Tell me about seaplane instructors

[Henning]

Dude, it doesn't take an expert to know what a seaplane rating entails. Read the PTS. It has all the tasks required for the rating. Its basically just water landings and water taxi operations. None of which require hundreds or thousands of hours to be proficient enough to teach.

That's just the rating, minimum standards. as I said, competent is 30 hrs, experienced is 300hrs.

 

[dsffdssdf]

Not a plateau so much as a lessened gradient. Hopefully you learn throughout your life. As far as a few hours, you can get the flying part in that, that's true, however, there is something else involved, you have to learn some seamanship as well. For someone with no nautical experience, there's about another 8 hours minimum of seamanship to cover. If you know you a bowline, French Bowline, various hitches: cleat, running, clove, rolling... a sheet bend and various other bends,and how to rig spring lines and secure to cleats, bits or pilings, how to read the water for what is underneath, how to dock in a 6 kt current, how to read currents and know where the eddies will be and the sandbars, how to sail, especially to weather, how to heave to,.... these types of things, you'll be good to go. If you don't know what I just said, if you have a 170 IQ and $700+ aircraft, I can get you through it in 8hrs. Normally it takes me a three day weekend out full time with someone to get them to that point.

So figure for real, unless you are already a competent seaman, it'll take about 20-30hrs to be competent to let go. Now, not all of that will be in the aircraft, figure about 8 hrs of ground school, and it also depends on how far you have to go to sample various conditions. The big difference is that water is a dynamic environment so there's more things to consider and correct for. Another biggie, and this is why very few of those 7hr Seaplane Rating places wont rent you the plane to solo (unless you do about 20 more hours with them), is that when things go wrong, they go wrong fast, and water carries extreme energy, if you have been to sea in a storm, you know, if not, you have no idea, take it for granted though, you get the plane in the wrong place in a current, thing will break. If you get ut upstream of a barge, it can pull you under and shoot you out the back, unless you get wedged in. Either way is not pleasant. It happens to big tug boats fairly frequently, a plane wouldnt stand a chance.

So how many seaplane hours do you feel is enough for an experienced "land-lubber" instructor in order to give instruction in a seaplane? 20-30? Do they need the full 300? Are you a seaplane instructor, by any chance? How many hours did you have when you started instructing?

The way I see it, a seaplane rating is a lot like transition training, such as learning how to fly a C-182 when you normally fly a C-152. Its not like you have a ton of things to go over. Just landings and some other miscellaneous things thrown in. It doesn't require a gray-haired C-182 sage in order to do the training competently, just someone who knows what they're doing.

In other words, experience isn't as much of a critical thing with this kind of stuff as it is with primary training or other types of training.

 

[airdale]

The way I see it ... Its not like you have a ton of things to go over. Just landings and some other miscellaneous things thrown in.

ROFL. Keep it up, kid. You're hilarious!

Given your standards for performance as a pilot, however, please fly only solo and not over populated areas. Also please fly only white airplanes in the summer and red ones in the winter. Try not to roll it in too small a ball. We don't want to spend a lot of time on the search mission.

 

[dsffdssdf]

ROFL. Keep it up, kid. You're hilarious!

Given your standards for performance as a pilot, however, please fly only solo and not over populated areas. Also please fly only white airplanes in the summer and red ones in the winter. Try not to roll it in too small a ball. We don't want to spend a lot of time on the search mission.

Oh please, get off your high horse. It would be great is everybody in the instructing business were 10,000 hour sages, but thats not how it works. By the way you talk, I'm sure you an expert in seaplane instruction, right? If so then please, pray tell, what else, other than landings and water taxiing must be covered in the 7 hours of normal seaplane instruction?

 

[gismo]

So how many seaplane hours do you feel is enough for an experienced "land-lubber" instructor in order to give instruction in a seaplane? 20-30? Do they need the full 300?

That depends on whether the goal of the training is just to pass the very low standards of the ASES checkride or to actually prepare the student for the wide variety of situations they will encounter as an active float pilot and to a lesser extent, the level of seamanship the trainee already has.

The way I see it, a seaplane rating is a lot like transition training, such as learning how to fly a C-182 when you normally fly a C-152. Its not like you have a ton of things to go over. Just landings and some other miscellaneous things thrown in. It doesn't require a gray-haired C-182 sage in order to do the training competently, just someone who knows what they're doing.

Your analogy is kinda weak. When you fly floats, almost every landing is the ASEL equivalent of an off airport landing with hidden hazards. Powerlines along or running across water bodies are rarely marked, at an airport you don't have to worry about submerged logs, hidden shallows or idiot boaters trying to race you (sometimes underneath the plane) as you land or take off. Landing a retractable airplane with the gear up will hurt your wallet but the chances of this causing serious injury are slight. Land an amphibian with the wheels down and your chances of survival are something like 10-15%. When you start the engine of your 152 (or 182) it's relatively simple to prevent the airplane from moving until you're ready to taxi, on floats you will be moving in some direction before you start and relatively forward once you do. There are no brakes on the water, and no neutral or reverse like a boat (managing a floatplane on water is more like a sailboat than a power boat in many ways. Just the act of preflighting takes on a whole new dimension when the airplane is floating in the water. Taxiing comes with a whole slew of issues from submarining the floats if you use any power downwind off the step to risking a cartwheel if you attempt to turn into the wind while still planed out. In many cases the only way to get where you need to go is to stop the engine and use the cabin doors to steer the plane.

I've just touched on a small fraction of the multitued of things I learned about when I learned to fly floats and I don't consider myself competent yet even though I have a commercial ASES rating on my certificate.

In other words, experience isn't as much of a critical thing with this kind of stuff as it is with primary training or other types of training.

I'd say you've got that exactly backwards. The PPASEL training programs commonly in use allow a relatively inexperienced instructor to prepare a student to be safe within a reasonably limited flight envelope and can provide most folks with the attitude and tools to expand that envelope slowly and safely. With the typical seaplane operation environment it's far more difficult for a new pilot to stay in a safe area operationally and the basic learning required to pass the FAA's practical test is woefully inadequate.

I do believe that a competent land plane instructor with minimal float experience who's trained for and passed a CFI-ASES checkride to teach a landlubber enough about float plane flying to pass the ASES private checkride but my point is that's so very far from producing a competent floatplane pilot.

 

[dsffdssdf]

That depends on whether the goal of the training is just to pass the very low standards of the ASES checkride or to actually prepare the student for the wide variety of situations they will encounter as an active float pilot and to a lesser extent, the level of seamanship the trainee already has.

But most seaplane flight schools don't really aim to produce "competent seaplane pilots". The entire seaplane instruction industry revolves around weekend-long 7-flight-hour crash courses. Yes there are a lot of things that go into being a competent seaplane pilot, but are all those things really ever covered in 2 day courses? Remember, there are also tons of things that go into being a "competent landplane pilot" such as how to fly around mountains that are hardly ever taught in landplane flight schools...

I do believe that a competent land plane instructor with minimal float experience who's trained for and passed a CFI-ASES checkride to teach a landlubber enough about float plane flying to pass the ASES private checkride but my point is that's so very far from producing a competent floatplane pilot.

In America at least, theres no such thing as a CFI-SES rating. All you need to instruct in a SES is a single engine CFI and a SES commercial. Additionally, to instruct in a MES, all you need is a MEI and a MES commercial.

Anyways, what I'm basically trying to say here is that, in my opinion, if you can do it, and you can teach, then you can teach doing it.

Since I hold a current CFI certificate, that proves I can teach. Since I can land a C-172, I can teach landing a C-172. Since I can do an approach down to minimums, I can teach doing approaches down to minimums. I don't need 10,000 hours of either of these activities in order to yeach them properly.

With that in mind, I feel that as long as I can land a C-172 on water, I can teach landing a C-172 on water. As long as I can taxii a C-172 on water, I can teach taxiing a C-172 on water.

Right now I have a tailwheel rating and about 5 hours of tailwheel time. Can I instruct tailwheel students? Of course I can. Personally, I don't really feel confortable doing such instruction since my tailwheel time was over a year ago, but otherwise I don't see what the pont of having more hours would be.

This is a response to the idea of people thinking anyone with less than a small lifetime of seaplane flying can't possibly teach others to fly seaplanes.

 

[Henning]

So how many seaplane hours do you feel is enough for an experienced "land-lubber" instructor in order to give instruction in a seaplane? 20-30? Do they need the full 300? Are you a seaplane instructor, by any chance? How many hours did you have when you started instructing?

The way I see it, a seaplane rating is a lot like transition training, such as learning how to fly a C-182 when you normally fly a C-152. Its not like you have a ton of things to go over. Just landings and some other miscellaneous things thrown in. It doesn't require a gray-haired C-182 sage in order to do the training competently, just someone who knows what they're doing.

In other words, experience isn't as much of a critical thing with this kind of stuff as it is with primary training or other types of training.

Did you not read the post you are referring to?
Anyway, for instructing, I'd say the full 300 because you need to know the exact limit to let the student go to and still be able to save it. I am not an instructor of any manner, though my schedule is now allowing for it, maybe I'll get it done this winter, and then, yes, I will be a seaplane instructor, maybe I'll get a Lake Buccaneer.

 

[Henning]

Oh please, get off your high horse. It would be great is everybody in the instructing business were 10,000 hour sages, but thats not how it works. By the way you talk, I'm sure you an expert in seaplane instruction, right? If so then please, pray tell, what else, other than landings and water taxiing must be covered in the 7 hours of normal seaplane instruction?

Yes, if you want to be minimally competent, 7 hours will suffice.

 

[Henning]

Anyways, what I'm basically trying to say here is that, in my opinion, if you can do it, and you can teach, then you can teach doing it.

And that is where you are incorrect. While I am not a CFI, I have been instructing sailors and commercial seamen for over a decade, and what you said there is untrue. You not only have to be able to do it, you have to be able to save it. To do you only need to know where the center of the envelope is, when you instruct, you have to know where the edges are.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

But most seaplane flight schools don't really aim to produce "competent seaplane pilots".

Yeah, but there'd better damn well be at least ONE "competent seaplane pilot" aboard!

The entire seaplane instruction industry revolves around weekend-long 7-flight-hour crash courses.

So, do you want to teach them only the same 7 hours that you learned, or do you want to teach them the most important 7 hours' worth of things you've ever learned as a more experienced seaplane pilot?

Yes there are a lot of things that go into being a competent seaplane pilot, but are all those things really ever covered in 2 day courses? Remember, there are also tons of things that go into being a "competent landplane pilot" such as how to fly around mountains that are hardly ever taught in landplane flight schools...

Sure, and you're not teaching someone how to squeeze a Cub out of a half-mile-wide glassy-water lake in the wilderness either. Plus, you're required to have at least 250 hours to get your commercial (and thus be a CFI)... At least 100 must be in powered aircraft, and at least 50 must be pilot-in-command in airplanes. I'd say that the 50 there would be an ABSOLUTE BARE MINIMUM to even think about being a seaplane instructor. Anything else would be truly half-assed. I think the 300-hour number is a little better.

I don't think you need 10,000 ASES hours to be a good ASES instructor, but I do think you need more than 7. Again, the 100-300 range is probably a good thing to aim for.

 

[airdale]

A couple of recent posts offering insight to the issue:

iMissNick:

So, do you want to teach them only the same 7 hours that you learned, or do you want to teach them the most important 7 hours' worth of things you've ever learned as a more experienced seaplane pilot?

Yes. I think this succinctly captures the reason that experience is important. It is the reason I seek out the high time guys when I want serious training. I don't want instrument instruction from a guy that has two ice stories; I want the guy has two hundred. Similarly, I want the seaplane guy who has been doing crosswind river landings to make a living. Those are the guys who can give me the benefit of their most important hours. There's the oft quoted maxim: "You better learn from the mistakes of others because you won't live long enough to learn only from your own."

And ... dear dsffdssff:

Since I hold a current CFI certificate, that proves I can teach. Since I can land a C-172, I can teach landing a C-172. Since I can do an approach down to minimums, I can teach doing approaches down to minimums.

Probably he also thinks that because he flew in a cloud once, he is qualified to teach flying in clouds.

I think what we have here is precisely one of the low-experience instructors that I avoid like the plague and that he is feeling a little threatened by the concept that experience is important. Just my guess, of course.

 

[dsffdssdf]

A couple of recent posts offering insight to the issue:

iMissNick:Yes. I think this succinctly captures the reason that experience is important. It is the reason I seek out the high time guys when I want serious training

My point is that not very many people who seek out seaplane instruction are interested in "serious instruction", they're just interested spending a weekend landing a 172 on floats into a calm lake for some scenic fun. It has been established in this thread already that to be a competent seaplane pilot, it takes a lot more than 7 hours of seaplane time. If you're one of the few people who are interested in learning how to land in cross currents and stuff like that, you shouldn't be messing with these weekend courses.

And ... dear dsffdssff: Probably he also thinks that because he flew in a cloud once, he is qualified to teach flying in clouds.

By "able to do" I didn't mean "did it once".

I think what we have here is precisely one of the low-experience instructors that I avoid like the plague and that he is feeling a little threatened by the concept that experience is important. Just my guess, of course.

Who says I'm threatened by experience? I'm saying experience is more important in other types of instruction, and less important in others. If I had the choice between getting my instrument rating from an old timer who was well established as a good instrument instructor and a new guy who is not yet well established, I'd go with the old guy. The instrument rating is very a crucial rating, so good instruction does a long way. It's critical because there is a lot of judgment that goes into doing approaches and stuff.

On the other hand, if we're talking about transition training from a C-152 to a C-182, a old timer is not as important. All you need is someone who is competent enough to take the controls from you if you gets overwhelmed or do something dumb, and it doesn't take someone with a crapload of 172 hours to recognize when things don't look right. Sound judgment, in a nutshell is what experience leads to. In the course of 7 hours, I'm not seeing how the instructor is going to have a lot of opportunity to depart a lot of judgment skills onto the student.

In other words, the skill "plateau" is much lower, meaning a 50 hour C-172 CFI is just as good at doing such instruction as a 5000 hour C-172 instructor, in the same way a 6,000 hour seaplane instructor is going to be just as good as a 10,000 hour seaplane instructor.

I know a lot of pilots don't like to admit this (especially old timers), but there are just certain things that aren't rocket science and therefore don't require a crapload of experience in order to be qualified to teach. It's like tying a shoe. If you can do it, you can teach it. As a matter of fact, my older sister taught me how to tie my shoes just a few months after she learned.

Since seaplane rating only take 7 hours to complete, I'm going to assume that it's one of those things where it isn't rocket science and therefore isn't something where not being an old timer is going to matter much.

The whole reason I made this thread in the first place was to get an idea of the kind of people who teach seaplanes. Are there low time seaplane instructors out there?

 

[airdale]

The whole reason I made this thread in the first place...

Sorry, I lost track of the fact that you were the OP. If your ambition is strictly to teach 7-hour dilettante courses and your students understand what they are getting, then I don't think we have much to disagree about. I just don't approach any flight training from the dilettante point of view.

 

[Henning]

The whole reason I made this thread in the first place was to get an idea of the kind of people who teach seaplanes. Are there low time seaplane instructors out there?

No, they are uninsurable.

 

[EdFred]

I'd say that the 50 there would be an ABSOLUTE BARE MINIMUM to even think about being a seaplane instructor. Anything else would be truly half-assed. I think the 300-hour number is a little better.

I disagree with that. It is all going to depend from instructor to instructor. I guess I'm half-assed. Thanks Cowboy Pilot!

 

[flyingcheesehead]

I disagree with that. It is all going to depend from instructor to instructor. I guess I'm half-assed

Ed,

While you're technically legal to instruct in seaplanes, I don't think you're actively doing it, right? Because if you were, yes, that would be half-assed IMHO.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

My point is that not very many people who seek out seaplane instruction are interested in "serious instruction", they're just interested spending a weekend landing a 172 on floats into a calm lake for some scenic fun. It has been established in this thread already that to be a competent seaplane pilot, it takes a lot more than 7 hours of seaplane time.

But don't you think that as an instructor, you should at the very least be a competent seaplane pilot? Others have suggested 30 hours as a good minimum number, not far off from the 50 that I think should be the goal.

For what it's worth, the lowest seaplane time requirement I've ever seen for a seaplane job is 200 hours.

By "able to do" I didn't mean "did it once".

So, there are also people who are "able to" fly an approach to minimums just fine, but have never done it in actual.

In the course of 7 hours, I'm not seeing how the instructor is going to have a lot of opportunity to depart a lot of judgment skills onto the student.

The important thing is that you have at least several dozen hours so that you know which things are the most important to teach.

In other words, the skill "plateau" is much lower, meaning a 50 hour C-172 CFI is just as good at doing such instruction as a 5000 hour C-172 instructor, in the same way a 6,000 hour seaplane instructor is going to be just as good as a 10,000 hour seaplane instructor.

Maybe not just as good, but really darn close.

Look, I don't think you need 10,000 seaplane hours to be a good seaplane instructor. I do think you need 100, and that you're going to be at least twice as knowledgeable at 1000 as you were at 100. If you have 7, you really only know just enough to kill yourself and your student.

 

[gismo]

For the record, Henning wasn't quoting me, the quotes got messed up by the person he was quoting.

Quote:
Originally Posted by lancefisher
Anyways, what I'm basically trying to say here is that, in my opinion, if you can do it, and you can teach, then you can teach doing it.

And that is where you are incorrect.