[Username Protected]

a) why wouldn't you have a pfd flying a seaplane, over water? b) why would you need a raft...you are flying one?

You absolutely should wear a pfd when flying over, or in and out of water. Your seaplane may not survive a landing in rough water, as in the middle of large lakes. Even with a parachute.

[Username Protected]

Your seaplane may not survive a landing in rough water, as in the middle of large lakes. Even with a parachute.

I acknowledge that there are always scenarios where this can go wrong, but between having a seaplane to land on water even engine out, and having a 'chute if the seas are too rough to feel comfortable doing that, the probabilities are certainly very low, and thankfully Rotax seems to be more reliable and sturdy than most engines. I am pretty sure it would be a very odd scenario to land so badly as to cause this plane to sink (some other model planes will, even quickly) - but that's not to say it's guaranteed to remain upright, or not to take on water. Note: IMO, at least one shooting flare is advisable to have as well for any extended over water flight - Great Lakes, to the Bahamas, any of it. West Marine and others sell packages with varying degrees of water emergency preparedness gear.

A forced landing off airport has many risks, too, risks that are different than over water of course, like power lines, trees, vehicles, buildings, etc., and some may argue that significant additional flight time going around the lake (like Green Bay to Chicago and back up to Harbor Springs) vs. a short trip across it only compounds the risk of something happening, by virtue of flight time alone. Mathematically if it takes four times as long to fly around, the chances of an engine failure during that flight are four times as great, and pilot fatigue can be significantly more relevant at some point as well.

Everyone of course has to make their own risk assessment and not all will employ the same logic, and there probably is no right vs. wrong answer, there are just different answers for different comfort levels and perceptions and logic trains. If going around the end adds 30 minutes, that's one kind of decision tree, if doing so adds several additional hours vs. going across, that's a different consideration, there isn't a black and white, one-size-fits-all scenario here for anyone, probably.

Higher cruising altitude is always advisable for anyone crossing any inhospitable area, be it water, desert, dense urban space, etc. Flying at 2,000 feet AGL is a very different profile than 12,000 feet AGL.

[Username Protected]

Like you mentioned, there’s no right or wrong answer. My opinion is that it’s all about odds, skill and making the right choice that’s comfortable for yourself. Oh ya… there’s always the luck factor as well.