Landing seaplane on the Thames?
 

I read about the small greek airline AirSea Lines landing on hte Thames with their float equipped Twin Otter. Apparently they plan to start a couple of lines going to North Wales and the Peak district. And I was wondering - are you allowed to land on the Thames with a floatplane, or does iot require special permission?

I would think that there would be little to no chance of approval ever being granted due to the practical aspects of such an operation.
Any area of the Thames which may be commercially viable from a passenger viewpoint will almost certainly already be full of shipping of various kinds, there are very few - if any - areas within this area which could be developed for seaplane activity and the area is already a very busy one with regard to aviation.

That aside, the proposed destinations are unique but not exactly what you would have imagined being commercially viable.

I think someone has been on the Ouzo.

Great place the UK.

If the rules don't specifically say you can do it - then obviously you cann't!

Not getting at anyone but it is interesting the mindset that we seem to have. Try Victoria harbour in British Columbia - rather busier than the Thames has been for the last 100 years. With scheduled flights turning finals over the top of the parliament building. and landing in the main channel of the harbour.

But you're right it'll never happen here.

I think there were all sorts of 'special arrangements' worked out for that visit, although given that Thames are pretty good with transists I would have hoped it was easy enough.

as to commercial viability - I would guess that depends on where all those City bonuses are being spent - surely not N.Wales and the Peak District?

Dont be so quick to dismiss the potential of this operation. Take an aerial look at London city airport and you will see a very nice water landing strip to the north of Rwy 28/10
The facilities provided by the airport base would obviously be invaluable to such an operation and as such it would make perfect sense to operate from such a base.
[IMG]http://img502.imageshack.us/img502/7721/picture2ko0.png[/IMG]

G-ASAX wrote:
Wrong...! It's actually the other way round. BUT, I suspect you'd need the permission of the Port of London Authority, and clearance to land in a congested area (and restricted if Central London).

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!).

During the past year, the CAA have also given permission to land a Twin Otter in the Royal Victoria Dock, so it can be done.

Probably just another case of people thinking themselves into it being too difficult.

NikNak wrote:
Not anymore. The abcense of shipping on the Thames downstream of Greenwich is very noticable, with only a few 'commercial' movements per day. Ferries and pleasure craft, however do feature, but it's hardly busy!

Ah but could you taxy a seaplane through the Thames Barrier?

I believe that during the 1940s/50s there was an airport (or waterport? What's the correct term for an airport with a water runway?) close to Tower Bridge with a couple of scheduled operations. Can't remember the details.

It coule be viable but would the CAA allow it?

CapCon

QUOTE'Ah but could you taxy a seaplane through the Thames Barrier?'

Not sure why you wopuld ever want to even if you could.. To make this sevice interesting the landing area needs to be close in to London. The water strip at London city is perfect and I have a suspicious feeling it is within the perimeter of the London City Airport property boundary.

I imagine it would work as it looks like there is about 1600mts x 100mts available.

Shouldn't be a problem even for Kermit Weeks if he really needed to:

"Spans C, D, E and F are 61m wide with a depth of 5.8m below Chart Datum."

Sunderland wingspan is 34.4 m

By definition it's just an Aerodrome!

Any area of land or water designed, equipped, set apart or commonly used for affording facilities for the landing and departure of aircraft. (CAP 493 Glossary)

On the chart they are called "Water AD" there are lots of em up here.

Otherwise known as "lochs"?:}

Absolutely, but with a blue ring designating as legal to splash into.

That's it - since I'm moving to Hastings but need to be in London a couple of times a week I'm buying a Lake LA4-200 Renegade. Tie her to the pier in Hastings and then tie her to HMS Belfast's anchor chain when I'm in London..:}

Thruth is, the Thames isn't very heavily trafficked anymore. It could easily accomodate some seaplane movement to the East. It's also insanely wide there, so there's plenty of room.

And isn´t 61 m the span of Tower Bridge also, while open?

Anyway, Hughes Hercules would have problems. Saunders-Roe Princess, too. And Martin Mars probably does not have necessary clearance, either.

Seen at Biggin Hill at the end of the week:

http://www.pbase.com/kbmphotography/image/69910060.jpg

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... why not just land on the black stuff???

What is it with LCY anyway? They won't allow helicopters or smaller aircraft. Why are they so a**l?

I believe they are so A**l because of how central it is to London. The approach to LCY is not the standard 3 degree..I think it is 7degree, hence you feel like you are suka diving the runway.

If your single engine spamcan went quiet upfront it could all go terribly wrong, and with Canary Wharf housing some of Europes major communications hubs It would not be a clever idea to allow such a risk.

At least with multi engine you have some sort of chance of staying straight and level or some form of powered approach.

As for helicopters I cannot explain this, maybe there is a lot of windsheer due to the builings around the airport.

The minimum landing fee at LCY is £375 (£750 at peak times) inclusive of 40 mins parking. After the first 40mins, parking is charged at a minimum of £60 per hour, rising to £240 per hour for a prime stand at peak times. All aircraft using the Airport must be of an approved type, and all pilots must hold a Commercial or Air Transport Pilots Licence.

Not really the place for a PPL jolly! ;)

I thought the difference between Scotland and England was that is was legal to "splash in" anywhere in Scotland.

Why?

Bit more general info and background in The Times today

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

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!":* :mad:

I wouldn't go even if paid.

Sir George Cayley

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....

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:E

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:ok:

Sir George Cayley

Well, here's a fourth. A Piaggio P.136 Royal Gull on a sales tour in the late 50's. Registration I-GULL. Pictures of it taxiing under the Tower Bridge and mooring in front of the Tower.

Sorry to dredge up.

Piaggio On The Thames - Key Publishing Ltd Aviation Forums

http://db.tt/y0g5eGH

Of course it can't be done.....

:p

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.

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

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 someone can identify a ramp, and the airspace/hazards associated with a particular place, I wouldn't rule out giving it a shot. Have access to the toys!

http://db.tt/3lCmIh1

:E

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:

Quite possibly, but...
...why should that be? Just one aircraft operating from what, in effect, is a subsidiary aerodrome?
And who exactly is "LCY" in this context to decide whether or not to accommodate one extra aircaft? If that requires a gap, for example, in LCY arrivals, so be it.

2 s

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?

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?

Because it's all twisty!

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

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 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.

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