Landing seaplane on the Thames?
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: 1000ft above you, giving you the bird!
Posts: 579
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
i did enjoy landing a single engine T67 M260 @ LCY - especially as on finals i had finger trouble and called LHR by mistake - still - she sounded top totty so was well worth it.... watching tony richards aerobating his one with canary wharf in the background was also a bit surreal
Guest
Posts: n/a
CAA publication CAP168 Lincensing of Aerodromes now contains a section on Water 'dromes Chapter 11. So it seems like those nice chaps in the Belgrano are ahead of the game. (for once)
Who owns water? I thought ownership was of the shore which dictated access from land. Any legal boating eagles care to clarify.
BTW Don't get me started on LCY's single engined policy. It's a NO unless they want some weekend, out of licensed hours, participation in open days etc., when it's suddenly "Come on Down!"
I wouldn't go even if paid.
Sir George Cayley
Who owns water? I thought ownership was of the shore which dictated access from land. Any legal boating eagles care to clarify.
BTW Don't get me started on LCY's single engined policy. It's a NO unless they want some weekend, out of licensed hours, participation in open days etc., when it's suddenly "Come on Down!"
I wouldn't go even if paid.
Sir George Cayley
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Aberdeen
Posts: 1,234
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The CAA's requirements have got a little more sensible in recent years for 'water dromes'. A few years ago you had to have a rescue vessel with firefighters and kit ......
I think it would be great if this sort of thing did happen but somehow I doubt it. You only have to see the opposition there has been on Loch Lomond to a single commercial seaplane to see the NIMBY element. Mind you it was rather amusing to find that in the Loch Lomond noise servey although the noise levels were measured as quite high the public response was they liked seeing the aircraft. Whereas the jet skis....
Of course Loch Lomond now has a huge noisy enforcement vessel operated by the park authority....
I think it would be great if this sort of thing did happen but somehow I doubt it. You only have to see the opposition there has been on Loch Lomond to a single commercial seaplane to see the NIMBY element. Mind you it was rather amusing to find that in the Loch Lomond noise servey although the noise levels were measured as quite high the public response was they liked seeing the aircraft. Whereas the jet skis....
Of course Loch Lomond now has a huge noisy enforcement vessel operated by the park authority....
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: ...back of the drag curve
Age: 61
Posts: 558
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sir George C wrote:
Sounds like somebody didn't get an invite.........
As far as i understand it, having flown several different types of single engined aircraft in, out and inverted from LCY, the annual open day is for the benefit of local residents in return for the inconvenience of living next to an international airstrip....The airport is unlicensed for that period only and the restrictions listed in the aerodrome license don't apply. Other than that, the last thing LCY need is SE GA types swanning around the airspace getting in the way of revenue earning flights.. Priority to Commercial flights??? You bet.
Have you asked Heathrow about their single engine policy? Much more to see there
BTW Don't get me started on LCY's single engined policy. It's a NO unless they want some weekend, out of licensed hours, participation in open days etc., when it's suddenly "Come on Down!"
As far as i understand it, having flown several different types of single engined aircraft in, out and inverted from LCY, the annual open day is for the benefit of local residents in return for the inconvenience of living next to an international airstrip....The airport is unlicensed for that period only and the restrictions listed in the aerodrome license don't apply. Other than that, the last thing LCY need is SE GA types swanning around the airspace getting in the way of revenue earning flights.. Priority to Commercial flights??? You bet.
Have you asked Heathrow about their single engine policy? Much more to see there
Guest
Posts: n/a
Yes but I've bin there, dun that etc.
No, I was actully invited by the LCY management to visit them and naturally wanted to use my business a/c for the 600nm round trip. Only to be told no.
And the CAT is compressed into tidal surges that give quieter periods. Hence their decision to allow Biz Jets to fill the gaps.
But I'm not bitter
Sir George Cayley
No, I was actully invited by the LCY management to visit them and naturally wanted to use my business a/c for the 600nm round trip. Only to be told no.
And the CAT is compressed into tidal surges that give quieter periods. Hence their decision to allow Biz Jets to fill the gaps.
But I'm not bitter
Sir George Cayley
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Los Angeles, USA
Age: 52
Posts: 1,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I know of three occasions where an aircraft has landed on the Thames. Keith Sissons did it in a Tiger Moth (got a picture somewhere), and also in a Cessna 185, G-BKMM which then taxied up to Tower Bridge. I have also seen the Kermit Weeks Short Sandringham, G-BJHS moored outside the Tower of London, so that has also landed there somewhere (can't believe it water taxied all the way from Southend!).
Sorry to dredge up.
Piaggio On The Thames - Key Publishing Ltd Aviation Forums
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Petersfield
Age: 66
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Another one...
A 201 Squadron Sunderland landed on the Thames and moored by the Tower of London in 1957 or 58 - round about the time the Sunderland was retired from UK service. Various photographs show the aeroplane by the Tower
The pilot was my wife's late father, who was OC 201 at the time. I don't know exactly where he landed: I shall ask my mother in law who I believe went aboard the Sunderland after it landed.
The pilot was my wife's late father, who was OC 201 at the time. I don't know exactly where he landed: I shall ask my mother in law who I believe went aboard the Sunderland after it landed.
I used to be a keen canoeist, and have done the length of the Thames several times.
Based upon that experience, I'd be very reluctant to consider the Thames through London for an air"field"- very fast and changeable currents, lots of huge heavy buoys just below the surface, and a fair regularity of large objects floating randomly down it. All solveable clearly, but at cost of a lot of manpower and restrictions.
But, there's a lot of water around London - there was I believe once a seaplane base at the Isle of Grain, there are various big reservoirs and the like - it doesn't seem unlikely to me that you could put a water aerodrome in or near London, just not on the Tidal Thames.
G
Based upon that experience, I'd be very reluctant to consider the Thames through London for an air"field"- very fast and changeable currents, lots of huge heavy buoys just below the surface, and a fair regularity of large objects floating randomly down it. All solveable clearly, but at cost of a lot of manpower and restrictions.
But, there's a lot of water around London - there was I believe once a seaplane base at the Isle of Grain, there are various big reservoirs and the like - it doesn't seem unlikely to me that you could put a water aerodrome in or near London, just not on the Tidal Thames.
G
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Los Angeles, USA
Age: 52
Posts: 1,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's so sad, because in greater New York there are seven, yes seven, seaplane bases for public use. On Manhattan alone there are at least three, one on the east side, one at the Wall Street heliport and one up in the Bronx. The WSH one doesn't allow you to park up, but you can drop passengers off (as long as you have a three blade prop for noise abatement). The one in the Bronx has a ramp and you can park up on land if you have an amphib. There's another two in Jersey by Teterboro and one by La Guardia. And even though it's not marked, there used to be a huge seaplane base at Floyd Bennet Field which is now disused just south of Manhattan in Jamiaca Bay. The NY Police helicopters operate out of there still and I'm sure one could get permission to use one of the multiple ramps there if one asked.
If they can, why can't London? Never gonna happen of course, just as a proper London heliport is never gonna happen. Not the right mentality here in Europe.
That said, I've searched and researched and I can't find anything that prohibits you from landing on the Thames. There's a 8km/h speed limit above Teddington, so that part is out. There's a 12kts speed limit to Wandsworth, so that's also out. But after that, there is no speed limit, so east of Tower Bridge you could possibly splash down if you get clearance through LCY D airspace. And even if you didn't, you could swoop under the 1500ft veil and get as far up as Dagenham before you had to set down. Then you can speed taxi into the Tower Bridge or beyond, potentially. Mooring will be the problem, but there seems to be a few places as you come in from looking at the maps.
If they can, why can't London? Never gonna happen of course, just as a proper London heliport is never gonna happen. Not the right mentality here in Europe.
That said, I've searched and researched and I can't find anything that prohibits you from landing on the Thames. There's a 8km/h speed limit above Teddington, so that part is out. There's a 12kts speed limit to Wandsworth, so that's also out. But after that, there is no speed limit, so east of Tower Bridge you could possibly splash down if you get clearance through LCY D airspace. And even if you didn't, you could swoop under the 1500ft veil and get as far up as Dagenham before you had to set down. Then you can speed taxi into the Tower Bridge or beyond, potentially. Mooring will be the problem, but there seems to be a few places as you come in from looking at the maps.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Los Angeles, USA
Age: 52
Posts: 1,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I love Lakes. I was dead set on buying one, but I simply couldn't afford it. Then a LA-4-180 with the carburetted engine came on the market, but everyone recommended me to wait until I could get a -200. Then my current aircraft came and put an end to that. One day, one day.
Flew four hrs in one last year and it was wonderful. It had 16,000hrs on it, but still did a great job. They're built tough. Do you own one?
Here's a little clip I did on the one abandoned at Elstree. So sad:
Flew four hrs in one last year and it was wonderful. It had 16,000hrs on it, but still did a great job. They're built tough. Do you own one?
Here's a little clip I did on the one abandoned at Elstree. So sad:
Procedures need to be sorted to make it easier to interact with LCY.
This little Twotter caused a bit of a problem for us on radar......
why would LCY airport want to slow their own operation down for it to land on water...
2 s
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 2,584
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Curious how quickly things get forgotten...
There used to be a water aerodrome marked on charts off Chatham a few years ago so flying off the Thames is by no means unprecedented. Is that aerodrome still there? If not when did it "go"?
LCY was forced to ban helicopters in its planning stages to satisfy the NIMBYS. Simple as that. Windsheer (sic) indeed! Since when were helicopters particularly susceptible to that?
There used to be a water aerodrome marked on charts off Chatham a few years ago so flying off the Thames is by no means unprecedented. Is that aerodrome still there? If not when did it "go"?
LCY was forced to ban helicopters in its planning stages to satisfy the NIMBYS. Simple as that. Windsheer (sic) indeed! Since when were helicopters particularly susceptible to that?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Los Angeles, USA
Age: 52
Posts: 1,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In the latest issue of Water Flying (the US's Seaplane Pilots Association magazine) there's a pretty good article about the Caravans on floats that operate into the Manhattan Seaplane base.
I can't help but lament - why can't London do the same on the Thames?
I can't help but lament - why can't London do the same on the Thames?
why can't London do the same on the Thames?
Seriously, to find a straight section, free of obstructions, and clear of LCY airport, you would have to go east as far as Gravesend, possibly right into the estuary south of Canvey Island.
I doubt that there's much demand for a seaplane base that far east of the City.
FBW
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Aberdeen
Posts: 1,234
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Getting a float rating should include flying curved approaches and takes off. It has to because as you have noted rivers are rarely straight. But really twisty rivers are really twisty! In comparison the Thames is all but straight.
The simple fact is that official-dom is unable to deal with these sorts of things. The jobsworths are terrified of making a decision and that means it is much easier to just say no.
Compare with Victoria where float planes land in the harbour - alongside the government buildings and directly adjacent to the channel. And why not? Any half competent pilot should be able to land on a runway and that is considerably narrower than any water landing area. Once you are waterborne you are simply another - somewhat vulnerable boat.
The simple fact is that official-dom is unable to deal with these sorts of things. The jobsworths are terrified of making a decision and that means it is much easier to just say no.
Compare with Victoria where float planes land in the harbour - alongside the government buildings and directly adjacent to the channel. And why not? Any half competent pilot should be able to land on a runway and that is considerably narrower than any water landing area. Once you are waterborne you are simply another - somewhat vulnerable boat.
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: UK
Age: 78
Posts: 249
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The ElstreeLA4-200 still seems to be on the Canadian Register.
Listed owner is a Philip Malloy from 2000 and still current.
Would possibly clean up OK, with a bit of work & money.
I believe as a port they have to accept a craft by law, so could only stop them on safety grounds
like Pool Harbour does. Having been on the Thames below tower bridge in a small boat the big passenger Cats (scary) produce very big waves, far more than a Lake. The police boats don't hang around either.
No speed limit, only must not endanger other craft. So just do it and see who complains.
Listed owner is a Philip Malloy from 2000 and still current.
Would possibly clean up OK, with a bit of work & money.
I believe as a port they have to accept a craft by law, so could only stop them on safety grounds
like Pool Harbour does. Having been on the Thames below tower bridge in a small boat the big passenger Cats (scary) produce very big waves, far more than a Lake. The police boats don't hang around either.
No speed limit, only must not endanger other craft. So just do it and see who complains.
Last edited by horizon flyer; 1st Oct 2014 at 21:35.
The Port of London Authority controls navigation on the Thames, and it seems logical to consider a floatplane to be 'navigating' when on the water.
Plenty of rules and regulations here:
Byelaws, Rules and Regulations Governing Navigation
Plenty of rules and regulations here:
Byelaws, Rules and Regulations Governing Navigation