The National Capital Authority (NCA) oversees the development of Canberra, and is seeking feedback on a proposal to operate seaplanes on our central lake, Lake Burley Griffin. There has been one demonstration flight.
www.nca.gov.au/sites/default/files/consultation/NCA_Seaplanes_Discussion%20paper%20for%20public%20consultation_May2021_FA%20with%20attachments.pdf
Whilst this proposal may seem superficially attractive, I think it is absurdly dangerous to current lake users. 
The lake is not that large, and sees a lot of sailing and other water-based action in the non-Winter months. The planned take-off and landing area is in the middle of the designated sailing zone on the lake; no attempt is being made to segregate the competing activities via zoning. Or, maybe that will follow.
I will submit feedback to the NCA. Do you have any experiences you'd like to share of similar operations, such as Rose Bay and on the Swan River, where, I believe, there is a seaplane base?
That's nuts!! Sailed there for a bit years ago. Not a lot of room for planes and recreation!
Select to expand quoteBristol said..
The National Capital Authority (NCA) oversees the development of Canberra, and is seeking feedback on a proposal to operate seaplanes on our central lake, Lake Burley Griffin. There has been one demonstration flight.
hi Brian, thanks for the heads up.
it's interesting that for the demo flight and noise assessment Sydney Seaplanes flew a modern single engine Cessna Caravan however they plan to operate an old Twin Otter on LBG.
You would think a fully loaded twin would be noisier and use a lot more of the lake for take off and landing than an empty Cessna.
The seaplane landing on the swan river actually utilises perth waters, which is an area not frequented by the general sailing public, so its not really impacted us here in WA.
i've not visited Canberra, so not exactly familiar with the lake, but i'd be concerned if they'd nominated a known sailing area as landing ground for a sea plane. At best they'll cordon off a no go zone for it to land/take off (and even that isn't good, straight up you lose space, and in the event of an accident theres always risk of collisions) at worst chaos.
interestingly melville waters (in perth) where most sailing goes on, is a ditch zone for perth airport. Lets hope no planes need to ditch on a saturday arvo, they'd be hard pressed to find a big enough area without hitting yachts.
I lived in Canberra quite some time ago and used the Lake to sail my dinghy. At that time it was very strict about how which parts of the Lake were being used. For example, waterskiing was restricted to a smaller area on the other side of the bridge, completely away from recreational and competitive sailors. There was also a preference back then for the more eco friendly sports so noisy sports like waterskiing were not overly welcome. I imagine that an aircraft landing and taking off on the lake would be noisy and dangerous. It is pretty obvious that the major push for this is dollars. Today the profit margins take precedence over everything else. It sickens me that they are considering this for the Lake. It was such a wonderful place to sail and was very safe. Scenic flights around Canberra can easily be taken, plenty of operators at the airport. Furthermore, the water quality of the Lake is already questionable so why add another polluter into that environment. Finally, I would think that any take off to the east would have some serious safety issues. Any type of engine failure leaves few options about where to crash. Don't be fooled by the idea that two engines is safer. A fully loaded plane may not be able to stay airborne for long, even with two engines.
You are right Markscc. Cash is king with the governments. My municipality used to have 6 aircraft schools doing takeoff and landings. That demand was fueled by mainland Chinese students getting their commercial licenses. Pretty much every corner of the municipality was touched up with aircraft flying over my house every 45 seconds, from 7am to 11pm, every day of the year, except new year's day and Anzac day. When I first moved here, it wasn't too bad. But then the council approved 65% increase in activity a few months after I moved in. Then Covid's hit, and the municipality suddenly became livable. Hopefully the noise never returns back to how is was before.
Good luck with the plans in Canberra. I hope it doesn't affect you all too much.
Good luck with landing after rain events which can bring logs and other debris into the lake. Mention might also be made of the gusty wind conditions. The prevailing NW comes off a hot interior and bends around Mt Black Mountain. Which all makes for interesting sailing times. We do get easterly (nice) and Westerly (gusty) winds. Not sure how that all works for take offs, landings, and the taxi.
Accidents are vanishingly rare in aircraft operations. In most commercial air ports planes take off and land over densely packed urban areas. Seaplane operations could actually have far more room for extremely rare mishaps, but it's just really not a worry.
Why would not a seaplane taking off or landing not see and avoid sailboats etc, just like other water craft?
Seaplanes would not 'pollute' the water at all. Certainly less than motorboats or ski boats, and probably less than sailors pissing in the lake. Just not a factor.
Noise! This is the big furphy! Helicopters, jet transports, big trucks, motorbikes all pass very nearby or over LBG. Generally, the noise is quite low level and almost always quite brief. It fades into the background of your consciousness (unless you are OCD). Ask the people who live under busy airport approach and departure zones (I did as a Kid and honestly hardly ever noticed planes going over the house day and night at under 500') and that is an extreme example.
Lots of NIMBY, grumpy of men going off half cocked here I recon, and some live in another state FFS!. 
Well I hold Sailquik in high regard for his contribution to WS. So take my comments as a gentle nudge.
The argument that everyone else does it, is a well known fallacy. The idea of Canberra's planning was to scratch build what we assume.
For example, there are no motorboats nor ski boats on Canberra lakes. The only motors are electric or small boats tending rowing or sailing. And some sight seeing ferries.
True trucks do move around motorways near the lake. But the larger type mostly terminate at depots in the industrial areas.
All of that is bye the bye. The real action here will be with the Lake BG users group of sailing and rowing clubs. The NCA will no doubt weigh up the proposal, v. the lake heritage values v. what the current user groups think. And last time I looked, in Australia everyone can comment.
I'll support Sailquick on this one. I grew up under a flight path. You ain't heard nothing until you've been barnstormed by an aircraft powered by 4 double row radial engines. You could pack out Commonwealth avenue bridge and charge international tourists $40 just to cover their ears and listen. A Mars Martin would do the job but I don't think any are still flying. There's a PBY in Queensland still flying it would do.
Select to expand quotesailquik said..
Accidents are vanishingly rare in aircraft operations. In most commercial air ports planes take off and land over densely packed urban areas. Seaplane operations could actually have far more room for extremely rare mishaps, but it's just really not a worry.
Why would not a seaplane taking off or landing not see and avoid sailboats etc, just like other water craft?
Seaplanes would not 'pollute' the water at all. Certainly less than motorboats or ski boats, and probably less than sailors pissing in the lake. Just not a factor.
Noise! This is the big furphy! Helicopters, jet transports, big trucks, motorbikes all pass very nearby or over LBG. Generally, the noise is quite low level and almost always quite brief. It fades into the background of your consciousness (unless you are OCD). Ask the people who live under busy airport approach and departure zones (I did as a Kid and honestly hardly ever noticed planes going over the house day and night at under 500') and that is an extreme example.
Lots of NIMBY, grumpy of men going off half cocked here I recon, and some live in another state FFS!.
I kinda see where you're coming from, lotsa situations where an idea looks like its going to have a huge impact, but in reality its impact was minimal. Perhaps the perth sea plane is a good example of that, it was feared it was going to have an impact on other river users, because the chinese whispers started up, people weren't getting the full story. In reality they operate in an area where it really doesn't bother other river users.
But how would you feel about it if they announced they were going to set up shop smack bang in the middle of your local spot? Would you still be ok with it? Theres a well used sports park down the road from me (think ball sports all weekend) and a bowls club. The local council entertained the idea of a proposal from a private party to build a surf park that would take up half the park, and the bowls club (they actually approved it). There was a public uproar about it.
While a surf park down the road would've been kinda cool, they were simply going to turf out the current users of the area (which are more in the name of public amenity) so someone else could set up shop. Sound reasonable? In the end the council scrapped the idea since it was ratepayers putting the complaints in.
i guess only the current LBG users know enough of the area to know if it'll work or not, and that would mean checking in detail how they plan to do it. but introducing a seaplane wanting to land/take off in an already crowded spot straight up doesn't sound like a good idea. You don't have to be an aviator to know they require a lot of clear space to do it. One way or another, the current users will lose out.
early on in the planning is when other players in the area get to have their say. After they've set up shop is generally too late.
Select to expand quotesailquik said..
Lots of NIMBY, grumpy of men going off half cocked here I recon, and some live in another state FFS!.
it is our backyard and our only yard.
the lake is small. all the decent sailing happens in the same patch of water that they want to turn into a landing area and the commercial operator that wants us to go somewhere else lives in another state FFS.
Select to expand quoteLonglines said..
Good luck with landing after rain events which can bring logs and other debris into the lake. Mention might also be made of the gusty wind conditions. The prevailing NW comes off a hot interior and bends around Mt Black Mountain. Which all makes for interesting sailing times. We do get easterly (nice) and Westerly (gusty) winds. Not sure how that all works for take offs, landings, and the taxi.
Planes don't like landing or taking off with a tail wind. The designated runway can't be accessed from the east so that pretty much grounds them during good sailing breezes. Unless they are amphibious and can do the eastern approach/departure at Canberra airport.
Select to expand quoteIan K said..
Planes don't like landing or taking off with a tail wind. The designated runway can't be accessed from the east so that pretty much grounds them during good sailing breezes. Unless they are amphibious and can do the eastern approach/departure at Canberra airport.
hey Ian, i imagine that they will land/depart both east and west, here they are taking off to the east..
Let them use the lake on the condition that the anchor and run their engines on calm days so you can sail.
Select to expand quotefjdoug said..Ian K said..
Planes don't like landing or taking off with a tail wind. The designated runway can't be accessed from the east so that pretty much grounds them during good sailing breezes. Unless they are amphibious and can do the eastern approach/departure at Canberra airport.
hey Ian, i imagine that they will land/depart both east and west, here they are taking off to the east..
Hi Doug, I was going on the proposal linked from Brian's post which shows landing and takeoff to the west. I suppose Opti dinghys do get out in light wind. And the dragon boats etc. Is the runway shown long enough to clear the bridge? Can't have them revving up at blue gum point to take off in easterlies.
I know your post was tongue-in-cheek and light-hearted, sailquik. I appreciated it. Given your home state, the irony of interstate, grumpy old men going off half-cocked is not lost. Almost Gilbert and Sullivanesque. 
However, I feel I need to seriously address this rhetorical question (below) you asked.Select to expand quotesailquik said..
. . .
Why would not a seaplane taking off or landing not see and avoid sailboats etc, just like other water craft?
. . .
Why would not? Well, maybe because the "etc" in question is a foilboard. Foilboard performance changes all preconceived expectations as to what watercraft do. Foilboards can easily exceed double the apparent wind speed, point deeper, point higher, accelerate quicker. They leave no tell-tale wake. They are stealthy. In racing configuration, their performance is just "not normal".
So, consider a typical Spring afternoon in Canberra. The wind is blowing from the Nor-west, 15 knots, gusting to 25. There aren't many sailors out. The seaplane is on its final approach run, flying into the wind and, critically, into the sun. The chosen landing spot seems clear but the pilot's vision is restricted by the glare. The plane is being buffeted by the gusty conditions. The pilot is busy.
He's in fact too busy to notice the foilboard well to his side and on a converging course that will all too soon bring them together. They are each oblivious to the other's presence.
Result: the Canberra Windsurfing Community loses a colleague of the finest kind, a business loses an educated and respected employee, a mother and father lose a son, a wife loses a devoted husband, a daughter loses "the best dad ever". It chokes me to think that this might ever happen, and I pray to the deity of my choice that it never does.
That's why I think the concept is dumb.
Thats a bad idea for windsports as Doug says the west basin is the best part of the lake for wind.
Interesting how the link starts saying how valued the lake is for recreation.
Would the central basin work for the seaplane or are the bridgesas issue, it's been a long time since I lived in Canberra!
I don't know if a kiwi living in Auckland making an individual submission would make a difference? But as suggestion why not have wind sport community support petition?
Anyway photo from December 85
Unbelievable. These idiots at the NCA. Why not land near the Governor Generals house? Or I guess that might disturb the GG! So you can't operate a jet ski or power boat but a planes OK. Ah huh.
Well yes, you got it! I am a bit amused by all the indignation
But being from a whole other state (FFS 
) it has completely slipped my mind that LBG was a non motorised lake. 
. I agree, there is that.....
And I find it interesting that the proposal is for landing to the West and taking off to the East. Seaplanes may be slightly less vulnerable to landing and takeoffs in tailwinds, but that does seem very strange to me, and it suggests it would be very calm wind operation only. But they don't tend to like very choppy water either. 
I expect all you sail and silence Nazi's to be out there on you WOD's and Foilboards, peacefully blockading the landing strip in mass (quite) civil disobedience if they get this proposal up and running. Now that could be very interesting. 
(I suggest you use you oldest sails so it won't matter so much if the are shredded. )
I guess that means the Martin Mars fire fighting planes would not be welcome to load on the Lake if Canberra was threatened by another bushfire.
Oh well, it probably not big enough anyhow. 
Select to expand quotesailquik said..
Accidents are vanishingly rare in aircraft operations. In most commercial air ports planes take off and land over densely packed urban areas. Seaplane operations could actually have far more room for extremely rare mishaps, but it's just really not a worry.
Why would not a seaplane taking off or landing not see and avoid sailboats etc, just like other water craft?
Seaplanes would not 'pollute' the water at all. Certainly less than motorboats or ski boats, and probably less than sailors pissing in the lake. Just not a factor.
Noise! This is the big furphy! Helicopters, jet transports, big trucks, motorbikes all pass very nearby or over LBG. Generally, the noise is quite low level and almost always quite brief. It fades into the background of your consciousness (unless you are OCD). Ask the people who live under busy airport approach and departure zones (I did as a Kid and honestly hardly ever noticed planes going over the house day and night at under 500') and that is an extreme example.
Lots of NIMBY, grumpy of men going off half cocked here I recon, and some live in another state FFS!.
I am an experienced pilot and I have about 15 years experience in aviation maintenance. I question the validity of your opinions as they seem to be based upon limited exposure to the industry.
Aeroplanes are not in the habit of making drastic changes in direction, either during the take-off run or upon landing. There has to be clear margins and restricted areas for operations to be safe.
Lake Burley Griffin existed quite well without powerboats west of the bridge. Some water-skiers were grumpy but them's the rules.
The undersides of all aircraft have vents. This includes fuel and oil. Take a look at the next few planes that fly overhead and see how dirty they are under the fuselage and around the cowl. Normal operations.
Those who work around aeroplanes with the engines going need to wear hearing protection. Your assessments are somewhat subjective towards your own levels of comfort. Furthermore, many people thing that rock concerts are safe and wear no ear protection even though all the muso's and sound technicians are wearing sophisticated hearing protection.
I have flown over Canberra many times. I learned to fly there. The view is great but you can do just as well by going up Black Mountain or Mount Ainslie. Cheaper too.
Another data point. On Lake Washington in Washington state, USA, seaplanes and windsports seem to coexist without much problem. The bigger problem is power boaters and jetskiers who don't look left and right.
The Renton airport at the south end of the lake is where newly built 737s take off and land, AND where seaplanes also take off and land from the end of the runway. Now that's a coexistence: 737s and seaplanes in the same airspace. It is also the best place to grab a good thermal wind caused by the hot airport runway. Windsurfers go over there all the time. Yes, you do have to watch out an look around for the seaplanes. (The 737s land on the runway, fortunately.) Seaplanes also use other stretches of Lake Washington. Windsurfers use pretty much the entire lake. Since the lake abuts the entire eastern edge of Seattle, there are a lot windsurfers/kiters/foilers on the lake, and quite a lot of seaplanes. It all seems to work. Lake Union, right in the middle of Seattle, is much smaller, but has a MUCH higher density of sailing craft and seaplanes.
Select to expand quoteMarkSSC said..sailquik said..
Accidents are vanishingly rare in aircraft operations. In most commercial air ports planes take off and land over densely packed urban areas. Seaplane operations could actually have far more room for extremely rare mishaps, but it's just really not a worry.
Why would not a seaplane taking off or landing not see and avoid sailboats etc, just like other water craft?
Seaplanes would not 'pollute' the water at all. Certainly less than motorboats or ski boats, and probably less than sailors pissing in the lake. Just not a factor.
Noise! This is the big furphy! Helicopters, jet transports, big trucks, motorbikes all pass very nearby or over LBG. Generally, the noise is quite low level and almost always quite brief. It fades into the background of your consciousness (unless you are OCD). Ask the people who live under busy airport approach and departure zones (I did as a Kid and honestly hardly ever noticed planes going over the house day and night at under 500') and that is an extreme example.
Lots of NIMBY, grumpy of men going off half cocked here I recon, and some live in another state FFS!.
I am an experienced pilot and I have about 15 years experience in aviation maintenance. I question the validity of your opinions as they seem to be based upon limited exposure to the industry.
Aeroplanes are not in the habit of making drastic changes in direction, either during the take-off run or upon landing. There has to be clear margins and restricted areas for operations to be safe.
Lake Burley Griffin existed quite well without powerboats west of the bridge. Some water-skiers were grumpy but them's the rules.
The undersides of all aircraft have vents. This includes fuel and oil. Take a look at the next few planes that fly overhead and see how dirty they are under the fuselage and around the cowl. Normal operations.
Those who work around aeroplanes with the engines going need to wear hearing protection. Your assessments are somewhat subjective towards your own levels of comfort. Furthermore, many people thing that rock concerts are safe and wear no ear protection even though all the muso's and sound technicians are wearing sophisticated hearing protection.
I have flown over Canberra many times. I learned to fly there. The view is great but you can do just as well by going up Black Mountain or Mount Ainslie. Cheaper too.
You might be an experienced pilot, but you just flew straight into a cloud there, and came out upsidedown... Always trust your emoji instruments! ()
Select to expand quoteMarkSSC said..
I am an experienced pilot and I have about 15 years experience in aviation maintenance. I question the validity of your opinions as they seem to be based upon limited exposure to the industry.
Interesting. 
I am also a pilot, so my exposure to the industry is not so limited.
And those fuel and oil 'vents' are normally closed during operations. It's not like they constantly drip fuel and oil! If they did you would ground them. Any dark discolouring on the sides or underbelly of light aircraft is usually carbon residue from the exhaust.
Select to expand quotesailquik said..MarkSSC said..
I am an experienced pilot and I have about 15 years experience in aviation maintenance. I question the validity of your opinions as they seem to be based upon limited exposure to the industry.
Interesting. I am also a pilot, so my exposure to the industry is not so limited.
And those fuel and oil 'vents' are normally closed during operations. It's not like they constantly drip fuel and oil! If they did you would ground them. Any dark discolouring on the sides or underbelly of light aircraft is usually carbon residue from the exhaust.
I can't see the oil coming out of the odd seaplane being significant compared to what comes down stormwater drains off Canberra's roads. Not to mention the tefgel all those foilers must lose to the lake.
Select to expand quoteIan K said..I can't see the oil coming out of the odd seaplane being significant compared to what comes down stormwater drains off Canberra's roads. Not to mention the tefgel all those foilers must lose to the lake.
Oh yuk! 
Not to mention all the dog cat sheet!
Select to expand quoteIan K said..
. . . the proposal linked from Brian's post which shows landing and takeoff to the west . . .
and Select to expand quotesailquik said..
. . . I find it interesting that the proposal is for landing to the West and taking off to the East. Seaplanes may be slightly less vulnerable to landing and takeoffs in tailwinds . . .
There are two diagrams on page 24 of the NCA's proposal The caption on each diagram could have been better expressed as:-
Figure 5: Seaplane runway for westerly landing and OR easterly take-off, &
Figure 6: Seaplane runway for westerly take-off and OR easterly landing.
When windy, the pilot will land into the wind using the data from the appropriate figure (5 or 6). Later, he will take off into the wind using the data from the other figure (6 or 5).
When calm, the pilot can choose either direction/runway on which to land, and from which to take off.
On closer reading of the proposal it looks like a commuting service from Rose Bay to Parliament house that competes with the Botany bay to Canberra airport service is one of the attractions. In which case there might be quite a few flights planned. Could you play the carbon footprint card? The twin Otter, as well as having an annoying whistle, is STOL with floats. Both must be detrimental to passenger per kilometer per kg of CO2.
Dangerous? Try sailing in the Swan river. At least you'll know the direction the planes are coming from, exactly where they'll land and there's a good chance the pilot is sober.
Thank you Ian for the video. I think sea planes are evocative. The emotional part of me likes them. Also I am partial to the sound of radial engines (at a safe distance or on board). As a kid I saw Catalina's flying from Rose Bay. The stepped double concave hull fascinated (and I like the float sea planes design also). They have an attractive flying profile. In some parts of the world these are essential transport. So an obvious question for LBG is whether one set of recreation users should have priority over others. Or whether they can coexist. Probably given the limited realestate of LBG that may not be feasible. The proposed area which is usually downwind I know from hard experience can be a bit of a trap for the least competent sailor. In a blow the sea walls create a washing machine effect. Restarting can be a challenge. Other more competent sailors may not agree, but as a perpetual amateur, I can only comment on what I know.
Select to expand quotesailquik said..MarkSSC said..
I am an experienced pilot and I have about 15 years experience in aviation maintenance. I question the validity of your opinions as they seem to be based upon limited exposure to the industry.
Interesting. I am also a pilot, so my exposure to the industry is not so limited.
And those fuel and oil 'vents' are normally closed during operations. It's not like they constantly drip fuel and oil! If they did you would ground them. Any dark discolouring on the sides or underbelly of light aircraft is usually carbon residue from the exhaust.
Not true. Vents are a simple overflow device. It is very common for fuel or oil to vents during hooter conditions. We are not talking about large commercial aircraft that are more complex. Furthermore, carbon residues are more likely to be located near the engine exhaust. To your advantage you could argue that turbine powered aircraft, like the Caravan, is cleaner than a piston engine plane. To its detriment, jet fuel is very toxic so it is a no win situation.
The seaplane idea is a gimmick to make money. Why not just use a helicopter? They have been used successfully in this role and do not need a large space to take off and land. They also provide better viewing platforms for their passengers.
