The 206 is increasingly being replaced in Africa (and probably indonesia) by the GA8 but that is a harder type rating to find. The 206 will still be around for some time though.
Either way you are looking at 500 hours total time to be considered.

Because the landing techniques and skill for operating a float variant are different from a land variant in amphibious mode. So our regulator has deemed it appropriate to draw a line....... Not saying I really have a view on it either way but as an examiner I am expected to follow the guidance.

Hmmm, Bose...

A pilot could be qualified and suitably experienced to fly a C206 wheel plane, we all agree about that. That same pilot could then continue onward to qualify and be rated to fly the C206 as a float plane. In doing that, that pilot might never fly an amphibian version of the 206. However, As I understand it, they would be entitled to, by virtue of having the land and sea ratings associated with their qualification, to fly a 206 amphibian. Is there an additional "amphibian" rating to add to the land and sea ratings for those types (commonly single Cessnas) which may be configured as amphibious floatplanes?

I would be delighted to think that amphibian wheel plane flying privilege was considered worthy of the training in its own right, as the amphibian version of any wheel plane is very different to fly, and warrants additional training. In Canada, these fine distinctions are not made in licensing. (We don't even have a tailwheel endorsement!). It really becomes the insurers who dictate that a pilot might need additional training.

You are preaching to the choir. I am not defending it, just telling you how it is. Feel free to get it changed...... ;)

I don't think anyone would rent you an amphibian if you'd never flown one? - if you want to buy your own and wreck it that's another matter I suppose.

Hi Bose-X - not sure who is 'our regulator' in your statement.

The EASA position (posted earlier in short and here https://www.easa.europa.eu/system/fi...May%202017.pdf in 1918 glorious pages!) is very clear that an amphib is a legally a landplane for on land operations.

So, no water rating required.

UK CAA. The type of amphibious gear has a bearing on whats acceptable to them.

Blimey, so as far as the UK CAA are concerned, when operated purely on land, some amphibs are land planes and some need a rating? Is there a list?

Dunno, I would have to look but a bit busy flying the jet at the moment. I will look when I get home.

I asked the UK CAA the question, and got the below reply (email redacted). So it seems that differences training MAY be required - but no need for a seaplane rating.



Hi Sam,

Firstly, please accept our apologies for the delay in responding to your query.
Nigel Davis has retired and the email bounced around a bit and I thought it had been answered, but I can do so now via Dave Evans, our Inspecting Officer for Aerodromes and Facilities.
He has said that it's ok to fly an amphibian from land, and as long as you don’t operate from/to the water, it’s a landplane -with the caveat that differences training may be required depending on pilot experience/aircraft configuration (Similar to flying an aerobatic aeroplane without doing aerobatics)

I hope this answers your question, but if you require further assistance please contact us at [email protected]

Kind Regards,

Adam Leen

Feedback
The CAA seeks to continually improve its regulation and guidance and your feedback is helpful to us in doing that. If you have any comments on or suggestions for improvements to CAP 403, please send them to [email protected] with subject line ‘CAP 403 Comments’


Adam Leen | Civil Aviation Authority
Aviation House, Gatwick Airport South, West Sussex , RH6 0YR | United Kingdom
: 01293 573207 | :: [email protected] | Twitter: @UK_CAA