Deano777, no problem. That’s just what I was looking for. I do find it safer flying ‘my way’ into that specific aerodrome as it keeps me away from traffic but when flying into an airfield I’ve not been to I’ll try your method of drawing the approach on my plog.

Cheers

DME

It seems you can’t be happy at Loch Lomond unless you’re unhappy about someone doing something you don’t like ! 😀

Liked that one :p

DME

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