Read the forum code of contact
By: - 10th February 2005 at 10:42 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Bloody Nimby's!
I'm offering my support by way for a professional Logo. For Free
By: - 10th February 2005 at 10:52 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I'm afraid I do not currently have time to review the website you're talking about, so forgive my ignorance if I'm asking a silly question....are you sure that a primary reason for the banning of sea planes from the Loch is exactly because there are so many other water users? As well as my career in aviation I also hold an RYA Sailing Instructors qualification which I used prior to and during my time at uni. In my gap year before university I worked on a lake in France, which was regularly used for the fire planes to pick up water from, but when they did the entire lake had to be cleared of all craft. Now I know Loch Lomond is substantially larger than the lake I worked on, but I am concerend that part of the problem is that for the sake of 4 sea planes based in Scotland is it worth upsetting the enjoyment of a large (and knowing watersports growing) number of people trying to get on the water. I realise that the planes will use only limted areas of the loch, but this is going to be unpredictable and therefore the authorities are possibly worried about the safety risk.
As I said I could be completely wrong, and I apologise if their only argument is the environmental one. I would suggest though that if their argument does hinge parlty on this issue of interference then you could consider approaching them about setting out a desginated landing zone.......
By: - 10th February 2005 at 11:15 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I'm afraid I do not currently have time to review the website you're talking about, so forgive my ignorance if I'm asking a silly question....are you sure that a primary reason for the banning of sea planes from the Loch is exactly because there are so many other water users? As well as my career in aviation I also hold an RYA Sailing Instructors qualification which I used prior to and during my time at uni. In my gap year before university I worked on a lake in France, which was regularly used for the fire planes to pick up water from, but when they did the entire lake had to be cleared of all craft. Now I know Loch Lomond is substantially larger than the lake I worked on, but I am concerend that part of the problem is that for the sake of 4 sea planes based in Scotland is it worth upsetting the enjoyment of a large (and knowing watersports growing) number of people trying to get on the water. I realise that the planes will use only limted areas of the loch, but this is going to be unpredictable and therefore the authorities are possibly worried about the safety risk.As I said I could be completely wrong, and I apologise if their only argument is the environmental one. I would suggest though that if their argument does hinge parlty on this issue of interference then you could consider approaching them about setting out a desginated landing zone.......
Hi This is taken from the site. It's not only the environmental argument, it's also traffic conflict - which would possibly increase - but why limit it to targeting Sea Planes and not Jet Ski's, Boats etc etc. It's unfair!
Loch Users – the operation of a seaplane may increase the likelihood of unacceptable conflicts with other users of the loch (what is an unacceptable conflict?). Activities such as landing, taking off and taxiing to the proposed landfall is considered (by whom?) to increase the likelihood of unacceptable conflicts. The Park Authority will consider whether the operator has taken adequate safety measures in relation to other loch users in respect of the proposed seaplane operation and in relation to emergency rescue provisions.
What is an ‘unacceptable conflict’ ? Who considers that the likelihood will be increased ? We are responsible loch users too – in fact seaplanes were first recorded on the loch in the 1930s and probably operated there before WW1 ! The drafters of this Byelaw have completely ignored the legal position of seaplanes and pilots, and worldwide experience of seaplane operations.
Seaplane pilots have had an absolute minimum of 50 hours flight instruction, have passed rigorous exams in navigation, law, weather and human factors. Seaplane pilots sit annual flight-tests, are licensed by the CAA, subjected to annual medical checks, hold radio licences, must be sober and are the only loch users required (by the CAA) to pass a seamanship exam. Seaplane pilots already operate under one of the strictest and most regulated regimes. Aircraft must be maintained by licensed aircraft engineers to the highest CAA standards, must have a noise certificate, are fully insured (including 3rd party) and can be worth anything from £60000 to £300000. These are not toys, they cannot just be bought on a whim. It takes an incredible amount of dedication, skill and effort to achieve and operate a seaplane in the UK. By contrast – anyone, whether they be drunk or criminally insane, can go out, buy a boat or jetski (without any set maintenance standard) and take to the loch, with NO training, no insurance, no appreciation of other loch users, no demonstrated weather or navigation skills.
The National Park are missing the perfect opportunity of using these professional standards. Rather than seeking to discriminate against and marginalise seaplane pilots we should be held up as an example to all of ‘best practice’ on how to operate responsibly and safely with respect to other users. We can provide the perfect basis for a Code of Conduct for all loch users. Similar schemes work successfully at Lake Como in Italy and at Loch Earn (within the LLTNP).
Seaplane pilots (with a unique aerial perspective of the landing area) are required by marine law to give way to boats and are solely responsible for avoiding collisions with boats. It must be asked of the National Park - in the interests of fairness, what measures and training will other loch users then be required to take to avoid unacceptable conflicts with each other? Or what about the thousands of vehicles each day travelling along the A82 ? How do they manage to avoid hitting each other without advising the National Park of their every movement ?
Experience elsewhere in the world shows seaplanes and boats co-exist happily. At Victoria Harbour in Canada there are 100 seaplane movements and 1000 boat movements per day. This harbour is less than 1% of the size of Loch Lomond – there has never been a collision between a boat and a seaplane. Lake Union in Seattle has been a seaplane base for 58 years. The lake, which is 3% of the size of Loch Lomond has 30000 seaplane landings a year. Vancouver Harbour has more seaplane movements in day than Loch Lomond had in the entire year of 2004 !! – In the entire USA, National Transport Safety Board statistics show that in 10 million seaplane flying hours, over a 15 year period, there were 3 collisions between boats and – in the same period there were 12500 fatalities with boat collisions.
DME
By: - 10th February 2005 at 11:19 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Bloody Nimby's!I'm offering my support by way for a professional Logo. For Free
Thank you, however the web site has all the text needed and I don't know how they would distribute the logo :confused:
You could possibly contact the email at [email]campaign@seaplaneassociation.org.uk[/email] to see if they could use the logo though :)
Thanks for the offer.
DME
By: - 10th February 2005 at 11:25 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Thank you, however the web site has all the text needed and I don't know how they would distribute the logo :confused:You could possibly contact the email at [email]campaign@seaplaneassociation.org.uk[/email] to see if they could use the logo though :)
Thanks for the offer.
DME
E-mail is already on its way.
A nice clear logo for the UK Seaplane Association would help make its identity clear and precise. Usefull for campains like this :)
By: - 10th February 2005 at 11:45 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Various points taken there, I admit that when looking at US and Candian Ops it looks ridiculous, however I have to play devils advocate and stick up for the park authorities in some ways, and don't feel in a bad position as I understand both arguments.
The national parks exist to provide facilities for everyone, and in order to provide the best facilities for the majority they may have to sacrifice the minority. It is a cold fact of life, but goes on all around us in a democracy.
I must answer a few points in particular. For a start, despite massive experience and training, the fact that operators have insurance doesn't mean anything once a dinghy with a family of 4 people in has been hit, are you suggesting that their lives can be paid off?
The truth of one of your statements is that actually all boats are required by law to be insured before going onto most public lakes etc, and the minimum requirement for insurance is normally £1m for public liability, which is quite substantial considering the damage a dinghy can do compared with a sea plane. Furthermore legislation is being introduced regarding mixing alcohol with boating, and when a private pilot takes off from a private airfeidl somewhere he will not be challenged over whether or not he has been drinking, or indeed is drunk. Don't take this point the wrong way, I'm not suggesting that all pilots do this in the slightest, waht I am saying is that the same measures to prevent pilots being drunk are in place for sailors, ie legislation and nothing more.
The 'unacceptable risk' element is very true...the speed of any aircraft cannot be matched int he slightest by any boat, and this would cause problems should the paths of two craft cross. Furthermore sailing boats are actually quite unmanoueverable and if a conflict arises there is every chance that a boat cannot get out of the way fast enough. Furthermore even the most experienced sailors experience capsize etc which can occur for a number of reasons to catch the experienced unaware. As a pilot you may think that your take-off run will be clear by the time get to where a boat is currently sailing, but what if a freak mishap should mean that boat capsizes as you reach it?
Most harbours (and I'm sure those in the US and Canada will apply the same rules) have a system whereby any boat which has a motor must use it in favour of sail when entering, leaving or moving around a harbour area. This reduces the unpredicatability of sailing and can guarentee pilots that the speed a boat is travelling at will continue. Furthermore the majority of private boats using these haorbours are substantially larger (therefore not really going to capsize!!) and faster than those which are seen on the Lochs and Lakes of GB.
I'm not trying to be awkward, and I think there are issues which need to eb resolved if activites are to remain, but as as sailor I would prefer the knowledge that I only ahve to follow the guidelines for sailing/motor craft and that I do not have to live in fear of a plane descending at any time. I admit it is a wonderful sight when such an aircraft lands, but when an authority is dealing with so many users they MUST ensure adequate safety for the majority, which will always be at the expense of a minority, and I'm sure all in aviation understand this principle more than any others.
By: - 10th February 2005 at 11:55 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Various points taken there, I admit that when looking at US and Candian Ops it looks ridiculous, however I have to play devils advocate and stick up for the park authorities in some ways, and don't feel in a bad position as I understand both arguments.The national parks exist to provide facilities for everyone, and in order to provide the best facilities for the majority they may have to sacrifice the minority. It is a cold fact of life, but goes on all around us in a democracy.
I must answer a few points in particular. For a start, despite massive experience and training, the fact that operators have insurance doesn't mean anything once a dinghy with a family of 4 people in has been hit, are you suggesting that their lives can be paid off?
The truth of one of your statements is that actually all boats are required by law to be insured before going onto most public lakes etc, and the minimum requirement for insurance is normally £1m for public liability, which is quite substantial considering the damage a dinghy can do compared with a sea plane. Furthermore legislation is being introduced regarding mixing alcohol with boating, and when a private pilot takes off from a private airfeidl somewhere he will not be challenged over whether or not he has been drinking, or indeed is drunk. Don't take this point the wrong way, I'm not suggesting that all pilots do this in the slightest, waht I am saying is that the same measures to prevent pilots being drunk are in place for sailors, ie legislation and nothing more.
The 'unacceptable risk' element is very true...the speed of any aircraft cannot be matched int he slightest by any boat, and this would cause problems should the paths of two craft cross. Furthermore sailing boats are actually quite unmanoueverable and if a conflict arises there is every chance that a boat cannot get out of the way fast enough. Furthermore even the most experienced sailors experience capsize etc which can occur for a number of reasons to catch the experienced unaware. As a pilot you may think that your take-off run will be clear by the time get to where a boat is currently sailing, but what if a freak mishap should mean that boat capsizes as you reach it?
Most harbours (and I'm sure those in the US and Canada will apply the same rules) have a system whereby any boat which has a motor must use it in favour of sail when entering, leaving or moving around a harbour area. This reduces the unpredicatability of sailing and can guarentee pilots that the speed a boat is travelling at will continue. Furthermore the majority of private boats using these haorbours are substantially larger (therefore not really going to capsize!!) and faster than those which are seen on the Lochs and Lakes of GB.
I'm not trying to be awkward, and I think there are issues which need to eb resolved if activites are to remain, but as as sailor I would prefer the knowledge that I only ahve to follow the guidelines for sailing/motor craft and that I do not have to live in fear of a plane descending at any time. I admit it is a wonderful sight when such an aircraft lands, but when an authority is dealing with so many users they MUST ensure adequate safety for the majority, which will always be at the expense of a minority, and I'm sure all in aviation understand this principle more than any others.
your points are good ones.
However, they are more or less the same for Cars, Trucks etc.
Legislation is there to prevent drunk drivers. But it still happens and people get killed. So on the same tac... we must ban driving on our roads?
I've watched activities on loch lomond. Its the Jet Ski's you have to look out for more than anything.
A simple solution is to classify an area of the loch as sea planes only. It certainly is large enought. A bouyed line across the lake with clear marking would prevent Jet Ski;s and the like "tresspassing" onto the sea plane area.
By: - 10th February 2005 at 12:05 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
your points are good ones.
However, they are more or less the same for Cars, Trucks etc.
Legislation is there to prevent drunk drivers. But it still happens and people get killed. So on the same tac... we must ban driving on our roads?I've watched activities on loch lomond. Its the Jet Ski's you have to look out for more than anything.
A simple solution is to classify an area of the loch as sea planes only. It certainly is large enought. A bouyed line across the lake with clear marking would prevent Jet Ski;s and the like "tresspassing" onto the sea plane area.
I'm really not sure you are taking points onboard, with regards to the drunkness issue I could fire this straight back at you, you have stated that people can sail drunk, very true, but they can do anything drunk, including flying, so to trying to suggest that drunk people on a lake are more dangerous than planes is ludicrous and misses the point that very few people on water are ever drunk, and that those that may be are in the minority, as with flying, driving etc.
I agree that classification of an certain area may be the answer, as suggested in my first post on here...and I would suggest that as a lobbying group you should be using the consultation period to discuss such issues instead of all out war against the ban. Government run consultations are available for everyone to have their say, and they are obliged to listen, otherwise any mistakes can be legally challenged. What you need to do though is spend some time and energy coming up with some useful answers and solutions.
By: - 10th February 2005 at 12:12 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I'm really not sure you are taking points onboard, with regards to the drunkness issue I could fire this straight back at you, you have stated that people can sail drunk, very true, but they can do anything drunk, including flying, so to trying to suggest that drunk people on a lake are more dangerous than planes is ludicrous and misses the point that very few people on water are ever drunk, and that those that may be are in the minority, as with flying, driving etc.I agree that classification of an certain area may be the answer, as suggested in my first post on here...and I would suggest that as a lobbying group you should be using the consultation period to discuss such issues instead of all out war against the ban. Government run consultations are available for everyone to have their say, and they are obliged to listen, otherwise any mistakes can be legally challenged. What you need to do though is spend some time and energy coming up with some useful answers and solutions.
I did take your points on board.
My point was, its is not fair to single out the Seaplanes for such an issue. Any form of transport is dangerous in the hands of a drunk person. Ok, seaplanes all the more so.. but to single them out is not right.
By: - 10th February 2005 at 12:21 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I did take your points on board.My point was, its is not fair to single out the Seaplanes for such an issue. Any form of transport is dangerous in the hands of a drunk person. Ok, seaplanes all the more so.. but to single them out is not right.
OK, I'm laughing now......I'm FAIRLY definite that the National Parks Authority have no intention of banning sea planes based on drunk pilots (and that is is NOT mentioned in the consultation), it is quite possible that there has never been a drunk pilot land on the loch! DME stated in his/her original post that anyone can get in a boat including someone that is drunk, and surely this is more dangerous than fully trained pilots..........my point was that this was not a valid argument as anyone can get in a plane (and I should ahve mentinoed cars etc) drunk but that it very rarely happens, and that most water users are responsible to some degree, just as pilots are.
Can we PLEASE leave the drinking issue alone now...I think it genuinly is not an argument for or against this consultation, and I think if someone legally challenged an argument such as this at an appeal against the outcome then a good barrister would rip them to pieces. STOP!
By: - 10th February 2005 at 12:25 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
OK, I'm laughing now......I'm FAIRLY definite that the National Parks Authority have no intention of banning sea planes based on drunk pilots (and that is is NOT mentioned in the consultation), it is quite possible that there has never been a drunk pilot land on the loch! DME stated in his/her original post that anyone can get in a boat including someone that is drunk, and surely this is more dangerous than fully trained pilots..........my point was that this was not a valid argument as anyone can get in a plane (and I should ahve mentinoed cars etc) drunk but that it very rarely happens, and that most water users are responsible to some degree, just as pilots are.Can we PLEASE leave the drinking issue alone now...I think it genuinly is not an argument for or against this consultation, and I think if someone legally challenged an argument such as this at an appeal against the outcome then a good barrister would rip them to pieces. STOP!
You're the one that brought it up.
I was referring to your arguments.. not the LLTNP authorities.
By: - 10th February 2005 at 12:43 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Hi again,
Yep alcohol point is basically mute as it could, and does happen in all environments, albeit possibly more in a relaxed summers day by the loch playing about on a jet ski. However I have no evidence of this, it's only a personal view.
I definitely agree that a designated operations area would be great, because that is the only potential problem I can envisage, a traffic conflict. Some airfields that I have flown into have a small mesh boundary fence, only 3 foot tall, so there is a problem with people gaining access to the operational areas there as well. The same can be applied to the likes of Kirsty McCall, unfortunately she was killed in a boating accident. Where people exist, there will always be room for error, we all just have to try and keep the occurrence of those errors to a minimum and this does not mean discriminate against one of the groups who may be involved in an accident, it means take preventative action like having designated operational zones.
DME
By: - 10th February 2005 at 12:45 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
One of the first news reports I had to shoot was about one group of Loch Lomond users (yacht owners) objecting to another (jet skiers)
Then it was powerboats, then it was water skiers, then anglers, then helicopter trips from Duck Bay, the the filming of Take The High Road etc etc etc
They'll be objecting to the fish swimming around next? It seems you can't be happy at Loch Lomond unless you're unhappy about someone doing something you don't like ! :D
By: - 10th February 2005 at 13:06 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
It seems you can't be happy at Loch Lomond unless you're unhappy about someone doing something you don't like ! :D
Liked that one :p
DME
By: - 10th February 2005 at 13:09 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Liked that one :pDME
whats your e-mail DME?
Would like to show you my logo proposal for the seaplane assoc.
By: - 10th February 2005 at 13:13 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Note to Moderator; is it possible to duplicate this in General Aviation as well?
Regards
DME
I can copy the entire thread and send it there if you wish but it would look better coming from you. So I'd suggest copying and pasting the first post. :D
By: - 10th February 2005 at 13:19 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I can copy the entire thread and send it there if you wish but it would look better coming from you. So I'd suggest copying and pasting the first post. :D
Does that mean I have to copy an paste all my responses?? The arguments are the same regardless of which forum they are in, and I belive that people should be aware of all the facts and not just take an aviation bias. Possibly it may be worth moving across the whole thread or else I suspect people will not fully understand the reasoning behind the scheme or the logic of someone loking at it from a non-aviation viewpoint.
Not tyring to be awkward I promise :) :)
By: - 10th February 2005 at 13:33 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Does that mean I have to copy an paste all my responses?? The arguments are the same regardless of which forum they are in, and I belive that people should be aware of all the facts and not just take an aviation bias. Possibly it may be worth moving across the whole thread or else I suspect people will not fully understand the reasoning behind the scheme or the logic of someone loking at it from a non-aviation viewpoint.Not tyring to be awkward I promise :) :)
I was intending to have it in General Aviation as they may feel more towards this - due to them flying light aircraft.
I'll post it there and direct people to read it here first :)
Cheers
DME
By: - 10th February 2005 at 13:34 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Does that mean I have to copy an paste all my responses?? The arguments are the same regardless of which forum they are in, and I belive that people should be aware of all the facts and not just take an aviation bias. Possibly it may be worth moving across the whole thread or else I suspect people will not fully understand the reasoning behind the scheme or the logic of someone loking at it from a non-aviation viewpoint.Not tyring to be awkward I promise :) :)
But you've already responded here ?
I don't believe it's good practise to dump threads from one forum onto another without the permission of the appropriate forum moderator.
I shall seek their opinions ? ;)
By: - 10th February 2005 at 13:40 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Fine, I'll copy and paste myself then (if DME is permitted then I presume I am). It is simple, many people on these forums will not understand the arguments I have put forward unless they are themselves sailors. There is also a tendency not to look at all the facts but to become biased when some form of aviation appears at risk. By putting forward the agrument from the other side then people can make INFORMED decisions. It seems ludicrous if this is not permitted!
I know I may seem opposed to such ops at the Loch, but I have concluded in the thread by suggesting a way forward and I think that unless people understand the issues from both sides then they may not draw the same conclusion.
Posts: 862
By: DME - 10th February 2005 at 10:29
This is also on a few other forums, and I feel it has to be made as widely available as possible.
Some of you may be aware that the Loch Lomond National Park is trying to ban seaplanes. They have started a public consultation to seek views on the matter.
The Seaplane Association has a website which gives full details on how to participate in this public consultation. It also outlines the sheer hypocrisy and discrimination of the National Park. Please please go to
www.seaplaneassociation.org.uk
for more details.
Please please take the time and put in a submission.
Priorities? There are 4 seaplanes in the whole of Scotland, yet there are over 5400 boats on Loch Lomond. Many of the boat engines discharge diesel directly into the loch, and many of the boats dump sewerage into the loch. Seaplanes leave no trace of their visit and are used worldwide by environmental agencies for that exact reason. The National Park are picking on aviation as an easy target.
How long until the vocal anti-seaplane mob turn their sights on anyone flying over or through the National Park ? Make no mistake, this is the thin end of a very thick wedge, and if we don’t fight and defeat this first attempt, then every flyer may well have a bigger battle to fight in the future.
We look forward to hearing from you and gaining your support.
campaign@seaplaneassociation.org.uk
I regularly fly over Loch Lomond and it offers excellent views at all times of the year.
The commercial operation from Loch Lomond, given time, will offer a real interest for tourists and locals wishing to take a short flight, land on the banks and have a nice lunch etc etc.
I'd appreciate, if you feel for us flyers, to register your thoughts. If they stop Sea Planes - they may well decide to stop us General Aviation flyers from going over the park :mad:
Note to Moderator; is it possible to duplicate this in General Aviation as well?
Regards
DME