45 mph speed limit.

[BroadHopper]

Lessee now. I can't go bare foot skiing. I need to go at least 45 mph for that. 50 is better.
I can't land and takeoff in a sea plane or lake amphib. We need to go faster than 45 mph to step in or out. Guess I will have to move to Moosehead Lake. It is very quiet up there right now from all the bickering of folks who don't want to 'Live free or die'.

I did mention to Rep. Pilliod about the sea planes. And I have the voice mail to prove it. "Sea planes belong in the sea, not on the lakes." Now he wants the FAA to move over!

[chase1]

I did mention to Rep. Pilliod about the sea planes. And I have the voice mail to prove it. "Sea planes belong in the sea, not on the lakes." Now he wants the FAA to move over!

I think I get it now. pilliod is just smarter than everyone. A Boston Whaler belongs in Boston, and a Key West can only be used in Key West. It is clear now that Sea Rays belong in the sea..... I am glad we have people like mr pilliod keeping things in order.

What about the Baja named Winnipesaukee Weeee? Or the Chris Craft owned by Fred?

Chase1

[Bear Islander]

HB162 has no effect whatsoever on aircraft, the FAA has sole authority. A seaplane can land or takeoff anywhere on Winni.

[BroadHopper]

BI.
Take a look in the AIM manual. A plane is technically a boat once it lands on water. It falls under CG rules. It has to have all the safety equipment as a boat should hve. It also has to obey the boating laws. Same as an amphibous car. Both have to be registered with the CG and have a valid state sticker. Talk to anyone that has an amphbous vehicle such as a Lake Renegade or an AmphiCar.

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by BroadHopper

BI.
Take a look in the AIM manual. A plane is technically a boat once it lands on water. It falls under CG rules. It has to have all the safety equipment as a boat should hve. It also has to obey the boating laws. Same as an amphibous car. Both have to be registered with the CG and have a valid state sticker. Talk to anyone that has an amphbous vehicle such as a Lake Renegade or an AmphiCar.

BroadHopper - Are you a pilot?

I think you have it wrong, its a common misconception. I know someone that regularly anchors a seaplane overnight on Winni without a mooring. And the MP can't do a thing about it.

Saf-Saf-C 401.31 "Vessel" means every description of watercraft used or capable of being used as a means of transportation on water, except a seaplane on the water.

[BroadHopper]

Used to be. There is a big differnece between and amphibious plane and a plane converted to a sea plane or float boat as far as the law is concerned. A pilot license with an amphibious rating is needed to fly an amphibious aircraft. A seaplane or float boat is just an airplane with pontoons. An amphbious airplane do not land on pontoons but rather on the fuselage.

As for mooring. The sea plane owner is actually breaking the law. All moorings regardless of what it is use for must be registered. The MP has not been enforcing this very well as I know a lot of moorings on the lake that are not registered. Thanks to Captain Bonehead.

[Bear Islander]

Sorry but you are wrong again.

NEW HAMPSHIRE AERONAUTICS ACT
Section 422:3 Definitions
XXVI. "Seaplane'' means any aircraft on floats or an amphibian aircraft with a hull and sponson, which is capable of landing or taking off from land or water.

Also a Seaplane Rating covers floats and amphibians. And a pilots certificate never expires. I have had mine for 26 years without renewal.

[Skip]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

HB162 has no effect whatsoever on aircraft, the FAA has sole authority. A seaplane can land or takeoff anywhere on Winni.

Bear Islander is right and wrong on this particular subject.

When the seaplane is "on the water" it is subject to local & state regulations, there is no FAA regulation exempting it from applicable boating laws of the jurisdiction it is operating in.

However, virtually every State has a clause in their applicable state controlled boating laws exempting aircraft from certain boating regulations during take-off and landing.

Here is the specific RSA governing seaplane operation during take-off/landings in New Hampshire.

Section 270:13-a

270:13-a Operation of Seaplanes or Helicopters on Public Waters. –
I. Any seaplane or any helicopter on floats which lands on public waters shall be exempt from all laws and rules concerning the operation of boats for the purpose of landing and taking off from such public waters.
II. Any seaplane or any helicopter on floats shall exercise due caution and respect for the rights and safety of any person or boat using the public waters.
Source. 1990, 175:1. 1992, 187:3, eff. July 11, 1992.

[Bear Islander]

Skip

The FAA does not agree with you. State and local governments can write laws, ordinances and regulations but they are preempted by FAA regulations.

Below is a little of what the FAA has to say on the subject. Seaplanes must adhere to USCG Navigations Rules, but only because the FAA says so. Notice that seaplanes are exempt from USCG Safety Equipment regulations.

Also note the FAA considers a seaplane on the water a vessel, but only for the purposes of collision avoidance.

________________________

b. Seaplane pilots must have a thorough understanding of the right-of-way rules as they apply to aircraft versus other vessels. Seaplane pilots are expected to know and adhere to both the U.S. Coast Guard's (USCG) Navigation Rules, International-Inland, and 14 CFR Section 91.115, Right-of-Way Rules; Water Operations. The navigation rules of the road are a set of collision avoidance rules as they apply to aircraft on the water. A seaplane is considered a vessel when on the water for the purposes of these collision avoidance rules. In general, a seaplane on the water shall keep well clear of all vessels and avoid impeding their navigation. The CFR requires, in part, that aircraft operating on the water ". . . shall, insofar as possible, keep clear of all vessels and avoid impeding their navigation, and shall give way to any vessel or other aircraft that is given the right-of-way . . . ." This means that a seaplane should avoid boats and commercial shipping when on the water. If on a collision course, the seaplane should slow, stop, or maneuver to the right, away from the bow of the oncoming vessel. Also, while on the surface with an engine running, an aircraft must give way to all nonpowered vessels. Since a seaplane in the water may not be as maneuverable as one in the air, the aircraft on the water has right-of-way over one in the air, and one taking off has right-of-way over one landing. A seaplane is exempt from the USCG safety equipment requirements, including the requirements for Personal Flotation Devices (PFD). Requiring seaplanes on the water to comply with USCG equipment requirements in addition to the FAA equipment requirements would be an unnecessary burden on seaplane owners and operators.

[Skip]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

Skip...The FAA does not agree with you. State and local governments can write laws, ordinances and regulations but they are preempted by FAA regulations...

I repectfully disagree, you need to go and read 14 CFR 91.115 more carefully, not the synopsis by a third party that you have provided.

What the FCC does in 91.115 is give general guidlines for waterborne operation of aircraft, guidelines that mimic inland waterway rules on right of way....it does not exempt or even address speed limitations. I would assume that the purpose of 91.115 is to at least give a mandatory minimum safety requiremant for those few States that did not address the aircraft on water issues many years ago (when this was enacted). Since then, most State legisltures have appropriately addressed the issue.

Remember civics class? We all know that federal regulations supercede state and local regulations (in most cases) however the State and local governments do have authority in areas not specifically vested to the Federal government (thank heavens!).

Additional safety regulations applied by the State or local government would only be nullified if they took away from the privleges granted by the Federal government, in this case the FAA. In this case if a specific exception were not made for speed, local ordinances would be enforceable by local authorities.

Or perhaps all the other State governments besides our own are also in error and your sole interpretation is the correct application of the law.

I think the language and intent of 91.115 and the cited RSA are quite clear. They compliment each other and are definitely not in conflict.....

Merry Christmas,

Skip

[Bear Islander]

Skip

That's not a third part synopsis, its a quote from the FAA AIM. I should have specified.
http://www.faa.gov/atpubs/AIM/Chap7/aim0705.html

And if you read CFR 91.117 you will find that the FAA does set speed limits.

I also think you're wrong in assuming the FAA has regulations to fill in the gaps of state legislation. Read CFR 91.1 on applicability.

As a pilot I can tell you that the FAA is very jealous of its authority. And they think that just about anything having to do with aircraft operations is their purview. If you try and regulate aircraft you lose federal funding.

http://www.environment-hawaii.org/593restricting.htm

[Skip]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

Skip

...And if you read CFR 91.117 you will find that the FAA does set speed limits....http://www.environment-hawaii.org/593restricting.htm

You're pulling my leg, right?

The site you point me to is in reference to a debate over helicopter violations in the State of Hawaii!

91.117 regulates airborne aircraft speed, not taxiing on waterways!

Of course the FAA has most jurisdiction over airborne craft, otherwise the NH State legislature would have to post an RSA exempting aircraft from speed regulations as they flew above state roadways!

I give up, the regulations are clear, and the actions of dozens of other state legislatures on this matter show a much different understanding of what you claim.

But if you are correct, then the proposed speed limit on the waterways in New Hampshire is null and void. Because we all know that the Department of Transportation via the Coast Guard has set minimal safety standards for all bodies of waters, and except for safe passage requirements there is no provision for speed limits. So the State of New Hampshire can't possibly add additional regulations on speed, they would be in conflict with Federal regulations!

Yeah, right....

By the way, maybe you would like to call Ron Wanner over at the New Hampshire Division of Aeronautics and tell him that his particular agency exists in violation of FAA regulation (according to you) and that Title XXXIX (RSA Chapters 422 through 424) should be retracted immediately as the FAA has total authority over flight regulations. His number is (603) 271-2551, I'm sure he would be interested to learn what you have to tell him.

In closing, yet another RSA from the Aeronautic's chapter pertaining to seaplanes:

TITLE XXXIX
AERONAUTICS
CHAPTER 422
NEW HAMPSHIRE AERONAUTICS ACT
Prohibitions and Penalties
Section 422:27
422:27 Seaplanes in Operation on Public Waters. –
I. All seaplanes shall be considered boats while in operation on the waters of the state and shall be subject to the marine rules of navigation, except that they shall be exempt from all laws and rules concerning the operation of boats for the purpose of landing and taking off from such public waters.
II. The operation of seaplanes shall be subject to any restrictions placed upon the use of public waters by rules adopted by the department of safety or the department of environmental services.
Source. 2002, 6:1, eff. July 1, 2002.

sidebar: which means, as Broadhopper had indicated, they are indeed subject to mooring regulations, but that's a whole other debate....

Over & out on this particular thread.....

Merry Christmas,

Skip

[Islander]

There is a guy on Bear that keeps a helicopter on a raft and anchors a float plane right across from Shep's. I understand the marine patrol has been called several times, but they claim they can't do anything, and recommend you call the FAA.

[SIKSUKR]

Skip,I would have a hard time disagreeing with anything you post here about regulations.I do find it interesting that a proponant of the speed limit now seems a little concerned about how it might effect his pastime.

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by SIKSUKR

Skip,I would have a hard time disagreeing with anything you post here about regulations.I do find it interesting that a proponant of the speed limit now seems a little concerned about how it might effect his pastime.

Not my pastime, I don't even have a seaplane rating. And our argument was mostly academic. I think Skip would agree that HB162 does not keep seaplanes off Winni.

[Skip]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

Not my pastime, I don't even have a seaplane rating. And our argument was mostly academic. I think Skip would agree that HB162 does not keep seaplanes off Winni.

Yes, HB162 clearly does not apply to seaplanes. We just disagree on the "why", and we'll leave it at that as the outcome is the same .....

Merry Christmas,

Skip