Question for floatplane pilots or those familiar with the rules

[es330td]

Can a float plane land on a body of water inside a city, more
specifically, could one land here:
http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=33.934957,-84.250739&spn=0.012551,0.019956&t=h&z=16&om=0

Note: the body of water is privately owned and in case you were
wondering, that is the building in which I work. The land on the NW
end of the lake is covered with bushes that are only 3-4 feet tall.

[Gig 601XL Builder[_2_]]

es330td wrote:
> Can a float plane land on a body of water inside a city, more
> specifically, could one land here:
> http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=33.934957,-84.250739&spn=0.012551,0.019956&t=h&z=16&om=0
>
> Note: the body of water is privately owned and in case you were
> wondering, that is the building in which I work. The land on the NW
> end of the lake is covered with bushes that are only 3-4 feet tall.

As far as the FAA is concerned yes. Local, county or state laws may not
allow it though.

[Frank Stutzman[_2_]]

Gig 601XL Builder > wrote:
> es330td wrote:
>> Can a float plane land on a body of water inside a city, more
>> specifically, could one land here:
>> http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=33.934957,-84.250739&spn=0.012551,0.019956&t=h&z=16&om=0
>>
>> Note: the body of water is privately owned and in case you were
>> wondering, that is the building in which I work. The land on the NW
>> end of the lake is covered with bushes that are only 3-4 feet tall.
>
> As far as the FAA is concerned yes. Local, county or state laws may not
> allow it though.

And I am guessing that you don't own the building in which you work.
If thats the case I think your employer might take a dim view of this.
Or more correctly, your employers insurance carrier might take a very
dim view of this.

--
Frank Stutzman
Bonanza N494B "Hula Girl"
Boise, ID

[es330td]

On Jan 31, 10:34*am, Frank Stutzman >
wrote:
> Gig 601XL Builder > wrote:
>
> And I am guessing that you don't own the building in which you work.
> If thats the case I think your employer might take a dim view of this.
> Or more correctly, your employers insurance carrier might take a very
> dim view of this.
>
You are correct; I don't own the building though the building owner
does own the land (and body of water.) I figured I probably couldn't
land there, but if there was any possibility I could fly to work I
should at least find out.

[xyzzy]

On Jan 31, 12:20 pm, es330td > wrote:
> On Jan 31, 10:34 am, Frank Stutzman >
> wrote:> Gig 601XL Builder > wrote:
>
> > And I am guessing that you don't own the building in which you work.
> > If thats the case I think your employer might take a dim view of this.
> > Or more correctly, your employers insurance carrier might take a very
> > dim view of this.
>
> You are correct; I don't own the building though the building owner
> does own the land (and body of water.) I figured I probably couldn't
> land there, but if there was any possibility I could fly to work I
> should at least find out.

that pond looks awfully small. Looks like less than 1000 feet long and
curved. You'd need to be a pretty skilled floatplane pilot to land
and takeoff there.

[es330td]

On Jan 31, 12:59*pm, xyzzy > wrote:
> On Jan 31, 12:20 pm, es330td > wrote:
>
> > On Jan 31, 10:34 am, Frank Stutzman >
> > wrote:> Gig 601XL Builder > wrote:
>
> > > And I am guessing that you don't own the building in which you work.
> > > If thats the case I think your employer might take a dim view of this.
> > > Or more correctly, your employers insurance carrier might take a very
> > > dim view of this.
>
> > You are correct; I don't own the building though the building owner
> > does own the land (and body of water.) *I figured I probably couldn't
> > land there, but if there was any possibility I could fly to work I
> > should at least find out.
>
> that pond looks awfully small. Looks like less than 1000 feet long and
> curved. *You'd need to be a pretty skilled floatplane pilot to land
> and takeoff there.

I have no idea how much space it takes to land or take off in a
floatplane. It would only be me in the plane and it would be some
kind of lightweight kitplane so in the event it were permissable to
land a plane there I would find the perfect plane to get me in and
out. I didn't even know if this is something worth pursuing. It
sounds like it isn't.

As an aside, I ran into the facilities manager in the hallway this
morning. He told me the pond is actually filling in and the owner has
no plans to dredge it because someday after it fills in it will be
usable land. Flying in there would be a temporary solution anyway.

[Bob Gardner]

A truism applicable to both land and seaplanes: You can get into a place
that you can't get out of.

Bob Gardner

"es330td" > wrote in message
...
On Jan 31, 12:59 pm, xyzzy > wrote:
> On Jan 31, 12:20 pm, es330td > wrote:
>
> > On Jan 31, 10:34 am, Frank Stutzman >
> > wrote:> Gig 601XL Builder > wrote:
>
> > > And I am guessing that you don't own the building in which you work.
> > > If thats the case I think your employer might take a dim view of this.
> > > Or more correctly, your employers insurance carrier might take a very
> > > dim view of this.
>
> > You are correct; I don't own the building though the building owner
> > does own the land (and body of water.) I figured I probably couldn't
> > land there, but if there was any possibility I could fly to work I
> > should at least find out.
>
> that pond looks awfully small. Looks like less than 1000 feet long and
> curved. You'd need to be a pretty skilled floatplane pilot to land
> and takeoff there.

I have no idea how much space it takes to land or take off in a
floatplane. It would only be me in the plane and it would be some
kind of lightweight kitplane so in the event it were permissable to
land a plane there I would find the perfect plane to get me in and
out. I didn't even know if this is something worth pursuing. It
sounds like it isn't.

As an aside, I ran into the facilities manager in the hallway this
morning. He told me the pond is actually filling in and the owner has
no plans to dredge it because someday after it fills in it will be
usable land. Flying in there would be a temporary solution anyway.

[Robert M. Gary]

On Jan 31, 2:17*pm, "Bob Gardner" > wrote:
> A truism applicable to both land and seaplanes: You can get into a place
> that you can't get out of.

In a sea plane is kind off cool in that if you set it down right on
the water and pull the power it comes off the step pretty quick. Once
off the step its like speed brakes. Taking off almost has a bit of a
safety factor built in. It takes more power to get on the step than to
take off. So if you find yourself nearing the end of the water and
you're not on the step you know you aren't going to take off. Pulling
back power results in a very quick near-stop.

-Robert

[xxx]

On Jan 31, 6:24 am, es330td > wrote:
> Can a float plane land on a body of water inside a city, more
> specifically, could one land here:http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=33.934957,-84.250739&spn=0.012551,...
>
> Note: the body of water is privately owned and in case you were
> wondering, that is the building in which I work. The land on the NW
> end of the lake is covered with bushes that are only 3-4 feet tall.

The rule of thumb is that you can land a seaplane anywhere you can
legally put a power boat. This rules out a few reservoirs but most
bodies of water are OK. Some parts of some lakes are off-limits due to
safety concerns for swimmers, etc.

The Seaplane Pilots Organization http://www.seaplanes.org publishes a
national directory with a lot of detail on landing sites all over the
country.

On private land, you'd just need permission from the landowner,
assuming you can get there from the air without violating any FARs.
What some ignorant, fearful local law enforcement type would think is
another story.

I wouldn't try it if the pond is much less than 3,000 ft.

[es330td]

> I wouldn't try it if the pond is much less than 3,000 ft.

I think it's only about 1000 feet. Funny how things that look big on
the ground look really small when you think about putting a plane down
on it.

[Robert M. Gary]

On Feb 6, 1:14*pm, es330td > wrote:
> > I wouldn't try it if the pond is much less than 3,000 ft.
>
> I think it's only about 1000 feet. *Funny how things that look big on
> the ground look really small when you think about putting a plane down
> on it.

Depending on the plane and the winds (are you limited what directions
you can take off) 1000 feet may be just fine.

-robert