Can ASEL fly an EXP amphib?

D

docmirror

Touchdown! Greaser!
Joined
Jan 5, 2007
Messages
12,008
Display Name
Display name:
Cowboy - yeehah!
The pilot ratings, priv, endorsements: ASEL, IR, TW, HP, complex.

Buys an;

EXPERIMENTAL amphibian with TW, retract gear, 150HP fixed pitch prop.

Can he operated it? If so, what are the limitations?

Followup; If he want's to get a ASES rating, can it be done in this EXP? What if the instructor gives the instruction for free?

Well, this is stumping the red and purple boards. Any takers? Defend your position. :rofl:
 
As long as he does not land on the water.

No problem getting the instruction in his plane. He can pay the instructor all he wants. (The instructor cannot use it for giving lessons).

Dan
 
docmirror said:
The pilot ratings, priv, endorsements: ASEL, IR, TW, HP, complex.

Buys an;

EXPERIMENTAL amphibian with TW, retract gear, 150HP fixed pitch prop.

Can he operated it? If so, what are the limitations?

Followup; If he want's to get a ASES rating, can it be done in this EXP? What if the instructor gives the instruction for free?

Well, this is stumping the red and purple boards. Any takers? Defend your position. :rofl:
Click to expand...

The exceptions to 61.31 appear to allow any pilot to operate an aircraft without the appropriate category and class ratings in solo flight. Other than that I don't see any way for your pilot to legally fly the amphibian without an ASES rating.

61.31 Type rating requirements, additional training, and authorization requirements.


(d) Aircraft category, class, and type ratings: Limitations on operating an aircraft as the pilot in command. To serve as the pilot in command of an aircraft, a person must—
(1) Hold the appropriate category, class, and type rating (if a class rating and type rating are required) for the aircraft to be flown;


(k) Exceptions.
(2) The rating limitations of this section do not apply to—
(iii) The holder of a pilot certificate when operating an aircraft under the authority of—
(A) A provisional type certificate; or
(B) An experimental certificate, unless the operation involves carrying a passenger;


There is no FAR based reason why the pilot cannot receive instruction from an appropriately rated CFI in the experimental amphibian and the instructor can charge whatever he wants.
 
stingray said:
As long as he does not land on the water.

No problem getting the instruction in his plane. He can pay the instructor all he wants. (The instructor cannot use it for giving lessons).

Dan
Click to expand...

I see no exception in the FARs for flying an amphibian if the pilot "does not land on the water" even though such an exception would seem to make sense. Got any supporting FAR or chief council opinion quotes?
 
lancefisher said:
I see no exception in the FARs for flying an amphibian if the pilot "does not land on the water" even though such an exception would seem to make sense. Got any supporting FAR or chief council opinion quotes?
Click to expand...

I had a CFI tell me that an amphibian requires an ASES (not ASEL) rating, and that an ASES-only pilot can fly an amphibian, and even land it on the wheels, legally. I have no clue how to back that up. :dunno:
 
flyingcheesehead said:
I had a CFI tell me that an amphibian requires an ASES (not ASEL) rating, and that an ASES-only pilot can fly an amphibian, and even land it on the wheels, legally. I have no clue how to back that up. :dunno:
Click to expand...

I believe that's true also. AFaIK amphibians are seaplanes (ASES, AMES) to the FAA.
 
I'm beginning to think that a ASES is required. Here's my thought process. The certificate is the private pilot. The category is 'aircraft' and the class is 'single engine land'. Note that in the class, there is a discrete item for each 'single engine land', 'multi engine land', 'multi engine sea', and 'single engine sea'. I no more qualify for any of the other classes than the single engine land. so, I could not operate a multi engine plane on one engine. That is, an aircraft which is capable, and expected to fly on two engines could not be operated by a ASEL pilot using only one engine.

Just because an aircraft can perform in a class, that requires that the pilot be qualifed and rated in that class. So, since the aircraft was designed to land on both land and sea, the pilot must be qualfied in those operations, regardless of whether he choses to operate them there or not.

FAR 61.31D seems definitive to me:

(d) Aircraft category, class, and type ratings: Limitations on operating an aircraft as the pilot in command. To serve as the pilot in command of an aircraft, a person must—
(1) Hold the appropriate category, class, and type rating (if a class rating and type rating are required) for the aircraft to be flown;
(2) Be receiving training for the purpose of obtaining an additional pilot certificate and rating that are appropriate to that aircraft, and be under the supervision of an authorized instructor; or
(3) Have received training required by this part that is appropriate to the aircraft category, class, and type rating (if a class or type rating is required) for the aircraft to be flown, and have received the required endorsements from an instructor who is authorized to provide the required endorsements for solo flight in that aircraft.



A class is not endorsable like complex, TW or HP operations. You must be trained, and tested per 61.63:


(c) Additional class rating. Any person who applies for an additional class rating to be added on a pilot certificate:
(1) Must have an endorsement in his or her logbook or training record from an authorized instructor and that endorsement must attest that the applicant has been found competent in the aeronautical knowledge areas appropriate to the pilot certificate for the aircraft class rating sought;
(2) Must have an endorsement in his or her logbook or training record from an authorized instructor, and that endorsement must attest that the applicant has been found proficient in the areas of operation appropriate to the pilot certificate for the aircraft class rating sought;
(3) Must pass the required practical test that is appropriate to the pilot certificate for the aircraft class rating sought;


However, there is this little gotcha further down:

(k) Category class ratings for the operation of aircraft with experimental certificates: Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section, a person holding at least a recreational pilot certificate may apply for a category and class rating limited to a specific make and model of experimental aircraft, provided—
(1) The person has logged at least 5 hours flight time while acting as pilot in command in the same category, class, make, and model of aircraft that has been issued an experimental certificate;
(2) The person has received a logbook endorsement from an authorized instructor who has determined that he or she is proficient to act as pilot in command of the same category, class, make, and model of aircraft for which application is made; and
(3) The flight time specified in paragraph (k)(1) of this section must be logged between September 1, 2004 and August 31, 2005.
(l) Waivers. Unless the Administrator requires certain or all tasks to be performed, the examiner who conducts the practical test may waive any of the tasks for which the Administrator approves waiver authority.
 
Who cares....just go get a seaplane rating....ITS EASY.....and fun. And $900.00
 
It is an experimental, he just has some really big gear fairings.

What if you only had a ASES, could you then not fly it because it had wheels?

Dan
 
For a production amphib or an experimental with pax, the answer I got from the FAA is that you can fly it as long as you only takeoff/land from a surface covered by the class ratings on your pilot certificate. For solo flight in an Experimental, the exception of 61.31(k)(2)(iii)(B ) above applies.
 
lancefisher said:
I see no exception in the FARs for flying an amphibian if the pilot "does not land on the water" even though such an exception would seem to make sense. Got any supporting FAR or chief council opinion quotes?
Click to expand...

I'll quote Captain Ron (previous post). I do like being right.:D

Dan
 
Does this mean I can operate a Bonanza without a complex endorsement as long as I keep the gear down and don't touch the blue knob? Or without a high performance endorsement as long as I keep the throttle back?

I really don't see what being Experimental has to do with the question.
 
JohnR said:
Does this mean I can operate a Bonanza without a complex endorsement as long as I keep the gear down and don't touch the blue knob? Or without a high performance endorsement as long as I keep the throttle back?
Click to expand...
No. There are no exceptions to the additional training endorsement requirements in 61.31 to act as PIC of an aircraft which requires them.
I really don't see what being Experimental has to do with the question.
Click to expand...
Then you haven't read 61.31(k)(2)(iii)(B ), which specifically provides an exception to the requirement for "ratings" (but not "additional training endorsements," which by Chief Counsel interpretation are not the same as "ratings") when flying solo in Experimental aircraft.
 
Doc, Good post and nice analysis. Also Lance and John raise interesting questions as to wether they can fly a mulit on one engine if you don't have a multi or a Bonaza if you don't have a HP / complex if you keep the legs down and don't touch the blue knob.

These are very different issues than flying an amphib off concrete or Asphault. Flying the Amphib of solid surface presumably does not change the way you fly it. In the Bo you have to know where to set the RMPs on the prop compared to MP you also need to know max gear ext speed. In the Multi flying w/ one engine is harder than on two. In both of these planes keepig the plane "technically configured" for ASEL still requires the additional knowledge and training you would need for the respected rating or endorsement. flying an Amphb off hard surface you would not.
 
In an amphib, isn't the gear retractable, so wouldn't you also need a complex endorsement?
 
Ron Levy said:
No. There are no exceptions to the additional training endorsement requirements in 61.31 to act as PIC of an aircraft which requires them.
Then you haven't read 61.31(k)(2)(iii)(B ), which specifically provides an exception to the requirement for "ratings" (but not "additional training endorsements," which by Chief Counsel interpretation are not the same as "ratings") when flying solo in Experimental aircraft.
Click to expand...
My hunch is that was written so when you're developing a whole new airframe configuration that no one's ever flown before, you won't be faced with a chicken and egg scenario of training. I don't believe the intent was to let pilots wiggle out of training requirements otherwise imposed on Type Certificated aircraft, though that's just a guess.

That begets lots o' questions.

If it's ok to fly a seaplane solo without a rating because it's only you that will get killed, then why require seat belts for solo flight?

And if that exemption applies to multi engine Experimentals, do you really want a non-multi-engine rated pilot flying one?

If "additional training" is sufficient for Experimentals, why bother getting ratings at all?
 
JohnR said:
If "additional training" is sufficient for Experimentals, why bother getting ratings at all?
Click to expand...

Same reason you need the PPL before you can take a passenger without a CFI on board.

If you are willing to kill yourself with what you don't know the FAA will let you.
 
Keith Lane said:
But...
What if he landed it on a conveyor belt?

(Runs and hides):rofl:
Click to expand...
Keith,
Please be aware that demonstrated suicidal tendencies as evidenced above can and will be used to demonstrate the need for emergency revocation of your FAA medical. :yes:
 
Ron Levy said:
Got an FAA source to support that? The FSDO told me otherwise -- that for amphibs, you can operate on/off whatever surface your license is good for.
Click to expand...

Nothing that's clearly specific, and I looked in parts 23, 61, and 91. My opinion is based on a recollection that the category of an aircraft doesn't change with the operation involved, i.e. an aircraft is type certificated in a single category and class. I'll readily admit that I could be wrong, but that's the way I was taught. If all you have is a FSDO opinion to the contrary, it's possible that another FSDO would have a different answer.
 
Having fun are we? :p

Well, my question isn't rhetorical, I really was looking at EXP TW amphibs. Ron has the right take on it, as there is a unique exemption, if you will for EXP planes. I can even fly it off water as long as I'm solo, and not using it for hire.

I contacted a CFI with an ASES and AMES rating and he confirmed that I can fly the plane, even without the requisite class endorsement if the TC is an EXP. However, he of course wisely, recommended training and if I proceed I will get that rating to be safe.
 
lancefisher said:
Nothing that's clearly specific, and I looked in parts 23, 61, and 91. My opinion is based on a recollection that the category of an aircraft doesn't change with the operation involved, i.e. an aircraft is type certificated in a single category and class. I'll readily admit that I could be wrong, but that's the way I was taught. If all you have is a FSDO opinion to the contrary, it's possible that another FSDO would have a different answer.
Click to expand...

Lance,

I think you're right as that's exactly what I'd heard, but I started looking up TCDS's to see what I could find.

Most small airplanes have (if they're 4-place) "4 PCLM" in the first line. I found that helicopters will say PCLH, so I guess M somehow stands for "airplane."

However, the Lake Buccaneer instead of "L" (for Land) said PCAmM, or Amphibious. So, does the FAA recognize Amphibious as a valid category for aircraft? It would appear so.

Does anyone have any other insights into what PCLM really means? I assume each letter is for a particular attribute but I can't figure the rest out. The big Boeing birds don't have the code, they just say "Transport aircraft."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top