Planes land in hot water on frozen Lake Calhoun

twdeckard

Pre-takeoff checklist
Joined
Jun 7, 2008
Messages
268
Location
Minneapolis
Display Name

Display name:
twdeckard
http://www.startribune.com/local/81162897.html?elr=KArks7PYDiaK7DUHPYDiaK7DUiD3aPc:_Yyc:aUU

Planes land in hot water on frozen Lake Calhoun

Two pilots landed small airplanes on frozen Lake Calhoun in Minneapolis and left the aircraft there as they walked away for lunch Monday afternoon, then were ticketed and had to wait a few hours before federal officials cleared them for takeoff.

--- There was a Citabria with "PATROL" markings parked on Lake Minnetonka last year while the pilots enjoyed a coffee at the lake side bar. I thought it was so cool. I guess its not technically a State Park.
 
Well we wouldn't want to disrupt.......pedestrians. those city officials need to skydiving without a parachute
 
Duh? What is the city thinking? I see an opportunity for a fly-in in the city , Vendors ( who buy city licences) come in,with food &entertainment, merchants are happy, people make money. How much did they make off the fine? Once. Dave
 
I think you can land on a lake if you get permission from the owner of the lake. (Aside from safety considerations) They didn't make sure that the owner of the lake was fine with them landing there.
 
Reminds me of the seaplane that landed on Crystal Lake a year or so ago. Xtal lake is the next town over and the lake is owned by two cities. Each of which decided to not permit seaplane landings. However one property owner had his seaplane landing base grandfathered in. He seldoms lands there at all but allows other to do so form time to time. It had been a long time since any had done so. But when the plane came in, the first post 9/11, the local police thought that Osama himself had come to town and turned out in force to meet the aircraft. They tried to cite it, they even tried to get the FAA to demand he not fly it out. But the FAA said it was a charted and approved seaplane base. The citation was dropped as the law was clear the property owner was allowed to have a sea plane base. In the end the police looked like idiots to even the non-pilots in the community.
 
I think you can land on a lake if you get permission from the owner of the lake. (Aside from safety considerations) They didn't make sure that the owner of the lake was fine with them landing there.

Who owns the lake? They were cited by the park police with a violation of park regulations. In another forum it was asserted that the park owns only the land surrounding the lake and the lake itself is owned by the state.
 
My first tailwheel exposure was in a Champ on ski's! Does that count as tailwheel time? What a blast! Landed on lakes around Waunakee as a matter of course. Its not Alton but there was always a full runway on Lake Wisconsin.

Gotta go to the store and get some more milk for the toast now ...
 
My first tailwheel exposure was in a Champ on ski's! Does that count as tailwheel time?

Did the ski installation include the little ski for the tailwheel?

Gotta go to the store and get some more milk for the toast now ...?

Won't that make the toast cold, wet, and limp? Seems counterproductive to me.
 
I think you can land on a lake if you get permission from the owner of the lake. (Aside from safety considerations) They didn't make sure that the owner of the lake was fine with them landing there.

In Minnesota, with rare exceptions the state "owns" all the natural and dam created lakes. The DNR is tasked with regulating surface use but allows municipalities to enact their own typically more restrictive rules. In the summer floatplane landings are only allowed on a small group of water bodies within the metro area but AFaIK this is primarily controlled by the FAA. I'm pretty sure that Lake Calhoun is not on the list of approved seaplane lakes but I don't know how that would apply to winter landings on skis. FWIW, Calhoun is a small lake (400 acres) wholly contained within a city park that includes a few other lakes in the same area. I suspect that the city ordinance involved is related to one that prohibits airplane landings on public streets etc.
 
Won't that make the toast cold, wet, and limp? Seems counterproductive to me.

When all that you have left is gums you have milk toast for breakfast. I still eat red meat, a wry comment on society. The news site provided a comments mechanism and they were outrageous. I always thought Minnesota was more Alaska than Florida ...
 
I think you can land on a lake if you get permission from the owner of the lake.

Depends. Some states are permissive, that is you can land on the lakes unless there's a prohibition specific to a particular lake. Michigan is one example. Other states, like Iowa and Colorado, prohibit landing on any body of water unless it is specifically allowed. Boo.

The Seaplane Pilots Association publishes a Water Landing Directory that gives you a lot of information on various lakes in various states.
 
Last edited:
My first tailwheel exposure was in a Champ on ski's! Does that count as tailwheel time? What a blast! Landed on lakes around Waunakee as a matter of course. Its not Alton but there was always a full runway on Lake Wisconsin.

Really? Plowed, and usable by wheeled birds? Do you know if it's still around and/or who maintained it? I know there's a guy on Lake Winnebago who plows a runway and has a chili fly-in each winter, but I never saw the runway on Lake Wisconsin. :dunno:
 
Really? Plowed, and usable by wheeled birds? Do you know if it's still around and/or who maintained it? I know there's a guy on Lake Winnebago who plows a runway and has a chili fly-in each winter, but I never saw the runway on Lake Wisconsin. :dunno:


I don't know who did it but when I lived in MSN someone would plow a runway on Lake Wisconsin in front of the restaurant (Hillcrest?). Suitable for wheels.

Apparantly Burger Jones (where our two intrepid Champ pilots ate) named a Burger in their honor:

http://www.myfoxtwincities.com/dpp/news/burger-named-after-lake-calhoun-pilots
 
I think so. No tailwheel, no tailwheel time.

What about taildraggers? Should there be different columns depending on if the skid is stearable or not? If you have a Haigh locking tailwheel maybe that should be counted as cheating ...
 
I think so. No tailwheel, no tailwheel time.

Ummm... Got a reference? ;) ;) :D

I don't think you'll find one. 61.51 does not mention anything about logging tailwheel/taildragger time, nor is it defined anywhere in 61.1 or 1.1.

I think this one's gonna be defined more by the insurance companies than the FAA. The FAA doesn't give a rat's behind about tailwheel time, only tailwheel landings for tailwheel currency.
 
I can not legally fly a conventional gear skiplane because I do not have a conventional gear endorsement. So yes, it does matter.
 
I think so. No tailwheel, no tailwheel time.

Curiously, the way the regs are worded, the only conventional gear airplanes that have extended treatement (endorsement and currency) are "tailwheel" airplanes or "airplanes with a tailwheel". And the word "tailwheel" isn't in the list of definitions at the beginning of part CFR part 14. So a Sopwith Camel or any other conventional gear airplane with a tailskid might not require a "tailwheel" endorsement and currency landings might not need to be made to a full stop. Equally weird is that if you attached an otherwise useless tailwheel to the rear of your (experimental) tricycle geared airplane you could use it for tailwheel currency and/or the training required to get an endorsement if you take the regs literally.
 
Equally weird is that if you attached an otherwise useless tailwheel to the rear of your (experimental) tricycle geared airplane you could use it for tailwheel currency and/or the training required to get an endorsement if you take the regs literally.

Good point... But who needs an experimental to have a nearly-useless tailwheel?

4173576886_2401f99122.jpg


Not sure what that's on? Here's a hint:

440827008_c49dcb954a.jpg


Jeez, who wouldn't love to get tailwheel current...

800px-Concorde_1977.jpg
786px-Concorde.planview.arp


... In a Concorde? :eek: :D :goofy:
 
What about taildraggers? Should there be different columns depending on if the skid is stearable or not? If you have a Haigh locking tailwheel maybe that should be counted as cheating ...

I don't believe "taildragger" appears in the FARs.
 
I'm reasonably certain that the FAA considers a tailski airplane the same as a tailwheel airplane as far as 61.31(i) is concerned, and that's the only FAR which considers the subject.

Picking nits here but you're forgetting 61.57 plus 135.247 (and the even less pertinent 27.725 & 29.725):D.

I'm pretty sure you're right that when the FAA uses the word "tailwheel" in reference to an airplane design they really mean an airplane where the CG at takeoff and/or landing is located aft of the main landing gear axles, but you'd think they would have had to document that by now.
 
Back
Top