email them and ask for an authoritative reference.
Click to expand...

I would like to see a reference (or at least a better explanation) from them on that. I've always been told you need ASES for an amphib even when landing on land, because the aircraft doesn't change what it is. This is a bit more ambiguous for something like a Cessna on floats, but if you think about something like a Lake, it's a seaplane that happens to be able to land on land, and just because you don't land it on water doesn't mean it's not a seaplane.
 
flyingcheesehead said:
if you think about something like a Lake, it's a seaplane that happens to be able to land on land, and just because you don't land it on water doesn't mean it's not a seaplane.
Click to expand...
Or...
if you think about something like a Lake, it's a landplane that happens to be able to land on water, and just because you don't land it on land doesn't mean it's not a landplane.
 
Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe said:
Or...
if you think about something like a Lake, it's a landplane that happens to be able to land on water, and just because you don't land it on land doesn't mean it's not a landplane.
Click to expand...

And I went to the TCDS to prove that the Lake is, in fact, a seaplane... And discovered that the FAA calls it an Amphib. Clear as mud. :rofl:
 
Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe said:
Or...
if you think about something like a Lake, it's a landplane that happens to be able to land on water, and just because you don't land it on land doesn't mean it's not a landplane.
Click to expand...

...OK, but what if you're in a landplane, and you want to land on the land, but you can't sea the land, you can only sea the sea? Water you going to do? (You can land on the sea you can sea, but you don't have to Lake it!)
:D
 
Eh? The Lake TCDS calls it an amphib: 4 PCAmM, similarly the Seabee is a PCAM (don't know why one has a lower m and the other doesn't).

The codes are read:
P = place.
C = closed (as opposed to a Stearman or Waco which is O = Open).
A = Amphibian, L = Land, S = Sea
M = Monoplane (as oppsed to B = Biplane)_

The LSA Sea Rey doesn't have a type certificate.
 
Last edited:
Zeldman said:
Many years ago when I entertained the idea of a sea plane rating, the insurance guy told me after I get the rating, I would need 100 hours float flying to be insurable. He said I could get the 100 hours and never get the plane wet..... meaning I did not have to have any water landings to be insurable.
Click to expand...

100hr is a little high, I mean you’re talking high premiums, but 20-30hrs is doable

But the land only scouts honor, I haven’t seen that, in the winter I leave the amphibs on and the insurance folks still want full price even though all the water is now solid.
 
flyingcheesehead said:
I would like to see a reference (or at least a better explanation) from them on that. I've always been told you need ASES for an amphib even when landing on land, because the aircraft doesn't change what it is. This is a bit more ambiguous for something like a Cessna on floats, but if you think about something like a Lake, it's a seaplane that happens to be able to land on land, and just because you don't land it on water doesn't mean it's not a seaplane.
Click to expand...
Where is the requirement to have a sea plane rating?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top