The International Cessna 170 Association

This really isn't a 170 question, but you guys seem to be really good when it comes to legal questions.

It is my understanding that two pilots can split the PIC time of a single flight so long as their combined logged time does not exceed the total duration of the flight.

What about in this situation?

Pilot #1 - Tail-wheel endorsed private SEL
Pilot #2 - Tail-wheel endorsed SEL/SES (plus just about everything else except no CFI - AA pilot)

The aircraft is a tail-wheel amphibian.

Pilot #1 wants to build tail-wheel time.

Flights usually involve departing from the local airport and flying over to play on the lake for an hour or two, then return to the airport.

What is the legal definition for determining what portions of the flight each pilot can claim as PIC?

A pilot can log all that time at which he is the soul manipulator of the control of an aircraft he is rated to fly.

Here is the trick question that I'm not sure of but will give my opinion. See below for what that might be worth.

First each pilot has a tail wheel endorsement but only one has a seaplane rating.

The question becomes is the amphibian classified as a seaplane or a land plane? If that is determined by its use then all that time it's operated off land and in the air can be logged by either pilot but not at the same time. All that time in the water logged by only the rated seaplane pilot.

If an amphibian is rated as a seaplane only then only the SES rated pilot can log any time.

I will add the fact that the airplane is Experimental.

I know that you are not required to have all the ratings in an experimental if you are flying solo, but it is required for taking passengers. So that rule does not apply to this case.

BenWlson wrote:I will add the fact that the airplane is Experimental.

I know that you are not required to have all the ratings in an experimental if you are flying solo, but it is required for taking passengers. So that rule does not apply to this case.

If you are not rated in the category/class in which the experimental aircraft falls, then you may not act as PIC when another pilot is aboard unless the other pilot is a CFI and you are receiving instruction. In that case you both may log the time as PIC.

gahorn wrote:If you are not rated in the category/class in which the experimental aircraft falls, then you may not act as PIC when another pilot is aboard unless the other pilot is a CFI and you are receiving instruction. In that case you both may log the time as PIC.

So... does an amphibian being operated on land require a seaplane rating?

Miles

It's my belief that an amphib operated solely on land does not require a seaplane rating. Operated solely on water, it does not require a landplane rating. Operated on the same flight from takeoff to landing on both water and land requires both ratings.
In the situation being discussed here, unless a CFI with dual ratings is aboard, the pilot rated only in landplanes may not log PIC time while the aircraft is being operated as a seaplane. The percentage of each flight that is relegated to each class might fall in some "muddy water" area of interpretations, therefore most of the flight must be operated as a seaplane.

So I believe George agrees with me or at least I intended to say what I think George said.

The fact the plane is operated in the experimental category has nothing to do with it.

gahorn wrote:The percentage of each flight that is relegated to each class might fall in some "muddy water" area of interpretations, therefore most of the flight must be operated as a seaplane.

That "muddy water" is what I was hoping to clear up. I just got my tail-wheel endorsement last weekend in a '64 Champion 7ECA Citabria. I'm going to need many many many more tailwheel hours before the insurance company will even let me polish Dad's Swift, and I'm still a few years away from adopting my own 170. A good friend has a Progressive Aerodyne SeaRey. I know all the water landings he's taught me aren't worth anything (good experience none-the-less), but now that I've got the tail-wheel endorsement, I'm really hoping I can log at least some of the time I fly with him.

Unless the amphibian is equipped with a tailwheel it cannot be logged as tailwheel time. Unless it is equipped with a conventional gear it cannot be logged as conventional time. There may be some, but the only amphibious floats I've noted were equipped with nosewheels.
The only amphibs I'm familiar with that also are equipped with tailwheel/conventional gears are Grumman amphibs such as Wigeon/Goose and those like them. For example, a Grumman Mallard is not a conventional geared amphib, it's a tri-cycle geared airplane.

The amphibian in question is a searey (http://www.searey.com).

There's a photo of one here: http://www.searey.com/srbah.htm

It has a tailwheel when it's on land.

George , did say float(s) the searey / SeaBee are they not Flying Boats?

I got an answer I like from someone with 30 years experience as a CFI and 15 years experience working for the NTSB. Just thought I'd share it with you guys since I came here looking for an answer.

-Solo flights in an experimental aircraft do not require additional ratings beyond sport pilot.

-All the appropriate ratings are required in experimental aircraft to carry passengers.

-Assuming an experimental with passengers or a certified aircraft. A tail-wheel endorsement is required in a tail-wheel amphibian for operations from land. An SEL-only pilot may fly it from land only. An SEL-only pilot may land in water solo with an endorsement from a CFI.

-When splitting PIC time in an amphibian that departed from land, the SES rating is only required when the SES pilot decides that he/she is going to begin the procedures required for water landing (landing checklist). The SEL pilot may resume as PIC after the departure from water procedures have been completed.

I'm not going to claim that this is 100% accurate, but I do like the answer.

BenWlson wrote:... An SEL-only pilot may land in water solo with an endorsement from a CFI.

I'm curious to know the recommended text of that endorsement, and what FAR authorizes it.

BenWlson wrote:I got an answer I like from someone .....
-Solo flights in an experimental aircraft do not require additional ratings beyond sport pilot.

Ben, the quoted statement above is wrong. The fact the aircraft is experimental has NO bearing on what ratings are required to fly it.

The Sport Pilot rating has nothing to do with experimental aircraft other than a Sport Pilot rated pilot can fly an experimental aircraft that meats the criteria of Light Sport aircraft

I can find nothing wrong with the other statements made. In fact they are all in line with what had been previously said.

N9149A wrote:

BenWlson wrote:I got an answer I like from someone .....
-Solo flights in an experimental aircraft do not require additional ratings beyond sport pilot.

Ben, the quoted statement above is wrong. The fact the aircraft is experimental has NO bearing on what ratings are required to fly it.

The Sport Pilot rating has nothing to do with experimental aircraft other than a Sport Pilot rated pilot can fly an experimental aircraft that meats the criteria of Light Sport aircraft

I can find nothing wrong with the other statements made. In fact they are all in line with what had been previously said.

My bad... I meant to say "Recreational Pilot Certificate". That is all that is needed to fly any Experimental aircraft solo. You must be category and class rated to take passengers.