The International Cessna^® 170 Association

Sounds like a bunch of Chickens--t cops to me.

BL,

Not even police. They were Minneapolis Park Police. We have park police in Boston. Unlike our mounted police and National Park Police they are a sad state of affairs in a uniform. They are friends of friends of friends of political hacks from both parties. Equal billing. I am not sure if they serve any purpose. Very visible in summer and can't find them in winter.

SteveF wrote:BL,

Not even police. They were Minneapolis Park Police. We have park police in Boston. Unlike our mounted police and National Park Police they are a sad state of affairs in a uniform. They are friends of friends of friends of political hacks from both parties. Equal billing. I am not sure if they serve any purpose. Very visible in summer and can't find them in winter.

Yep, I know the story, just like our so called Airport Police at Anchorage Intl. I had my truck broken into one winter and the sorry SOBs would not even come out of the office to make a report. They told me to quit complaining. Then one of their officers followed a suspect 20 miles away from the airport in a high speed chase then shot the guy who was un-armed. They have NO juristiction off airport grounds. Worse than worthless, they're dangerous.

Lake Calhoun is a smallish lake, about a mile in diameter, surrounded by expensive residential neighborhoods, ringed with walking and biking trails, and part of a continuous park system that extends through most of south Minneapolis. Motorboats are not allowed, but there are lots of windsurfers, sailboats and canoes on it in the summer. In winter it's popular for ice fishing, x-c skiing, parasailing on the ice, iceboating, etc. It's a public park, and I always thought, not suitable for aircraft operations, as tempting as it would be to land there. The southeastern half of it is in Class B airspace to the surface. I'm sure the Minneapolis police would have been happy to ticket the two pilots for landing there, but the park police were there first, and has jurisdiction. Enforcement in that circumstance was entirely appropriate. As a pilot, I don't need people like that making the public leery of small aircraft.

"Stupid is as stupid does." - Gump

What idiot would land in a public park that did not allow motorized vehicles?

What floatplane pilot would land in a lake that prohibited motorized watercraft?

If I'd been the cop they'd have had to retrieve their airplanes from the motor-pool storage yard. The cops were stupid for allowing them to take off. Imagine their complicity if there'd been an accident on takeoff.

I can't immagine that there was anything going on on that lake. Did those guys know it was restricted? Guys flying light planes like Cubs and Knockers on skis always used to fly aound landing on the lakes up in that part of the country.

blueldr wrote:I can't immagine that there was anything going on on that lake. Did those guys know it was restricted? Guys flying light planes like Cubs and Knockers on skis always used to fly aound landing on the lakes up in that part of the country.

And we still do! Just not on the city park lakes. Have a look at http://www.skiplane.org for the evidence. Obviously those guys didn't know Lake Calhoun was restricted, but it doesn't take a Ph.D to guess that it would be. It's a very attractive urban park, and at any time of day in the winter you'll find people out on the ice, either skiing or letting the dog have a good run off-leash, or fishing or whatever. There are always people walking, running and pedaling around the shore.

There seems to be a general contagion of idiocy amongst the mechanized public at large, who seem to have no concept of respect of property. Take the numbskull who landed at the golf course in FL a year or so ago.

Think about it.... even if a piece of property is an obvious aircraft landing strip.... Does that automatically confer permission for YOU to land there? (My strip is on completely private property, at the end of a private road, behind a coded security-gate. I once came home to find someone completely unknown to me had landed and entered my home, and availed themselves of my back porch amenities. They didn't even clean up after they'd enjoyed my snacks, and left locked-brake-skids in the front-yard turf where they apparently tried to taxi with the parking-brakes set. All I know is it was a tri-cycle geared low-wing Piper because of the neighbor's observation of their takeoff.)

Does the fact that my property has shoreline along a large lake automatically grant permission for boaters to land and come ashore and do whatever they like on my property? (I'm tired of smoldering fires...fueled by MY trees!...., trash-piles, garbage, old car batteries and filthy diapers strewn about their campsite on my private property... and finding my personal lawn furniture damaged, re-arranged, and sometimes outright stolen!) Would that person have done the same thing to a residential yard which happened to share curb-side with a public street? What possessed them to believe they could do that simply because a lakeshore met my property?

I once was boating with a friend and came upon a 185 on floats sitting at anchor on Lake Austin, at a place known as "The Pier". It is a water-side drive-in (float-in) hamburger joint which has live music and a large outdoor volley-ball court.... a favorite hangout with multiple short piers for boaters to motor up and have a burger and a beer similar to the old 1950's car-hops. A fun place. I was glad to see a Cessna tied up with the motorboats.

But a local police-boat motored by and my guest flagged him down and asked the cop if it was legal for a floatplane to land on the lake and tie up where the boaters did. The cop didn't know and had never questioned it. But he did once my goofy guest brought up the question. I was horrified my guest did it and I castigated him for it. There was nothing rude, unsafe, or obnoxious about the floatplane's operation. The pilot was respectful and courteous, and received a warning ticket for an activity which the cop had no idea was lawful. (I followed up on this event and discovered that the officer had apparently performed according to his departmental policy... an officer who makes a traffic stop and does not issue a citation MUST issue a "written warning"...apparently a method the department uses to record the activity and to prevent extraneous traffic-stops by curious police. (Hint: It makes a cop curious about the cute blonde think twice before he stops her for conversation or identification when he realizes he must make a report of the event which goes into his records. At the very least she had better have changed lanes without signalling!)
My concern was that my friend might have raised questions among the constabulary about an activity which had never before been restricted and which might provoke them into instituting new regulation. On the other hand, I'd fully welcome a regulation which required boaters to have permission before landing their boat upon the shores of private property.

Just sharing some oddly contrasting examples of how we should think before we "assume" it's OK to do what we're doing.

It would be good for all persons to recognize the impact their activities have on others and for all of us to respect both private and public property.