Originally Posted by
Pilot DAR
Another perspective which deserves consideration is that of intended function. For certified aircraft, the basis of certification includes many specific requirements and maneuvering capabilities. If alternative landing gear is available for the type, it will have been similarly approved - with intended function demonstrated (as not requiring unusual pilot skill and attention), and defined.
Generally, the procedures and techniques to achieve these results will be described in the manual for the aircraft. These will be associated with listed "approved maneuvers". Interestingly, one light, single engined turbine aircraft I flew, whose flight manual described 30 degree flap STOL takeoffs, 60 flap STOL landings, and other not so common advanced maneuvering, also included (boldly on the front page): "Maneuvers not described in this flight manual are prohibited" - just to leave zero doubt as to intended function for that type.
And, it goes into more detail than the whole plane, parts will also have demonstrated their compliance with specific requirements - like tires. Would any tire manufacture include water skiing in their statement of intended function for their tires?
Then, there's the intended function of insurance - to cover loss resulting from an accident. Insurance is very rarely intended to cover a loss resulting from a deliberate action. If you were operating the aircraft within its intended function, and with your due diligence, something went wrong, it was likely an accident. If deliberately operated outside the intended function for the aircraft, it could be difficult to characterize and unintended event as an accident.
Certainly something to keep in mind when deciding if an aircraft is suitable to the intended operations.
From what I've seen re water to land ops the dominant certified aircraft are the Super Cubs and Maules. Most others look to be cub clone and experimental types. Best I remember the Cub and Maule flight manuals are sensibly slim documents that don't specifically prohibit landing type manoeuvres that might be considered outside of what is described in the flight manual.
As to tyres. The Alaskan Bush wheel seems to be the predominant brand.
https://www.airframesalaska.com/default.asp About all ABW mentions re runway surface is "Runways everywhere" The ABW tyre STC leaves it to the pilot to decide on runway surface suitability.
As to insurance, there is basically three components: Pax; Hull; Public Liability.
If there are no Pax carried and your not worried about the hull, i.e. No loan, then there is only the Public Liability to worry about. As many of the water ski bush ops are to places well away from people, I guess that's a minor risk if there is no insurance available. I've not done water ski ops though I occasionally do helicopter mustering and there is insurance available for that. So I'd guess there's likely water op liability insurance available.
.