I was looking to get my float rating with North Aire out of Prescott, AZ in their Maule. Well that won't happen any longer. Landed with gear down

http://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/wiki.php?id=163183
http://www.kvoa.com/news/minor-injuries ... ke-havasu/

Here was the plane http://www.northaire.com/seaplanes.html

Sounds like a highly professional outfit "Most students get their seaplane rating in one day".

And a gear down in water landing with a "CFI" on board? Good grief!

It won't be long before you won't be able to insure an amphibious seaplane in this country. Ask the Lake folks how that worked.

Another sad news report for general aviation "training".

MTV

Really news people its a seaplane not a C-plane.....

Its neither, its a float plane. Pan Am flew "seaplanes" …..

G44 wrote:Its neither, its a float plane. Pan Am flew "seaplanes" …..

True! Changed the title.

It's an SES rating not SEF...

Hey MTV, since there was a CFI on board they should be immune from a gear down water landing?... Some very high time experienced amphib pilots have landed with the gear not where it should have been.Not trying to defend this mishap but I always try to not roll my eyes and think I'm beyond something like this happening to me ..... Just sayin'

low rider wrote:Hey MTV, since there was a CFI on board they should be immune from a gear down water landing?... Some very high time experienced amphib pilots have landed with the gear not where it should have been.Not trying to defend this mishap but I always try to not roll my eyes and think I'm beyond something like this happening to me ..... Just sayin'

I don't believe for a moment that I'm immune from such a thing, and I've flown Amphibs a fair bit, working them. Anyone who believes they couldn't do this shouldn't be flying Amphibs.

My point was simply that these "quicky" ses ratings outfits aren't doing anyone any favors......

But, yes, I would expect a CFI who is actually qualified to instruct in an amphib to have his or her shit together a bit better than this.

Insurance rates just went up another notch for amphib folks.....if they can get it, that is, and the time is rapidly approaching where it simply won't be available.

Thankfully, nobody got hurt bad.

Maybe they can blame the color of the gear lights

MTV

My float time is all in supercub with floats. No amphib time. I do know that before I get the flaps down on a retract gear land aircraft, I get the gear down. I hear about more gear up landing than what should happen. Many factors and reasons. Glad that two are out and only aluminum is is drowned. I live 30 miles from the Columbia and keep talking myself out of an amphib due to cost of insurance and fuel.
Now light colors??? Blue water or green land???
ML

It is easy to be critical of an instructor or anyone else that does this, but in reality we all make mistakes and lose focus sometimes. I owned a plane with amphibs at one time and had intended to put the 185 on them, but after some soul searching, decided to go with straight floats instead. We are all not infallible, wheels down in an amphib will as likely end in a fatality as not. Glad those guys beat the odds.

Steve

Insurance has always been high for Amphibs. The 135's I drove in Alaska were always straight floats. Cheaper and safer. And you can land off the water with no wheels way better than with wheels in the water. In fact glacier landings in snow were fun.
I fly out of Prescott now and feel bad for the CFI. It will be a painfully clear lesson in his career track. But we have all grown past our mistakes in younger days and become better pilots in time. Hope it is the same for these two.
And MTV you are right.. A day on the water does not a seaplane driver make.

mtv wrote:My point was simply that these "quicky" ses ratings outfits aren't doing anyone any favors......
MTV

I would argue that quicky type certifications for floatplane as well as tail wheel certifications are keeping this portion of the industry alive. For every 20 folks that go out and get their signoff, maybe one person will go the extra distance and put their plane on a set of Floats, or buy a Taildragger. If they are smart they will get extra instruction at that time. I'm not arguing that a two day rating is the best form of instruction, but I think most of us can agree it's a good way to plant the dream. Human motivation is an interesting thing. There was/are companies down to let you fly a Ford trimotor and a DC-3. I wonder how many more people signed up with the offered goal of a "type certification" in the trimotor/DC-3 after a day of ground school and a little bit of flight time vs just getting to hold the wheel during a flight. I know it certainly sparked my interest. Point being, getting a certificate with a minimal requirement may not get you adequate real-world knowledge, but I'd argue that's not what many of these outfits are selling.

Matt 7GCBC wrote:

mtv wrote:My point was simply that these "quicky" ses ratings outfits aren't doing anyone any favors......
MTV

I would argue that quicky type certifications for floatplane as well as tail wheel certifications are keeping this portion of the industry alive. For every 20 folks that go out and get their signoff, maybe one person will go the extra distance and put their plane on a set of Floats, or buy a Taildragger. If they are smart they will get extra instruction at that time. I'm not arguing that a two day rating is the best form of instruction, but I think most of us can agree it's a good way to plant the dream. Human motivation is an interesting thing. There was/are companies down to let you fly a Ford trimotor and a DC-3. I wonder how many more people signed up with the offered goal of a "type certification" in the trimotor/DC-3 after a day of ground school and a little bit of flight time vs just getting to hold the wheel during a flight. I know it certainly sparked my interest. Point being, getting a certificate with a minimal requirement may not get you adequate real-world knowledge, but I'd argue that's not what many of these outfits are selling.

Matt,

No doubt you are correct....but if all you want is an experience, a rating is not required.

Secondly, these folks are advertising training and a rating in not just a floatplane, but an amphibious floatplane"........and not in two days, but in one day.

And, my point is that, once they have that SES on their piece of plastic, they're "qualified" to fly most anything they can afford to fly.

The comparison to a Doug type rating is a red herring, frankly. I know some folks who've done this, and none of them thought it was quick or easy.

Eventually, the insurance industry will shut this nonsense down, since it's obvious that the FAA won't. That's exactly what happened to the Lake community, until Armand Rivard "owner of Lake" worked out a deal with ONE insurance co. to provide insurance for pilots who completed a comprehensive and thorough Lake approved training program. And even then, insurance was expensive. This dramatically reduced the Lake accident rate.

I trained quite a number of SES candidates over the years, and nobody got it done in less than six hours flying and at least that much ground. The examiner took this seriously as well, and the check ride often took half a day, of which an hour was flying. I was happy to have a serious examiner. And, I never lacked for students, in fact I frequently had students return for more training.

MTV