Where to report seaplanes breaking the law?

[Shedwannabe]

I have learned that Pickerel Pond is closed to seaplanes landing. Whom do I call when someone lands their plane on the lake as happened last evening?

[Bear Islander]

The New Hampshire Department of Safety has placed a seaplane restriction on Pickerel Pond. Therefore I think the Marine Patrol is the correct call.

Did you get the tail number?

[Shedwannabe]

Thanks for the info who to contact.

No, I didn't get the tail number, so it sounds like it might be useless to report this time.... It was a white seaplane... but I imagine there are a lot of white ones out there.

I now have my binoculars and camera near the door. Right after landing it took off and circled around and flew over the house, so next time I ought to be able to get number and document it. I'm often kayaking or sailing on the lake, so I guess I better take my camera with me.

[C_Duff]

Originally Posted by Shedwannabe

I have learned that Pickerel Pond is closed to seaplanes landing. Whom do I call when someone lands their plane on the lake as happened last evening?

The FAA's Flight Standards Div. Office handles disciplinary actions for pilots.

The closest one is:
FAA Portland FSDO
Portland International Jetport
2 Al McKay Avenue
Portland, ME O4102
Phone: (207) 780-3263

[Phantom]

Shedwannabe --
I presume you have a "digital" camera by that door waiting .....

I would suggest that you set the camera (now) for the highest image quality possible -- that way you will be better able to "zoom in" on the computer later.

[NoBozo]

I'm just wondering if this "Sighting" is a REAL Seaplane...and not maybe a "Hang Glider Like" one seater Ultralight with floats and a small pusher engine. My guess is 99% of casual observers that notice something fly over their house have no idea what IT IS. A small Ultralight would not have a Tail Number.

BTW: These Ultralights have a Much shorter landing and takeoff distance than a REAL Seaplane....therefore making it much less of a hazzard to those on the water who might think they may be endangered.

What is a REAL Seaplane? One that LOOKS like an AIRPLANE....Ridgid structure, etc..as to opposed to something that looks ..well.....who knows what it is.

[dpg]

Originally Posted by Shedwannabe

I have learned that Pickerel Pond is closed to seaplanes landing. Whom do I call when someone lands their plane on the lake as happened last evening?

Oh come on. Do you have real heart ache by this or are you just "one of them" You know someone who needs to report everything.

[colt17]

i saw an ultralight heading towards the weirs before dusk 8ish i wonder if this is the same plane??

[Shedwannabe]

Originally Posted by NoBozo

I'm just wondering if this "Sighting" is a REAL Seaplane...and not maybe a "Hang Glider Like" one seater Ultralight with floats and a small pusher engine.

No, this was definitely a seaplane. It landed from the south. It was white with a fixed wing over the fuselage, and two floats out under the wings. It took off, turned and headed south again. It was only on the water for around 30 seconds.

[BroadHopper]

at Laconia Airport. Pickeral Pond is not designated as off limit. When did this happen? pretty recently?

[Bear Islander]

If it has floats under the wing it sounds like a Lake Amphibian. They were originally made in Laconia and named for Winnipesaukee.

[Sman]

I have learned that Pickerel Pond is closed to seaplanes landing. Whom do I call when someone lands their plane on the lake as happened last evening?

How did you learn that Pickerel Pond is closed to seaplanes? Maybe go to that source...Is that source correct?

[Shedwannabe]

I had heard that if was closed somewhere (probably in gossip with a neighbor??) , but in response to your question, I did some internet research and on the NH Dept Saftey, Bureau of Marine Patrol website, http://www.nh.gov/safety/divisions/s...estricted.html
found the following:

"Pickerel Pond - Laconia
Boat/Motor Restriction - Seaplanes prohibited."

So if Laconia airport is not up to date, it seems to be behind the times.

I do not know when the change was made. I do not know if it is weeks or years since this decision was made. I had heard from someone it was illegal, and currently living there, was surprised to find a plane breaking the law.

The Bureau of Marine Patrol has a list of all bodies of water with a restriction of some sort, not all are seaplane restricted.

[Shedwannabe]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

If it has floats under the wing it sounds like a Lake Amphibian. They were originally made in Laconia and named for Winnipesaukee.

No, the plane I saw had large bulbous floats under the wing and a conventionally laced propeller.

[Woodsy]

The pond in front of the Laconia Airport is Lily Pond and its located in Gilford...


Woodsy

[NoBozo]

I've been looking for "Pickerel POND" on my Bizer chart AND my AAA Road map. All I can find is "Pickerel COVE" just off Paugus Bay on the Bizer chart. Is this the place..? To find some Avaition "Notes"..Google "Lakes Region, NH NOTAMS. You might find something there. NOTAMS are notices to avaitors that pilots take note of before they fly. Local airports (Laconia) would have such notices posted in the lobby.

[Lake Lady 6]

Would this be the same office to contact re helicopters landing on the lake or landing on the neighbor's lawn as a guest. The turmoil they cause when they hover low over the waterfront is annoying. Are there town ordinances as to keeping one in your front yard?
Haven't seen this problem addressed previously and feel there must be a few helicopters being used by lakefront property owners on Lake Winnipesaukee.

[Bear Islander]

Then it could be a Cesna. However the floats are not really attached to the wing on a Cesna.

[BroadHopper]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

If it has floats under the wing it sounds like a Lake Amphibian. They were originally made in Laconia and named for Winnipesaukee.

www.lakeamphib.com

Lake is family owned by the Rivard family. They are made in Sanford Me. Headquarters and repair facility was at laconia airport. It is now in Kissimmee FL.

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by BroadHopper

www.lakeamphib.com

Lake is family owned by the Rivard family. They are made in Sanford Me. Headquarters and repair facility was at laconia airport. It is now in Kissimmee FL.

They are my definition of the perfect plane. If I ever buy another plane it will be a Lake.

[BrownEyedGirl]

Originally Posted by Woodsy

The pond in front of the Laconia Airport is Lily Pond and its located in Gilford...


Woodsy

It seems to me many people refer to this as "Pickerel Pond" as well. Is it possible that is a nick name for the actual "Lily Pond"?

[Seaplane Pilot]

Originally Posted by Lake Lady 6

Would this be the same office to contact re helicopters landing on the lake or landing on the neighbor's lawn as a guest. The turmoil they cause when they hover low over the waterfront is annoying. Are there town ordinances as to keeping one in your front yard?
Haven't seen this problem addressed previously and feel there must be a few helicopters being used by lakefront property owners on Lake Winnipesaukee.

Nah, just call Concord and ask for the legislators... You know, the ones that have created a Nanny State and have their heads in the sand. Yes, the same ones that voted to impose a speed limit, and yes the same ones that have now voted down expanded gambling. They'll just impose another needless law against helicopters - if you call before midnight tonight. But wait, there's more: Call in the next 30 minutes and you'll get a year's supply of Shamwows and a silver plated Slap-Chop nut chopper. If you're really lucky, maybe Billy Mays can make a personal visit and video the Helicopter Police putting the pilot in cuffs.

[VtSteve]

Originally Posted by BroadHopper

www.lakeamphib.com

Lake is family owned by the Rivard family. They are made in Sanford Me. Headquarters and repair facility was at laconia airport. It is now in Kissimmee FL.

I didn't know their history before, and was a bit surprised over a troubled, and limited production past. A friend of mine here has one that is almost 25 years old, and regularly flew to Laconia to have it serviced.

The Lake Amphibian has nothing whatsoever to do with Winnipesaukee, and it looks like the last sale eliminated the Sanford, Maine facility as well.

[Just Sold]

BI where did you get the picture of DRH's plane??? See thats his initials on the fuselage! I didn't know that he had his pilots license.

Attached Images

[BroadHopper]

Originally Posted by VtSteve

I didn't know their history before, and was a bit surprised over a troubled, and limited production past. A friend of mine here has one that is almost 25 years old, and regularly flew to Laconia to have it serviced.

The Lake Amphibian has nothing whatsoever to do with Winnipesaukee, and it looks like the last sale eliminated the Sanford, Maine facility as well.

A little more history at www.teamlake.com

I know the family and enjoy flying them tremendously.

[Shedwannabe]

Originally Posted by Woodsy

The pond in front of the Laconia Airport is Lily Pond and its located in Gilford...


Woodsy

I don't know how Lily Pond got into the conversation.... I live on Pickerel Pond, north of Laconia between Parade Road (Rte 106) and Meredith Center Road. That's where the seaplane landed, and that's where it is prohibited according the the regulations I found and posted the link to. Its a pretty small lake (70 acres?), and in my opinion not a good place for both boats and seaplanes.

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

Then it could be a Cesna. However the floats are not really attached to the wing on a Cesna.

Bear Islander - I looked a lot more like that. It might have been that. I had a dinner guest and didn't give it my full attention until it took off and flew overhead, so my best recollection is looking up at the floats below its wings. It may have been the one you posted, or it could have been a different one. Next time (if it happens again) I will pay attention, and if possible photograph it to back up my my complaint.

[NoBozo]

Originally Posted by Shedwannabe

I don't know how Lily Pond got into the conversation.... I live on Pickerel Pond, north of Laconia between Parade Road (Rte 106) and Meredith Center Road. That's where the seaplane landed, and that's where it is prohibited according the the regulations I found and posted the link to. Its a pretty small lake (70 acres?), and in my opinion not a good place for both boats and seaplanes.



Bear Islander - I looked a lot more like that. It might have been that. I had a dinner guest and didn't give it my full attention until it took off and flew overhead, so my best recollection is looking up at the floats below its wings. It may have been the one you posted, or it could have been a different one. Next time (if it happens again) I will pay attention, and if possible photograph it to back up my my complaint.

Apparently Pickerel Pond WAS an authorized Seaplane landing place called "Bosseys", listed as a Private landing place for seaplanes. It was depicted on my November 27, 2003 issue of the New York Sectional which is a Avaition Map used by pilots flying VFR in the area. This would indicate that someone on the pond once had a seaplane.

https://www.seaplanes.org/UserFiles/...ckerelPond.pdf

[NoBozo]

The petition to ban Seaplanes from Pickerel Pond was DENIED at the time. Read all the way down to the last page of the PDF. I guess it's possable that someone brought it up again at a later date.

[Shedwannabe]

Originally Posted by NoBozo

Apparently Pickerel Pond WAS an authorized Seaplane landing place called "Bosseys", listed as a Private landing place for seaplanes. It was depicted on my November 27, 2003 issue of the New York Sectional which is a Avaition Map used by pilots flying VFR in the area. This would indicate that someone on the pond once had a seaplane.

https://www.seaplanes.org/UserFiles/...ckerelPond.pdf

Thanks.

I've only been living on the Pond a little over a year and didn't know any of the old history of this. Someone told me soon after moving in that seaplanes weren't allowed, but not that they had been allowed before. It was only after starting this thread that I found the Bureau of Marine Patrol link stating that seaplanes were prohibited. I have no idea when between 2003, when seaplanes were allowed to land here, and now, when they aren't, that the decision to ban them was made.

However, I do frequently boat on the lake, and if I knew that seaplanes might land here, I would probably have a different approach to where I go on the lake (sailboat, kayak, etc.) Right now, knowing that seaplanes aren't allowed, I go everywhere on the lake, but am much more ... concerned ... now when going in the area where the seaplane landed.

[SIKSUKR]

Originally Posted by NoBozo

The petition to ban Seaplanes from Pickerel Pond was DENIED at the time. Read all the way down to the last page of the PDF. I guess it's possable that someone brought it up again at a later date.

Originally Posted by Shedwannabe

Thanks.
Right now, knowing that seaplanes aren't allowed, I go everywhere on the lake, but am much more ... concerned ... now when going in the area where the seaplane landed.

So I'm confused,are seaplanes allowed or not?

[4Fun]

Originally Posted by Shedwannabe

Thanks.

I've only been living on the Pond a little over a year and didn't know any of the old history of this. Someone told me soon after moving in that seaplanes weren't allowed, but not that they had been allowed before. It was only after starting this thread that I found the Bureau of Marine Patrol link stating that seaplanes were prohibited. I have no idea when between 2003, when seaplanes were allowed to land here, and now, when they aren't, that the decision to ban them was made.

However, I do frequently boat on the lake, and if I knew that seaplanes might land here, I would probably have a different approach to where I go on the lake (sailboat, kayak, etc.) Right now, knowing that seaplanes aren't allowed, I go everywhere on the lake, but am much more ... concerned ... now when going in the area where the seaplane landed.

Just a guess but I bet most pilots would perhaps circle around for a second approach if a Kayak or boat was in the way?? When was the last time a seaplace ran over a boat? Sounds like a new law is needed....I would also guess you have a better chance of being hit by lightning than a seaplane....

[BroadHopper]

Originally Posted by 4Fun

Just a guess but I bet most pilots would perhaps circle around for a second approach if a Kayak or boat was in the way?? When was the last time a seaplace ran over a boat? Sounds like a new law is needed....I would also guess you have a better chance of being hit by lightning than a seaplane....

That is correct. Water landing confirms to VFR rule (Visual Flight). A pilot has to circle and check visually that the 'runway' is clear, then travels in a circular pattern in case another plane wants to land or take off at the same time. VFR requires no radio communications.

[NoBozo]

Everything I can find, indicates "Bossey's Seaplane Base" on Pickerel Pond, NH Was OPERATIONAL and Legal at least as recently as 9/25/08. You can Google it for more info. Look at the various airport directorys.

[Rose]

Originally Posted by NoBozo

Everything I can find, indicates "Bossey's Seaplane Base" on Pickerel Pond, NH Was OPERATIONAL and Legal at least as recently as 9/25/08. You can Google it for more info. Look at the various airport directorys.

http://www.nh.gov/safety/divisions/s...tricted.html#P

[Shedwannabe]

Yes, as Rose points out, the list, last updated May 15, 2009, says seaplanes are prohibited on Pickerel Pond. I have not found online the information as to when it happened, but I suspect the Bureau of Marine Patrol site is the last word on the matter.

Incidentally, looking at the BMP list, Pickerel Pond is the ONLY lake in the state to have "Seaplane prohibited" next to it. There are 10-12 lakes and ponds that have seaplane restrictions, but only this one is prohibited. I'd like to know the reason for that (i.e. the politicing and dealing and influence that let the state's 2003 objection be overturned). While I PERSONALLY don't want seaplanes on the lake, if hist is a result of some back-room power play I would think it a shame.

Incidentally, the lake is NOT listed as one of the lakes where skicraft are prohibited, whereas it is in fact prohibited to jet ski there. I think this is possibly because the only lakes where skicraft restrictions are mentioned are lakes larger than the 75 acre statutory limit and Pickerel Pond is under the limit (at 74.6 acres).

[NoBozo]

I believe the FAA has the last word here. If you will check back to page 11 of the link to the petition I provided, you will find the line: "The Department of Safety does not have authority to ban any airplane or helicopter from landing or taking off."

BTW: This is a Private landing site and as such is NOT open to just anyone for landing at their discretion. Permission from the "Manager" of Bossey's Seaplane Base is required Prior to landing.

Again: Google it.

[NoBozo]

Originally Posted by Shedwannabe

I'd like to know the reason for that (i.e. the politicing and dealing and influence that let the state's 2003 objection be overturned). ).

The STATE did Not Object. The Petition was Not brought by the State. The State Denied the petition based on the material presented.

[Rose]

Originally Posted by NoBozo

I believe the FAA has the last word here. If you will check back to page 11 of the link to the petition I provided, you will find the line: "The Department of Safety does not have authority to ban any airplane or helicopter from landing or taking off."

BTW: This is a Private landing site and as such is NOT open to just anyone for landing at their discretion. Permission from the "Manager" of Bossey's Seaplane Base is required Prior to landing.

Again: Google it.

This is very interesting. With regards to another government agency, the EPA in particular, states are allowed stricter regulations, but not more lenient ones. A good example is Ca-li-for-ni-a (Arnold's pronunciation) and it's stricter emissions regulations. If the FAA indeed does trump the state in this case, it's counter to what I'm familiar with. Makes it difficult to know what the truth is. Bureaucracy...gotta love it. NOT.

[topwater]

This is what happened to me and a buddy the other day on Pickerel Pond!

[Shedwannabe]

I have written to both the Bureau of Marine Patrol and the FAA to get their perspectives on this.

Incidentially, when I look up the person whom is listed in the Bossey's Seaplane Info as the owner of the seaplane base, Jeffrey M Davis, the phone number and address he gives on the Bossey Seaplane info site is wrong. The phone number is listed to one of his family members, but his personal phone number is different. The page says 93 Parade Road, Meredith, but a search shows 98 Parade Road is the correct address. Isn't it against the law to give the FAA the wrong info???

I have been unable to find any info on an FAA website confirming the info on the Bossey Seaplane webpage. All the sites that list it as operational that I am able to locate are private websites, not FAA websites. If the poster could link for us a real FAA site that shows the landing site is operational, that would be helpful. It is listed on some FAA pages of undeterminate age (historical files) but I could not find anything up-to-date that confirms the FAA thinks it is currently operational.

[NoBozo]

Topwater: EXCELLENT Video. That plane is a Navy WWII PBY Catalina Flying Boat. There are less than 20 of those planes that are still Airworthy in the world today. I would be honored to get that close to one actually flying.






BTW: How was the fishing that day..??

[BroadHopper]

Originally Posted by NoBozo

Topwater: EXCELLENT Video. That plane is a Navy WWII PBY Catalina Flying Boat. There are less than 20 of those planes that are still Airworthy in the world today. I would be honored to get that close to one actually flying.

Count me in. Would love to join you! I miss my LA-4

[ApS]

Originally Posted by NoBozo

"...That plane is a Navy WWII PBY Catalina Flying Boat...I would be honored to get that close to one actually flying..."

Here's the next-best thing to getting close—an airshow video—with still another 2500 miles of fuel in the tanks yet to burn: http://www.catalina.org.uk/press-vid...rland-a11.html

You can also go see one under restoration just over the NH border at the Sanford, Maine airport. It may even be possible to hear one running: they ran both engines last summer for the first time in years.

Afterwards, they found everything in the hanger coated in a not-so-fine layer of oil. My Dad, who flew PBY-5As with the "Black Cat" squadron VP-11, could have told them that—in advance!

[NoBozo]

Originally Posted by NoBozo

Apparently Pickerel Pond WAS an authorized Seaplane landing place called "Bosseys", listed as a Private landing place for seaplanes. It was depicted on my November 27, 2003 issue of the New York Sectional which is a Avaition Map used by pilots flying VFR in the area. This would indicate that someone on the pond once had a seaplane.

https://www.seaplanes.org/UserFiles/...ckerelPond.pdf

OK: I just went out TODAY (Sat, 20 June) to my Local Airport and Bought a NEW "NEW YORK Sectional Aeronautical Chart". It is valid from 7 May, 2009... to 19 November, 2009. VFR Sectionals are updated "about" every Six Months.....Depending on the area..and any other considerations.

Bossey's is STILL listed and shown as operational...(PVT) The New York Sectional is published by the US DOT/FAA.
Just Sayin.

[Skip]

Originally Posted by Rose

This is very interesting. With regards to another government agency, the EPA in particular, states are allowed stricter regulations, but not more lenient ones. A good example is Ca-li-for-ni-a (Arnold's pronunciation) and it's stricter emissions regulations. If the FAA indeed does trump the state in this case, it's counter to what I'm familiar with. Makes it difficult to know what the truth is. Bureaucracy...gotta love it. NOT.

Hi Rose.

You are correct, the State or even local authorities can restrict take off/landings. Cities & towns routinely do this via the zoning process. The State can also ban take off/landings (on bodies of water) through an appeals and hearing process conducted by the Commissioner of Safety.

[fatlazyless]

Last night's tv had a not too good, old movie from 1961, The Devil at 4 O'clock, which had multiple scenes in the South Pacific with a Grumman two-engine flying boat type of an airplane flying around an active volcano. ....nice looking plane!

[Kamper]

Originally Posted by Shedwannabe

... The page says 93 Parade Road, Meredith, but a search shows 98 Parade Road is the correct address. Isn't it against the law to give the FAA the wrong info??? ...

The original form may have been hand-written and when transposed by the FA clerk, there was an error. Since it's not a critical error (pilots don't look at the mailbox before landing) any request for correction could sit in a box for years before being added into the system.

my 2cents

[RPM]

The way pilots get away with this atrosity is they tell the controll tower that they are a U F O . By doing so ,the FAA, cant tell them where to land.
It use to be the would claime themselves angles but the FAA caught on
and told them "DONT DO IT ANYMORE!"

[Airwaves]

I have the same list that the NH Dept of Safety puts out and it also lists Pickerel Pond Laconia as Boat/Motor Restriction - Seaplanes prohibited.

Unlike the other lakes and ponds on the list it does not quote an RSA or
SAF-C number that would certainly make it easier to look up the effective date.

The list from the NH Department of Safety, Bureau of Marine Patrol that I printed out is dated May 15, 2007 so it would be unlikely that Bossey's was actually operational last August (2008) as NoBozo found on the web.

I would guess that Bossey moved on and didn't tell anyone at the FAA but his neighbors petitioned the NH Dept of Safety, Bureau of Marine Patrol and made his return illegal!

As to which agency to report the violation of the law? You could try the Marine Patrol but I doubt that they would send up their airwing to chase him down, or you could try the FAA but if I read the post by NoBozo correctly, according to the FAA there was no violation of the law.

[Shedwannabe]

I got a call back from the Bureau of Marine Patrol in response to my email. The spokesperson (What do you call him?) emphatically pointed out that NH law overrides FAA regulations and didn't know how anyone had got the idea it didn't. (I had described a little of the discussion and questions people had raised on this thread).

He referenced RSA 270:12 (see http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/...270/270-12.htm) especially the 2nd paragraph. He said he didn't have in front of him when the restriction on Pickerel Pond was passed (I got a call from the state on a Saturday!!!!) but that I could call Monday to have someone look up when the restriction on Pickerel Pond was approved.

So, pending clarification of when the regulation went into effect, I would suggest this does settle the question of whether seaplanes are prohibited on Pickerel Pond.

[BroadHopper]

Lake Amphibians by their nature is technically a plane when airborne. Once they are in the water their are consider a water vessel. That is why amphibs have both FAA call letters and CG bow numbers on the front. Once the amphib lands it must obey all boating rules including life vest, paddle and other safety devices requires by law. This has always been a touchy subject with MP jurisdiction. In the case for Pickeral Pond, if an amphib lands, it is a boat and MP may or may not consider it a sea plane because it is not by law. That is why the speed limit rule in Winnipesaukee will be tested in this matter. During the 'stepping' out of the water to airspace and vice versa, it is a gray area in which both FAA and MP will argue that it is one or the other. I would love to see how this 'play' if it ever enters court.

[Skip]

Originally Posted by BroadHopper

...This has always been a touchy subject with MP jurisdiction. In the case for Pickeral Pond, if an amphib lands, it is a boat and MP may or may not consider it a sea plane because it is not by law. That is why the speed limit rule in Winnipesaukee will be tested in this matter. During the 'stepping' out of the water to airspace and vice versa, it is a gray area in which both FAA and MP will argue that it is one or the other. I would love to see how this 'play' if it ever enters court.

It will never end up in Court because there is no "gray area" here. While we have covered this before, seaplanes are specifically exempt from boating regulations while using water to take off or land. Therefore they are specifically exempt from the speed limit regulations while taking off and landing:

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.

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.

To hopefully answer some other questions posed here.

A violation of the seaplane regulation enacted by the State, or any violation enacted by a local jurisdiction is enforceable by any law enforcement officer of the State of New Hampshire. This is defined in regulations contained in RSA 442 and includes all local, county, state, NHMP or Fish & Game officers. Civil or administrative actions are handled by the appropriate civilian personnel within the DOT itself:

422:5 Enforcement of Laws. –
I. The provisions of this chapter providing for civil or administrative sanction shall be enforced by the director and department employees, in accordance with procedures adopted pursuant to RSA 541-A.
II. The provisions of this chapter providing for criminal sanction shall be enforced by any police and law enforcement officer, including, but not limited to, members of the state police, sheriffs, deputy sheriffs, policemen, and constables and all persons empowered to make arrests in criminal cases.

Finally, there are three separate State agencies that have the power to restrict seaplanes from bodies of water in the State of New Hampshire. The main agancy, mentioned above, is the Department of Transportation. That particular commissioner is tasked with overseeing all aeronautical activity in the State and is the individual with the most power in granting or removing air rights from any landing area in the State. Another State agency that has the power to limit or revoke seaplane activity from lakes, rivers & ponds is the Department of Environmental Services. They can invoke restrictions, and have in the past, to prevent degradation of water quality. And finally, by statute, the Commissioner of Safety can impose restrictions as previously discussed here.

[NoBozo]

So I guess the State of NH needs to get on the stick and TELL the FAA to remove 16NH from the New York Sectional.

BTW: As a Private Pilot I enjoy landing at "Short"/"Narrow" runway airports..just as a personal challenge. Part of ongoing flightraining and gaining experience.

An Observation on my part: If Shedwannabe would go flying....A Scenic Flight OR ...tell them you may be interested in learning how to fly and would like to take the controls.................YOU can do that...just tell the pilot you go up with, that you would like to Try It. You might like it. My guess is they in all likelyhood WILL oblige.

[Skip]

Originally Posted by NoBozo

...So I guess the State of NH needs to get on the stick and TELL the FAA to remove 16NH from the New York Sectional....

Actually, as a responsible pilot and now fully aware of the situation, wouldn't it be more appropriate for you to follow the directions I have copied from the pertinent FAA website? I am sure your fellow pilots would appreciate your effort.

From the FAA NACO website:

How can I report chart discrepancies?
You are encouraged to bring charting errors to our attention. On every NACO Aeronautical product, we have a note that describes how to report charting errors. You may contact us by mail, telephone, and e-mail:

Mailing Address:
FAA, National Aeronautical Charting Office
ATO-W, SSMC4 Station 2335
1305 East West Highway
Silver Spring, MD 20910-3281

Telephone.......(800) 626-3677 toll free, U.S. only
E-mail............... 9-AMC-Aerochart@faa.gov

Let us know how you make out, seems the process couldn't be simpler...

[eyenotall777]

Originally Posted by Shedwannabe

Yes, as Rose points out, the list, last updated May 15, 2009, says seaplanes are prohibited on Pickerel Pond. I have not found online the information as to when it happened, but I suspect the Bureau of Marine Patrol site is the last word on the matter.

Incidentally, looking at the BMP list, Pickerel Pond is the ONLY lake in the state to have "Seaplane prohibited" next to it. There are 10-12 lakes and ponds that have seaplane restrictions, but only this one is prohibited. I'd like to know the reason for that (i.e. the politicing and dealing and influence that let the state's 2003 objection be overturned). While I PERSONALLY don't want seaplanes on the lake, if hist is a result of some back-room power play I would think it a shame.

Incidentally, the lake is NOT listed as one of the lakes where skicraft are prohibited, whereas it is in fact prohibited to jet ski there. I think this is possibly because the only lakes where skicraft restrictions are mentioned are lakes larger than the 75 acre statutory limit and Pickerel Pond is under the limit (at 74.6 acres).

The definition of "skicraft" is any motorized vessel less than 13ft, capable of exceding 20mph and the capacity to carry no more than 2 persons. There are wave runners out there that do not fit this criteria and would be legal for them to be on the pond. (Capacity to carry 3 persons)

[Shedwannabe]

"In response to your question below regarding which organization has jurisdiction on Pickerel Pond in Laconia, NH, we offer the following:

* If the aircraft remains in the air over Pickerel Pond in Laconia, NH, and never touches the water's surface, then FAA has jurisdiction over the operation of that aircraft.
* Once the aircraft touches the surface of Pickerel Pond in Laconia, NH, the NH Department of Safety/Bureau of Marine Patrol has jurisdiction over the operation of that aircraft.

FAA continues to maintain their jurisdiction over the aircraft itself in all cases.

Specifically for Pickerel Pond in Laconia, NH, the NH Department of Safety/Bureau of Marine Patrol has a published restriction for that waterbody that includes a prohibition of seaplane operations. The website you refer to is correct (http://www.nh.gov/safety/divisions/s...estricted.html - P)."

[Kamper]

Originally Posted by BroadHopper

... That is why amphibs have both FAA call letters and CG bow numbers on the front. ...

I never noticed a "bow number" on a plane before. I'll have to look closer next time I'm near an amphib/seaplane/float-plane.

[BroadHopper]

Planes with floats are not technically a boat when in the water. Amphibous vehicles are. That is why the amphi-car has bow numbers. Ever been on the Duck Tours in Boston? They have bow numbers.

[Shedwannabe]

Seaplane illegally landed on Pickerel Pond again yesterday evening. I was at a meeting, instead of home for dinner, so I missed it, but my wife saw it. Apparently the pilot taxied all over the Pond before taking off again. I would have taken pictures and pursued with the authorities.

[Winnicandle]

Oh my god.

They landed, taxied all over the pond, and took back off?

Wait by the windows with your camera, I bet you can get pictures next time.

Then you can write 2500 letters and post threads on the internet about the insanity you witnessed.

Justice will be served.

Get off my lawn.

[Shreddy]

Originally Posted by Shedwannabe

Seaplane illegally landed on Pickerel Pond again yesterday evening. I was at a meeting, instead of home for dinner, so I missed it, but my wife saw it. Apparently the pilot taxied all over the Pond before taking off again. I would have taken pictures and pursued with the authorities.

Deleted because it apparently was too harsh for most members...

[chipj29]

Not going to quote them, since I hope they are both deleted, but the last 2 posts after shedwannabes were completely uncalled for.
Shedwannabe is talking about something that is clearly illegal. Doesn't matter why it is illegal, it just is. He should report it IMO.

[meteotrade]

Originally Posted by Shreddy

You've lived on the pond about a year? Go back to where you came from tree hugger. It's people like you that utterly piss me off. .

You've been here all of 3 months and you make a post like this? Class act, Shreddy.

If the pilot is breaking the law, I don't see what the big deal is in reporting it.

[Shreddy]

Originally Posted by chipj29

Not going to quote them, since I hope they are both deleted, but the last 2 posts after shedwannabes were completely uncalled for.
Shedwannabe is talking about something that is clearly illegal. Doesn't matter why it is illegal, it just is. He should report it IMO.

Speeding on a road is clearly illegal and I see it all the time. Do I report every instance I see? No. Why? Because I don't feel any danger is being caused.

Boats violate rules daily (150 foot rule for instance). Do I report every instance I see? Once again, NO. Because I don't feel lives are in danger.

The plane is the same thing. What's the big deal with him landing on the pond? Is it really causing you that much pain? You people act like this man is searching to land on people and jeopardize lives or something. Give it a break.

My point is, why cause problems when there are no problems in the first place? Yes, maybe the pilot is breaking the law, but he isn't doing harm while doing it.

Living in the area less than a year and trying to change what goes on around the pond might be stepping on "locals" shoes. Everything has seemed to be fine in the past. I just highly dislike when people are new to an area and attempt to change what goes on around there (see it regularly in the association I live in).

[meteotrade]

Originally Posted by Shreddy

Boats violate rules daily (150 foot rule for instance). Do I report every instance I see? Once again, NO. Because I don't feel lives are in danger.

Shreddy your argument is completely illogical. I'm not sure why you think you have the right to decide which rules are worthy of enforcement and which should be disregarded. Why don't you see how much support you have over in the boating forum for getting rid of the 150' rule because breaking it "endangers no one". Apparently you share the same mentality as the rest of the law scoffing Captain B's which so many forum members are fed up with.

You have no idea why the ban on planes for Pickerel Pond even exists, you just jump to the conclusion that its a dumb rule so it should not be enforced. If I had to guess, I'd say its there for a good reason- the pond is not even a half mile wide! An obvious risk is that the plane doesn't have enough water to land/take off and an accident would result in an ecological nightmare on such a small body of water.

[Shreddy]

Originally Posted by meteotrade

Shreddy your argument is completely illogical. I'm not sure why you think you have the right to decide which rules are worthy of enforcement and which should be disregarded. Why don't you see how much support you have over in the boating forum for getting rid of the 150' rule because breaking it "endangers no one". Apparently you share the same mentality as the rest of the law scoffing Captain B's which so many forum members are fed up with.

You have no idea why the ban on planes for Pickerel Pond even exists, you just jump to the conclusion that its a dumb rule so it should not be enforced. If I had to guess, I'd say its there for a good reason- the pond is not even a half mile wide! An obvious risk is that the plane doesn't have enough water to land/take off and an accident would result in an ecological nightmare on such a small body of water.

You're right...sorry for posting my assumptions. Please disregard and move on...

[Shreddy]

Originally Posted by meteotrade

Shreddy your argument is completely illogical. I'm not sure why you think you have the right to decide which rules are worthy of enforcement and which should be disregarded. Why don't you see how much support you have over in the boating forum for getting rid of the 150' rule because breaking it "endangers no one". Apparently you share the same mentality as the rest of the law scoffing Captain B's which so many forum members are fed up with.

You have no idea why the ban on planes for Pickerel Pond even exists, you just jump to the conclusion that its a dumb rule so it should not be enforced. If I had to guess, I'd say its there for a good reason- the pond is not even a half mile wide! An obvious risk is that the plane doesn't have enough water to land/take off and an accident would result in an ecological nightmare on such a small body of water.

And for the record. I do not condone violating the 150 rule. I've been boating on Winnipesaukee my entire life and understand how things work. YOU now sound quick to ASSUME without the facts. I was simply stating laws are broken regularly. Some need to be taken more seriously than others. Pursuing action against somebody who isn't causing harm seems pointless in my eyes. From another ASSUMPTION, i'm going to say the pond/lake must be wide enough if the pilot has done it several times now. Maybe cutting it close, but you are right, I do not have all the facts.

I'm not here to argue with people like you, just simply state my OPINION. Take it with a grain of salt.

[Shedwannabe]

There are not that many laws we agree in advance to obey.

I don't speed when driving, not because I can't, but because I agreed to obey the law in order to get a license, and because I value MY integrity. I don't know why the speed limit sometimes drops at certain places, but I agreed to obey the rules of the road.

A pilot also agreed to obey the law in order to get a license. The law states landing on Pickerel Pond is illegal (I've talked to the State Marine Patrol to confirm this). Thus, the person who lands here is consciously choosing to break the law. I don't even know why the law was made (though I very much appreciate it and am glad for it), but if the pilot doesn't like the law s/he should take it up with whomever made the law, rather than just deciding to ignore it.

NYC decided a few years ago to stop ignoring "minor crimes" like jumping over the turnstiles at the subway and things like jaywalking, all minor stuff. What they found was that the overall crime rate (rape, robbery, etc.) dropped too.

While I never agreed in advance to not murder someone ... I DID agree to not speed, and the pilot DID agree not to land in prohibited spaces.

[Shreddy]

Originally Posted by Shedwannabe

There are not that many laws we agree in advance to obey.

I don't speed when driving, not because I can't, but because I agreed to obey the law in order to get a license, and because I value MY integrity. I don't know why the speed limit sometimes drops at certain places, but I agreed to obey the rules of the road.

A pilot also agreed to obey the law in order to get a license. The law states landing on Pickerel Pond is illegal (I've talked to the State Marine Patrol to confirm this). Thus, the person who lands here is consciously choosing to break the law. I don't even know why the law was made (though I very much appreciate it and am glad for it), but if the pilot doesn't like the law s/he should take it up with whomever made the law, rather than just deciding to ignore it.

NYC decided a few years ago to stop ignoring "minor crimes" like jumping over the turnstiles at the subway and things like jaywalking, all minor stuff. What they found was that the overall crime rate (rape, robbery, etc.) dropped too.

While I never agreed in advance to not murder someone ... I DID agree to not speed, and the pilot DID agree not to land in prohibited spaces.

So my next question is...Why don't you pursue action against people who speed and break laws they agreed not to break in order to be licensed? I'm sure you've seen a boat or two break some law. Why are you NOT pursuing action against them? What's the big deal with the plane? What harm is he causing you?

[Shedwannabe]

Because its the lake I live on, kayak on, sail on, swim on, ski across (in winter). Its my peaceful abode. I can't take on the whole world (and I'm not trying to take on the world). I like it where I live. If it was legal for the seaplane to land, I'd grit my teeth and bear it. But since a law was passed (nothing to do with me) and it interferes with my enjoyment of the wonderful location, I pursued it.

Unfortunately I was not home yesterday to get the plane's number; hopefully next time I will, and get a picture too with the camera by the patio door. I'm not talking about a "vendetta" against someone, just trying to reduce criminal behavior which also impacts my enjoyment, and possibly my safety (though I was not out on the lake either of the two occasions that I know the plane landed this summer).

[Shreddy]

Originally Posted by Shedwannabe

Because its the lake I live on, kayak on, sail on, swim on, ski across (in winter). Its my peaceful abode. I can't take on the whole world (and I'm not trying to take on the world). I like it where I live. If it was legal for the seaplane to land, I'd grit my teeth and bear it. But since a law was passed (nothing to do with me) and it interferes with my enjoyment of the wonderful location, I pursued it.

Unfortunately I was not home yesterday to get the plane's number; hopefully next time I will, and get a picture too with the camera by the patio door. I'm not talking about a "vendetta" against someone, just trying to reduce criminal behavior which also impacts my enjoyment, and possibly my safety (though I was not out on the lake either of the two occasions that I know the plane landed this summer).

Touchet, and to each their own I guess...

But if I were you, I would ask around your area before you go stepping on someones shoes as you claim to only have lived there for a year or so. The guy might live right on the pond and have been there for many years. Wouldn't be too nice in that situation.

[chipj29]

Originally Posted by Shreddy

Touchet, and to each their own I guess...

But if I were you, I would ask around your area before you go stepping on someones shoes as you claim to only have lived there for a year or so. The guy might live right on the pond and have been there for many years. Wouldn't be too nice in that situation.

I live on a dead end street. The speed limit on my street is 30 MPH.
When I had only lived here for 2 years, 2 cars went by at nearly twice the speed limit. Yes, I called the police. At the time, I did not know if they were my neighbors (nor did I care at that point).

Now tell me Shreddy...what difference does it make how long I have lived here?

[Shreddy]

Originally Posted by chipj29

I live on a dead end street. The speed limit on my street is 30 MPH.
When I had only lived here for 2 years, 2 cars went by at nearly twice the speed limit. Yes, I called the police. At the time, I did not know if they were my neighbors (nor did I care at that point).

Now tell me Shreddy...what difference does it make how long I have lived here?

Going 60 in a 30 on a dead end street to me, seems like endangerment. I can completely see where you are coming from. However, If those cars came at 35-40mph, you probably won't make that call.

My point is, as I said earlier, this pilot doesn't sound to be endangering anyones lives by landing on the lake/pond. Sounds like he does it in the evening when he knows traffic is down. Also, I can almost assure you that this guy is not hunting to hit anyone on the lake when he is flying. So, why ruin his fun? Lighten up, there's no need to be so harsh. That's my whole argument.

The reason I mention how long someone has lived there is the fact that this person could be your neighbor and live on the lake, but have lived there twenty+/- years. The guy might have been landing on this pond for plenty of years and it probably hasn't been a problem with other local residents as he still does it. I know, if I was the pilot, and I had my fun revoked by someone who moved to the area I live in, I'd be pretty upset. If I knew shedwannabe's argument as well (as given in this forum topic) behind why they pursued action, I'd be even more upset.

Like I said before, I'm only going off what has been posted here. But it just sounds as if this pilot is not causing harm and just enjoying a nice ride and lake...maybe his "humble abode" as well.

[Shedwannabe]

Though I don't know all the history, I do know that area residents petitioned the state to close down the lake to seaplanes several years ago, but were denied at that time (2003 I think).

I have yet to be able to learn when the ban was put in force - certainly it wasn't because of me. It may have been as result of ongoing "agitation" by local residents, though none of the neighbors I've met admits any involvement in that (I've only met a few).

But it seems what you are advocating is that if someone has been doing something for a long time, and that behavior then becomes illegal, s/he should be allowed to continue break the law. I understand your argument that "newcomers" shouldn't tell long-times what to do, but that is not this situation. This is where a law (well, a rule with the force of law) has been made (without the input of this newcomer) and is being repeatedly broken.

[Airwaves]

While Pickerel Pond in Laconia is on the list of restricted bodies of waters in 2007 banning seaplanes. It does NOT appear on the 2009 List of Restricted Bodies of Water in NH . So I would say at first glance that it's okay for the seaplane to land and takeoff from Pickerel Pond.

[chipj29]

Originally Posted by Shreddy

Going 60 in a 30 on a dead end street to me, seems like endangerment. I can completely see where you are coming from. However, If those cars came at 35-40mph, you probably won't make that call.

My point is, as I said earlier, this pilot doesn't sound to be endangering anyones lives by landing on the lake/pond. Sounds like he does it in the evening when he knows traffic is down. Also, I can almost assure you that this guy is not hunting to hit anyone on the lake when he is flying. So, why ruin his fun? Lighten up, there's no need to be so harsh. That's my whole argument.

The reason I mention how long someone has lived there is the fact that this person could be your neighbor and live on the lake, but have lived there twenty+/- years. The guy might have been landing on this pond for plenty of years and it probably hasn't been a problem with other local residents as he still does it. I know, if I was the pilot, and I had my fun revoked by someone who moved to the area I live in, I'd be pretty upset. If I knew shedwannabe's argument as well (as given in this forum topic) behind why they pursued action, I'd be even more upset.

Like I said before, I'm only going off what has been posted here. But it just sounds as if this pilot is not causing harm and just enjoying a nice ride and lake...maybe his "humble abode" as well.

Just because it doesn't "sound like" it to you, does not make it legal. There had to have been a reason the law was put into place. Personally, I would hope that the law would have been put into place for safety reasons, as opposed to someones personal preference.

[Shreddy]

Originally Posted by chipj29

Just because it doesn't "sound like" it to you, does not make it legal. There had to have been a reason the law was put into place. Personally, I would hope that the law would have been put into place for safety reasons, as opposed to someones personal preference.

J-Walking is a law that was put into place for safety reasons. Does everybody obey J-walking laws? Same difference...Some laws NEED to be enforced while others are, well, need to use judgement...

[chipj29]

Originally Posted by Shreddy

J-Walking is a law that was put into place for safety reasons. Does everybody obey J-walking laws? Same difference...Some laws NEED to be enforced while others are, well, need to use judgement...

I know what you mean shreddy...you and I are going to have to agree to disagree on this one.

[BroadHopper]

Originally Posted by Airwaves

While Pickerel Pond in Laconia is on the list of restricted bodies of waters in 2007 banning seaplanes. It does NOT appear on the 2009 List of Restricted Bodies of Water in NH . So I would say at first glance that it's okay for the seaplane to land and takeoff from Pickerel Pond.

Many seapleane pilots are from out of state. There is no way of telling these pilots that Pickeral Pond is off limits. Unless someone listed the pond there will be more landings. It is up to the state or the abutters of the pond to make sure the pond is listed.

Back in the 70's and 80's, Pickeral Pond was used as a practice landing by the school at Laconia Airport. The pond was my first Landing and take off in an amphibous vehicle.

[Shreddy]

Originally Posted by chipj29

I know what you mean shreddy...you and I are going to have to agree to disagree on this one.

Yup, I completely understand yours, as well as shedwannabe's, argument. Just wanted to state my point. Like I have been saying the whole time, I would hate to be the pilot and getting my fun/enjoyment taken away simply because there is a law in place. It doesn't sound as if he is jeopardizing anyone's safety. Some laws CAN be overlooked.

No hard feelings on my end...please excuse me coming off a bit harsh in the first place. Cheers.

[Shedwannabe]

The reason the listing of Pickerel Pond was deleted was that it was placed on the list by mistake. In answer to my question about why the listing was changed I got this answer:

"The simple answer is that this body of water was listed in error. When it was first questioned, I researched the history and found that I had placed it on the list in error. There is, and has not in the past (to my knowledge) been a seaplane restriction on this body of water. Additionally, you are correct regarding the update date. I made the major update to include decisions that had been made in the past year on May 15 and failed to change the date when I made the correction for Pickerel Pond. I apologize for any confusion. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact me at 293-0091.

Regina A. Carman
Administrative Assistant"

So, what must have happened

1) Posted by mistake
2) Someone saw it
3) I heard about it
4) I checked and found out it was true
5) Some controversy on these pages
6) I emailed Marine Patrol and was called back, confirming it was closed to seaplane landings
7) That must have led them to explore why it was posted (because I had asked when it was decided)
8) They realized it was posted in error and changed the website.

Full circle!

[chipj29]

Originally Posted by Shedwannabe

The reason the listing of Pickerel Pond was deleted was that it was placed on the list by mistake. In answer to my question about why the listing was changed I got this answer:

"The simple answer is that this body of water was listed in error. When it was first questioned, I researched the history and found that I had placed it on the list in error. There is, and has not in the past (to my knowledge) been a seaplane restriction on this body of water. Additionally, you are correct regarding the update date. I made the major update to include decisions that had been made in the past year on May 15 and failed to change the date when I made the correction for Pickerel Pond. I apologize for any confusion. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact me at 293-0091.

Regina A. Carman
Administrative Assistant"

So, what must have happened

1) Posted by mistake
2) Someone saw it
3) I heard about it
4) I checked and found out it was true
5) Some controversy on these pages
6) I emailed Marine Patrol and was called back, confirming it was closed to seaplane landings
7) That must have led them to explore why it was posted (because I had asked when it was decided)
8) They realized it was posted in error and changed the website.

Full circle!

I think it is safe to say that in this instance, your questions and phone calls/emails were central to correcting this error. Great job!

[Skip]

Congratulations...

You saw a problem, asked some questions, took it upon yourself to followup with the right folks and ultimately made a difference by correcting a mistake.

You have, by example, given us all a lesson on how to do more than just complain!

Thank you very much....

[NoBozo]

SO: Just to confirm: Does this mean I can continue to land my seaplane on Pickerell Pond, as in the past, without the risk of getting arrested and jailed in the prime of my life? Just wondering.

Sometimes reading peoples posts (it's in the wording) can be confusing...and because the author understands exactly what he has written, he assumes that of course the reader understands the meaning, exactly as the author meant it. This is just an idle comment and is not directed at anyone in particular.

[Shedwannabe]

Originally Posted by NoBozo

SO: Just to confirm: Does this mean I can continue to land my seaplane on Pickerell Pond, as in the past, without the risk of getting arrested and jailed in the prime of my life? Just wondering.

Sometimes reading peoples posts (it's in the wording) can be confusing...and because the author understands exactly what he has written, he assumes that of course the reader understands the meaning, exactly as the author meant it. This is just an idle comment and is not directed at anyone in particular.

Yes, The person at the Marine Patrol said the posting on their website that Pickerel Pond was closed was in error, and the lake is open to seaplanes.

Just please check first for swimmers, kayaks, sailboats, as you would anyway, I'm sure.

[NoBozo]

Originally Posted by Shedwannabe

Yes, The person at the Marine Patrol said the posting on their website that Pickerel Pond was closed was in error, and the lake is open to seaplanes.

Just please check first for swimmers, kayaks, sailboats, as you would anyway, I'm sure.

Thanks Shed. Thanks for posting that info. I appreciate the fact that your posting of that info did not help your original position. I'm sure the seaplane pilots who might read this will have a moderated position now. They may even give Pickerel Pond a pass when looking for a place to practice landing and takeoff.

BTW: I am not the guy who has been practicing on Pickerel Pond who attracted your notice..