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?

Bristol 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.

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

Longlines 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.

Let them use the lake on the condition that the anchor and run their engines on calm days so you can sail.

Fly into the airport you lazy people, its 5 kilometres away !!!

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

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.

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.

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.

Ian 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!

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.

sailquik 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.