Seaplane Base and runway 19 Mile Bay Proposed

[The Real BigGuy]

A few things to note:

1) the certificate is for a private base/runway, as opposed to a public facility and this will require all fly in pilots to obtain prior permission to land. This will minimize traffic.

2) the nh review only looks at the plan/site with regard to approach, departure, and runway size and fixed obstructions. It does not evaluate things like boat traffic, noise, wildlife habitat. Things outside their review parameters are the responsibility of other state/local agencies.

3) it is the responsibility of the pilot of a float plane to determine safe landing conditions and to make that determination taking into account boat traffic. The plane must get out of the way of the boat, not the other way around unless it is an emergency. If the pilot operates unsafely he/she can get their ticket pulled. (In this age of cell phones unsafe operation is pretty easy to document. If only 1 plane is using the base the landing/takeoff may be slightly delayed but the boat traffic I’ve observed in the bay isn’t significant enough to prevent safe operation.

4) The FAA has final review/say and is the agency that issues the final operational permit.

That said, I don’t like the idea. I think waterfront residents on the mainland & Farm & Chase Islands will be unfairly burdened with a tremendous amount of noise. Seaplane takeoffs at 100% throttle are very loud.

I think there is the potential for damage & injury from prop wash for the boats and people at the Pier 19 Association especially if the loading/parking dock ends up as a new pier off of the existing gas dock (which I believe is owned by the store, not the Association.) However, the store is a member of the Association and must be subject to the terms of the Association documents which may not allow the operation. The state may also not allow the installation of a new dock.

I can’t see the town allowing the use of the public dock for commercial purposes plus, the overhang of the float plane wing could interfere with truck/ambulance access to the fire boat.

There is also the question of the Loon population in the bay. While boats, even at high speed, can quickly maneuver to avoid them an airplane on approach/landing/takeoff doesn’t have that luxury.

My hope is that residents of 19 Mile Bay attend the town meetings on the subject to let their voices be heard and that others concerned voice their opinions to the FAA and other state agencies that may be involved in the final decision.


Sent from my iPhone using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app

[Descant]

As a (former) pilot, I'm amazed at some of the comments and negativity here. Yes, a plane makes some noise on take-off, but not more than many boats. The difference is, in a few seconds, at 80 mph the plane is gone. At 35 MPH the boat noise is there for a long time. Landing at idle throttle, hardly any noise. No wake, no erosion, no chewing up the milfoil, etc. etc. With all the McMansions around the ;lake, I'm surprised nobody has a helicopter. There's a sweet sound for you.

Just think, somebody could come along and start a wake-surfing school, doing donuts in the bay, 3 foot wakes, playing a 4000 watt stereo all day, etc. etc.

After a couple of days, you won't even be aware of a seaplane in the area.

[DEJ]

Originally Posted by Descant

As a (former) pilot, I'm amazed at some of the comments and negativity here. Yes, a plane makes some noise on take-off, but not more than many boats. The difference is, in a few seconds, at 80 mph the plane is gone. At 35 MPH the boat noise is there for a long time. Landing at idle throttle, hardly any noise. No wake, no erosion, no chewing up the milfoil, etc. etc. With all the McMansions around the ;lake, I'm surprised nobody has a helicopter. There's a sweet sound for you.

Just think, somebody could come along and start a wake-surfing school, doing donuts in the bay, 3 foot wakes, playing a 4000 watt stereo all day, etc. etc.

After a couple of days, you won't even be aware of a seaplane in the area.

When a plane is in the water it has to abide by the boating laws as it is considered a boat until in the air. So tell me when a plane is doing 80MPH while still in the water at takeoff how is this legal when the speed limit for boats is 45MPH?

[Seaplane Pilot]

Originally Posted by DEJ

When a plane is in the water it has to abide by the boating laws as it is considered a boat until in the air. So tell me when a plane is doing 80MPH while still in the water at takeoff how is this legal when the speed limit for boats is 45MPH?

Speed limit does not apply to a float plane. The same goes for a no wake zone. A float plane doesn’t have to abide by a no wake zone.

https://law.justia.com/codes/new-ham...ction270-13-a/

[DEJ]

Originally Posted by Seaplane Pilot

Speed limit does not apply to a float plane. The same goes for a no wake zone. A float plane doesn’t have to abide by a no wake zone.

https://law.justia.com/codes/new-ham...ction270-13-a/

Thanks, that is what I thought but could not find the law/code stating that.
I see you takeoff from mirror lake on occasion, pretty cool.

[FlyingScot]

Like RBG, I don't quite get the logic. Lots of boat traffic. Plus, why there? It's not any sort of destination, and there are other nearby places with much less potential conflict, such as Mirror Lake, as mentioned

[DEJ]

Originally Posted by FlyingScot

Like RBG, I don't quite get the logic. Lots of boat traffic. Plus, why there? It's not any sort of destination, and there are other nearby places with much less potential conflict, such as Mirror Lake, as mentioned

The store owner wants to partner with epic seaplane adventures and run a scenic airplane tours business from this location is my understanding.

[Just Wonderin]

Originally Posted by DEJ

The store owner wants to partner with epic seaplane adventures and run a scenic airplane tours business from this location is my understanding.

That is exactly their plan.

[chachee52]

Originally Posted by Descant

As a (former) pilot, I'm amazed at some of the comments and negativity here. Yes, a plane makes some noise on take-off, but not more than many boats. The difference is, in a few seconds, at 80 mph the plane is gone. At 35 MPH the boat noise is there for a long time. Landing at idle throttle, hardly any noise. No wake, no erosion, no chewing up the milfoil, etc. etc. With all the McMansions around the ;lake, I'm surprised nobody has a helicopter. There's a sweet sound for you.

Just think, somebody could come along and start a wake-surfing school, doing donuts in the bay, 3 foot wakes, playing a 4000 watt stereo all day, etc. etc.

After a couple of days, you won't even be aware of a seaplane in the area.

I agree, and about the helicopters, there's a few that I know of in the Alton area. I can think of 3 houses off the top of my head. They buzz the Broads often.
If it is truely just for a private plane, than more than likely it will only be for 1 plane? My friend lives on a small pond that has TONs of wake surfing boats that are always out on the pond, and a sea plane that takes off and lands at least every night for a short flight around. They never have any issues with "sharing" the water with the plane.
People need to stop worrying about change of things they are not used.
As for the docking at those docks, ok, I'm interested in that aspect of how that works. I don't know much about that area and the docks. But as for the "noise" and the "traffic" that's not an issue.

[P-3 Guy]

Originally Posted by Descant

With all the McMansions around the ;lake, I'm surprised nobody has a helicopter. There's a sweet sound for you.

Last August, this is how a potential boat buyer made his way to Shep Brown's to take a boat for a test ride.

[ApS]

Originally Posted by P-3 Guy

Last August, this is how a potential boat buyer made his way to Shep Brown's to take a boat for a test ride.

That emblem is the crest for Porsche automobiles. I'd like one, but I own two!

As for boat traffic, Dr. Libby flew a bigger floatplane out of the same area.

Although they can be moored for short periods, a floatplane would be happiest kept at a wooden RAMP. The gasoline hose would need to be long enough to reach the floatplane's wings.

[P-3 Guy]

Originally Posted by ApS

That emblem is the crest for Porsche automobiles. I'd like one, but I own two!

As for boat traffic, Dr. Libby flew a bigger floatplane out of the same area.

Although they can be moored for short periods, a floatplane would be happiest kept at a wooden RAMP. The gasoline hose would need to be long enough to reach the floatplane's wings.

The helicopter is a Robinson R44. No idea why there is a Porsche emblem on it.

[FlyingScot]

Tough to negotiate a discount when you arrive via chopper

[C-Bass]

I wonder if he will offer instruction there? I would sure like to add water wings to my cert someday. Can't think of a more fun and convenient place to do it.

[ApS]

Originally Posted by P-3 Guy

The helicopter is a Robinson R44. No idea why there is a Porsche emblem on it.

Leased by Porsche-USA?

[tis]

It's funny how people hate change. Everybody was upset when they closed the airport in Wolfeboro, but I bet if they wanted to open another one now everybody would have a fit.

[TheTimeTraveler]

I wonder if 19 Mile Bay was selected as a Seaplane Base and Runway because of the easy access to Gasoline?

Personally, I would think that 20 Mile Bay would be a better location for a Seaplane Base because of lessor boat traffic, however there is no gasoline access.

[C-Bass]

I guess one question would be despite having a gas pump there, unless they are pumping a 100LL into the boats, they will need the infrastructure (ie: a separate fuel farm) to fuel the aircraft. Unless something has dramatically changed, I believe an aircraft would be very unhappy drinking anything but a 100LL.

Lets not forget, when I park my Turbine Beaver on floats out there, I will need a fuel farm for Jet-A too.

[knowit]

The store owner and her pilot friend went to the town selectmen to ask to modify the town owned Union Wharf Pier. They wanted to cut down some pilings and even offered to do it themselves! The nerve! They never asked for permission
or offered to lease it. It’s almost like they thought they were entitled to use it. If they want to park the plane at their own gas dock, fine. I could care less. But I will mobilize all my resources to stop them from using the town pier. It’s not right. I am really starting to get a little tired of this store owner thinking they can throw their money around and block access to the docks. I and my friends will no longer shop there.

[MAXUM]

Whole thing seems like a dumb idea to me. Anyone with half a brain would come to the same conclusion, having planes and boats in a relatively confined area is an accident waiting to happen. The noise will not be welcomed - again if folks that are in the area complain of the noise that camp Belknap kids make this is going to be far louder and potentially offensive. Expecting or asking the town to make special docking accommodations for planes where there is no direct benefit to the town makes no sense.

Finally the store, hate to say it but the owners are screwed as they own a building, a postage stamp piece of property and have little to no control over their surroundings, not even the parking lot. That is and will always be a problem they cannot solve.

[knowit]

Add to the fact that they paid way too much for it and sunk another way too much amount in the renovation, the return on investment must be a 50 plus year schedule!
Oh it would have been so nice if Skelly’s went in there.

[Shreddy]

I'll play devil's advocate. I think the idea is pretty bad ass. Would be cool to have a seaplane business up this side of the lake. Operation of the seaplane itself shouldn't really have a direct impact on anyone boating as they still need to be cognizant of boaters out there. The noise comment has already been addressed in a previous post. Wharf seems like a reasonable spot but understand the frustrations of providing a spot here.

Most of these posts seem like NIMBY posts either (1) because they're not getting along with the new store owner due to other issues going on or (2) just not open to a new and fun local operation. Be concerned with safety all you want but there's inherent risk in almost everything we do. If you want to operate your life always considering worse case scenarios then I feel bad (especially since this sounds like a one plane operation). I have no dog in the fight but am local enough that I boat around there regularly and would never consider this a concern. Just throwing a different perspective out there.

[Seaplane Pilot]

Originally Posted by Shreddy

I'll play devil's advocate. I think the idea is pretty bad ass. Would be cool to have a seaplane business up this side of the lake. Operation of the seaplane itself shouldn't really have a direct impact on anyone boating as they still need to be cognizant of boaters out there. The noise comment has already been addressed in a previous post. Wharf seems like a reasonable spot but understand the frustrations of providing a spot here.

Most of these posts seem like NIMBY posts either (1) because they're not getting along with the new store owner due to other issues going on or (2) just not open to a new and fun local operation. Be concerned with safety all you want but there's inherent risk in almost everything we do. If you want to operate your life always considering worse case scenarios then I feel bad (especially since this sounds like a one plane operation). I have no dog in the fight but am local enough that I boat around there regularly and would never consider this a concern. Just throwing a different perspective out there.

I agree with you. (As I've said before, I have nothing to do with this seaplane business). Lakes Region Seaplane Tours operated for many years in Paugus Bay, which is exponentially busier than 19 Mile Bay no matter what the day or time of day. I'm not aware of any close calls or incidents between the seaplane and boaters during the entire time they operated in Paugus. Therefore, the "safety" argument is not based in reality. Some interesting reading can be found here:

https://www.faa.gov/regulations_poli...lane_handbook/

[Descant]

OMG!! They asked the Board of Selectmen ! The HOROR ! This obviously comes as a surprise, but if you want to do business or otherwise use town property for a picnic or a parade or anything else, you have to go through town officials. In this case, that's the BOS. So the seaplane operator did exactly what he was supposed to do. The BOS decided to plan a public hearing with notice to residents. They did exactly what they were supposed to do.
Being angry with either side for doing the proper thing is just plain silly.

[MAXUM]

Originally Posted by Shreddy

I'll play devil's advocate. I think the idea is pretty bad ass. Would be cool to have a seaplane business up this side of the lake. Operation of the seaplane itself shouldn't really have a direct impact on anyone boating as they still need to be cognizant of boaters out there. The noise comment has already been addressed in a previous post. Wharf seems like a reasonable spot but understand the frustrations of providing a spot here.

Most of these posts seem like NIMBY posts either (1) because they're not getting along with the new store owner due to other issues going on or (2) just not open to a new and fun local operation. Be concerned with safety all you want but there's inherent risk in almost everything we do. If you want to operate your life always considering worse case scenarios then I feel bad (especially since this sounds like a one plane operation). I have no dog in the fight but am local enough that I boat around there regularly and would never consider this a concern. Just throwing a different perspective out there.

I have no vested interest in the area so I don't care either way just speaking from a position of logic and reasonable thinking here. I don't exactly know the location of the proposed landing area BUT if it is anywhere in the bay it just seems to small to be safe. Consider the entrance is not exactly huge, if anything it's a bit of a pinch point. Plane captains can be as safe as can be but think about the moron boaters who either are unaware or don't care a plane is on final and thinks they have the right of way. I'm not a pilot but I would imagine there is only so much that can be done to quickly react in a wave off situation.

If the landing strip is outside the bay with the planes taxi in that seems a little more safe, again think worst case scenario where a plane comes in and for whatever reason has a problem and crashes - how much open area is there free and clear of people, houses, boats, etc... to where no collateral damage is done, or is unlikely.

Ideally it would make sense to demark the landing area so at least boaters would be aware of the landing area. Not that all boaters understand the already existing markers on the lake just sayin.

Far as the dock and land situation it's a complete mess I can't see how well it would work trying to get planes into that town dock even if the town said OK. Seems like it's a liability nightmare to be honest. Now having them park along the shore\beach along 109 would make more sense to me but I don't know if that is possible. At least it would keep the planes and boats from getting mixed up and avoid a possible accident.

Frankly I can see it possible it could work but much thought would need to be given to the logistics.

[FlyingScot]

Originally Posted by MAXUM

I have no vested interest in the area so I don't care either way just speaking from a position of logic and reasonable thinking here. I don't exactly know the location of the proposed landing area BUT if it is anywhere in the bay it just seems to small to be safe. Consider the entrance is not exactly huge, if anything it's a bit of a pinch point. Plane captains can be as safe as can be but think about the moron boaters who either are unaware or don't care a plane is on final and thinks they have the right of way. I'm not a pilot but I would imagine there is only so much that can be done to quickly react in a wave off situation.

If the landing strip is outside the bay with the planes taxi in that seems a little more safe, again think worst case scenario where a plane comes in and for whatever reason has a problem and crashes - how much open area is there free and clear of people, houses, boats, etc... to where no collateral damage is done, or is unlikely.

Ideally it would make sense to demark the landing area so at least boaters would be aware of the landing area. Not that all boaters understand the already existing markers on the lake just sayin.

Far as the dock and land situation it's a complete mess I can't see how well it would work trying to get planes into that town dock even if the town said OK. Seems like it's a liability nightmare to be honest. Now having them park along the shore\beach along 109 would make more sense to me but I don't know if that is possible. At least it would keep the planes and boats from getting mixed up and avoid a possible accident.

Frankly I can see it possible it could work but much thought would need to be given to the logistics.

I'm here with my sailboat a couple of times a month, and I agree. I would would add wind speed and direction to the concerns you lay out--a complicating issue for both sailors and small planes that can often prevent both from going in the direction they would prefer. It's just too tight in there to add planes into the mix without a real problem.

[FlyingScot]

Updating my previous post with more specifics, now that I've watched some of the video posted by CowTimes. The pilot consultant to the store owner says that that planes cannot land within 500' of land of 300' of a moving vessel. So obviously they are landing west of Chases Island, and looking for a landing area that is 200 yards across with zero boats. I don't know the length of the runway required, maybe SP can weigh in. But just based on width, I can't imagine a legal landing on a weekend in the summer.

The store owner reminds me of the Dive guys. Whether you like their initiatives or not, it's easy to see how they dream big but don't really think about the pesky details required for success.

[Seaplane Pilot]

Originally Posted by FlyingScot

Updating my previous post with more specifics, now that I've watched some of the video posted by CowTimes. The pilot consultant to the store owner says that that planes cannot land within 500' of land of 300' of a moving vessel. So obviously they are landing west of Chases Island, and looking for a landing area that is 200 yards across with zero boats. I don't know the length of the runway required, maybe SP can weigh in. But just based on width, I can't imagine a legal landing on a weekend in the summer.

This is covered by Title 14 CFR 91.119, and isn't specific to seaplanes. Here's some related information:

https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org...g_Aircraft.pdf

http://c-spa.org/v2/uploads/SPA_Wate...y_Oct2010s.pdf

[chasedawg]

Originally Posted by FlyingScot

Updating my previous post with more specifics, now that I've watched some of the video posted by CowTimes. The pilot consultant to the store owner says that that planes cannot land within 500' of land of 300' of a moving vessel. So obviously they are landing west of Chases Island, and looking for a landing area that is 200 yards across with zero boats. I don't know the length of the runway required, maybe SP can weigh in. But just based on width, I can't imagine a legal landing on a weekend in the summer.

The store owner reminds me of the Dive guys. Whether you like their initiatives or not, it's easy to see how they dream big but don't really think about the pesky details required for success.

I heard the same description of the landing area. There is not enough room to land and take off with those measurements in 19 mile bay at anytime.. We do have had a seaplane land and take off along the north side of chase point. From Camp Belknap to the end of Chase Point. That is when there are no boats in sight. I just can't image any seaplane taking off or landing in that area. How did the state approve this petition? Who came out and measured or better yet observe the kind of boat traffic there are during the week and the weekends.

Any one concerned about the loons and baby chicks. The Farm Island development certainly got a lot of attention concerning loons nesting. This needs much more investigation and proof points.

[SAB1]

Originally Posted by MAXUM

Whole thing seems like a dumb idea to me. Anyone with half a brain would come to the same conclusion, having planes and boats in a relatively confined area is an accident waiting to happen. The noise will not be welcomed - again if folks that are in the area complain of the noise that camp Belknap kids make this is going to be far louder and potentially offensive. Expecting or asking the town to make special docking accommodations for planes where there is no direct benefit to the town makes no sense.

Finally the store, hate to say it but the owners are screwed as they own a building, a postage stamp piece of property and have little to no control over their surroundings, not even the parking lot. That is and will always be a problem they cannot solve.

Spot on! Could'nt have said it better. The Seaplane thing is just another idea to try to get people there and make the store prosper. Heck I want them to succeed but IMO its just a matter of time. Nothing has survived well for years there and now with less of a docking area and minimal parking the writing is on the wall. Keeping that place open in the winter is just going to net a loss. Not enuff business/people around for that.

[knowit]

They didn't just go to the selectmen, They got the state permit then they went to the selectmen in an obvious attempt to avoid going to public hearing which they know will not pass. Even one of the selectmen said to them it seems like you are doing this a bit underhanded. He also said it would have been better to come to them first. Thankfully our selectmen see through her entitled ways. Just because you have money, you do not make the rules.

I am not against the seaplanes, just using town owned property for her money making dreams.

[owenoutdoors]

Originally Posted by knowit

They didn't just go to the selectmen, They got the state permit then they went to the selectmen in an obvious attempt to avoid going to public hearing which they know will not pass. Even one of the selectmen said to them it seems like you are doing this a bit underhanded. He also said it would have been better to come to them first. Thankfully our selectmen see through her entitled ways. Just because you have money, you do not make the rules.

I am not against the seaplanes, just using town owned property for her money making dreams.

this bay is everyones! Them asking the town for a sea plane dock spot, is like me asking the town for spot to leave my jet ski . The madness that will happen during the winter with fisherman I can only imagine...it is the most popular bay during the winter months. Very dangerous for a runway.

[CowTimes]

Originally Posted by owenoutdoors

this bay is everyones! Them asking the town for a sea plane dock spot, is like me asking the town for spot to leave my jet ski

Have to disagree. This is very different. What is being proposed (at least until the selectmen rightfully pointed out the problems with it) is a commercial use of part of the town wharf, without any compensation to the town, without putting it out to bid, and without addressing substantial liability issues if god forbid there was an accident. And that is before addressing the real practical issues of emergency vehicle access the selectmen are concerned about.

I would suggest that folks interested in this issue take the time to watch the YouTube video of the selectmen’s meeting where this was discussed: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cgOoOKovOys

What struck me most was the blank check the store and plane operator wanted from the town, and without any actual plans or proposals in place. There was lots of bobbing and weaving around what it would be used for, and pushing to get the selectmen to approve it without any public input, even after the selectmen repeatedly raised the problems with doing so. There was discussion of things from seaplane festivals, to potential private charters dropping off area residents commuting from Boston or NYC, to individual planes coming for an ice cream, and countless other potential uses of the seaplane base. And most perplexing to me is that the store owner—who seems to have no aviation experience—would be the one that makes decisions about which planes can and can’t land and dock at the town wharf. We’re supposed to believe that the store is going to tell a plane coming to do business at the store not to land because the bay is too busy?

And as for the potential alternative of the store building additional dock area next to the gas pumps, it would be interesting to see actual plans for such a proposal. One would need to see the proximity to the boat slips and gas dock where boats gas up (not planes, at least not without installing a second fuel tank/pump, that almost certainly would not be permitted by the state), as there are unquestionably safety issues there. And then you have a state highway right there, and you can’t have wings of airplanes hanging over the highway. So lots of unanswered questions, and that is all, of course, before whatever state process would be required for the shoreland issues.

And while we’re on the discussion of the store adding additional dock space, if that is a real possibility, why the heck is the store trying to shake down the dock owners to use their private dock area for store customers if the store could just build their own additional docking area?

[owenoutdoors]

Originally Posted by CowTimes

Have to disagree. This is very different. What is being proposed (at least until the selectmen rightfully pointed out the problems with it) is a commercial use of part of the town wharf, without any compensation to the town, without putting it out to bid, and without addressing substantial liability issues if god forbid there was an accident. And that is before addressing the real practical issues of emergency vehicle access the selectmen are concerned about.

I would suggest that folks interested in this issue take the time to watch the YouTube video of the selectmen’s meeting where this was discussed: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cgOoOKovOys

Yes I agree I was just overly simplifying the comparison. Either scenario is ridiculous in my opinion.

Thank you for the video share. I combed through a portion of it, but here are my favorite quotes

"this is a process, so I was just hoping that I can get your (town) help and just get going to not lose the season"
"you help me I help you"
"one way or another we are going to do it"

Sounds like entitlement to me. We all have to go through the process for a dock and no one deserves special treatment from the town. Especially a commercial business. Selectman need to kill this. Entertaining it is idiotic and disservice to the residents of tuftonboro

[knowit]

Now we all are seeing how entitled the store owner thinks she is. Watch video of the meeting very closely. Her comments are sickening. She thinks cus she overpaid for a store that will never return her investment it is somehow the town’s fault and the town owes this to her?

[owenoutdoors]

Originally Posted by The Real BigGuy

A few things to note:

1) the certificate is for a private base/runway, as opposed to a public facility and this will require all fly in pilots to obtain prior permission to land. This will minimize traffic.

2) the nh review only looks at the plan/site with regard to approach, departure, and runway size and fixed obstructions. It does not evaluate things like boat traffic, noise, wildlife habitat. Things outside their review parameters are the responsibility of other state/local agencies.

3) it is the responsibility of the pilot of a float plane to determine safe landing conditions and to make that determination taking into account boat traffic. The plane must get out of the way of the boat, not the other way around unless it is an emergency. If the pilot operates unsafely he/she can get their ticket pulled. (In this age of cell phones unsafe operation is pretty easy to document. If only 1 plane is using the base the landing/takeoff may be slightly delayed but the boat traffic I’ve observed in the bay isn’t significant enough to prevent safe operation.

4) The FAA has final review/say and is the agency that issues the final operational permit.

That said, I don’t like the idea. I think waterfront residents on the mainland & Farm & Chase Islands will be unfairly burdened with a tremendous amount of noise. Seaplane takeoffs at 100% throttle are very loud.

I think there is the potential for damage & injury from prop wash for the boats and people at the Pier 19 Association especially if the loading/parking dock ends up as a new pier off of the existing gas dock (which I believe is owned by the store, not the Association.) However, the store is a member of the Association and must be subject to the terms of the Association documents which may not allow the operation. The state may also not allow the installation of a new dock.

I can’t see the town allowing the use of the public dock for commercial purposes plus, the overhang of the float plane wing could interfere with truck/ambulance access to the fire boat.

There is also the question of the Loon population in the bay. While boats, even at high speed, can quickly maneuver to avoid them an airplane on approach/landing/takeoff doesn’t have that luxury.

My hope is that residents of 19 Mile Bay attend the town meetings on the subject to let their voices be heard and that others concerned voice their opinions to the FAA and other state agencies that may be involved in the final decision.


Sent from my iPhone using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app

100% agree with your take. We all can't let this pass under the radar.

[knowit]

No seaplane dock on union wharf!

[chasedawg]

Originally Posted by knowit

No seaplane dock on union wharf!

No

No I agree. But what about allowing seaplane dock or any boat dock off the proposed gas docks of the store? Very simple relieve the pressure of the store demanding to use their own association docks. which will not happen