Interesting question about flyin amphib with SEL rating....

BiffJ

BiffJ

Pre-takeoff checklist
Joined
Nov 14, 2010
Messages
408
Location
indiana USA
Display Name
Display name:
BiffJ
A friend asked me today if he could fly a Lake amphibian legally with only a single engine land rating if he only landed on land???? I couldn't answer....
does the fact that the thing can land in the water mean that you have to have the seaplane rating or is it just landing on liquid runways that requires the seaplane rating?

Thanks for any insight.

Frank
 
BiffJ said:
A friend asked me today if he could fly a Lake amphibian legally with only a single engine land rating if he only landed on land???? I couldn't answer....
does the fact that the thing can land in the water mean that you have to have the seaplane rating or is it just landing on liquid runways that requires the seaplane rating?

Thanks for any insight.

Frank
Click to expand...
yes he can, he is operating as a SEL aircraft, When he gets his SES rating he can land in the water.
 
It's kinda funny that conversely, you can't fly a retract around and leave the gear down the whole flight, without a Complex endorsement. ;-)
 
Tom-D said:
yes he can, he is operating as a SEL aircraft, When he gets his SES rating he can land in the water.
Click to expand...
So as a SEL you can operate a twin if you only have one engine running, and then when you get your MEL you can start the other one?
 
The question is rather moot unless you plan on buying an amphib and flying it uninsured.
 
Henning said:
The question is rather moot unless you plan on buying an amphib and flying it uninsured.
Click to expand...

Bingo!

And good luck even getting insurance if you want to buy an amphib to get your seaplane rating in.
 
Fearless Tower said:
Bingo!

And good luck even getting insurance if you want to buy an amphib to get your seaplane rating in.
Click to expand...


I know several who have. it ain't cheap, but can be done.

To fly the LA4-250 you need a high horse power, and a complex endorsements. but it can be operated IAW its manual as a land plane.

the twin comparison, doesn't apply due to the normal mode of operation is with both engines running and if you operate it on 1 you are operating it in a emergency situation not the normal mode.

Operating a SES type off a runway is normal operation, just because you have any aircraft that is capable to going to high altitudes doesn't mean you must.
 
Henning said:
The question is rather moot unless you plan on buying an amphib and flying it uninsured.
Click to expand...

what does that have to do with the question? I know many owners that have no insurance. that has nothing to do with being legal to fly.
 
Tom-D said:
I know several who have. it ain't cheap, but can be done.
Click to expand...

Who insured them?

I only speak from personal experience - I briefly looked into buying an amphib to get my seaplane rating in and was promptly told by Avemco to go pack sand.
 
Tom-D said:
what does that have to do with the question? I know many owners that have no insurance. that has nothing to do with being legal to fly.
Click to expand...

I thought that was already settled, Complex (and HP if required) and it can be flown runway to runway legally on an SEL.
 
I didn't mean to start a fight here...just wanted to ask. As for insurance it all depends on whether or not you are trying to get hull insurance. I got a quote for an LA4 out of curiosity and they wouldn't do hull but liability was not a lot higher than any other plane I checked. I have no seaplane rating. In any case if you aren't getting a loan to buy a plane then insurance of any type is optional. Also, as NC19143 noted, the question had to do with legality not whether it was reasonable. (is that a fairchild F24W in your avatar 143?).

Thanks for all the answers.

Frank
 
Interesting thread. I have wondered about this for quite some time.

...Years ago, just after 9/11, my homefield 3CK (lake in the hills, IL) was put under the O'Hare Bravo's 30nm IFR-only ring. Many pilots moved their planes to nearby airports further than 30nm away, including planes/pilots that were IFR equipped and capable. (At the time, there was so much IFR traffic, that you would often have to wait 30-60 minutes to get a clearance.)

One of the pilots (who owned a Lake amphibian) was ASES but VFR only got a CFI who was airplane/multi-engine/land to file IFR to a nearby airport. It was the subject of some fun regulatory debate amongst the local pilots.
 
I asked the FSDO this question quite a while back, and they said unreservedly "yes, you can." They said it's the surface on which you are operating, not the aircraft's capabilities which matter in this regard. Checked it with a few other Flight Standards folks, and got the same answer. But if you really need certainty, you can ask the Chief Counsel.

As for flying a twin...

The story goes that an FAA inspector named Fred was called out to the scene of an Apache crash at the departure end of the runway. There he found the wreckage, with the right engine feathered. After a bit of investigating, he determined that the airplane had been occupied only by Charlie and Tom -- two PP-ASEL pilots. When summoned to Fred's office to explain themselves, Charlie and Tom admitted that neither was multiengine qualified, but they figured that since they were each single-engine pilots, Charlie would be the left-engine PIC and Tom the right-engine PIC. "Sorta like a formation flight with both pilots in the same cockpit," explained Tom. "Yeah," said Charlie, "Things were going fine until Tom's engine quit just short of rotation speed. He aborted, but since my engine was fine, I kept going."
 
Fearless Tower said:
Who insured them?

I only speak from personal experience - I briefly looked into buying an amphib to get my seaplane rating in and was promptly told by Avemco to go pack sand.
Click to expand...

I believe they dealt thru Regal, I don't know who the underwriter was, I don't know if they had hull or not but they had liability. Like I said, it ain't cheap.
 
Ron Levy said:
The story goes that an FAA inspector named Fred was called out to the scene of an Apache crash at the departure end of the runway. There he found the wreckage, with the right engine feathered. After a bit of investigating, he determined that the airplane had been occupied only by Charlie and Tom -- two PP-ASEL pilots. When summoned to Fred's office to explain themselves, Charlie and Tom admitted that neither was multiengine qualified, but they figured that since they were each single-engine pilots, Charlie would be the left-engine PIC and Tom the right-engine PIC. "Sorta like a formation flight with both pilots in the same cockpit," explained Tom. "Yeah," said Charlie, "Things were going fine until Tom's engine quit just short of rotation speed. He aborted, but since my engine was fine, I kept going."
Click to expand...

Hilarious. Please tell me that this was just humor.
 
I had a student with a Scout that needed his tailwheel endorsement.
Let's just say the next few hours were not real productive.
I didn't hear anything for a while until I saw the airplane on amphibs.
FAA and insurance company said he didn't need a tailwheel
Endorsement while it was on the amphibs.
Dave
 
you can get a comm asel rating in a lake buccaneer....seen it done.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top