Want a dock the size of a warehouse? Call it…a new airport.

[rookiepilot]

“ I’m an AC pilot”

Call me. I’d bring a chainsaw.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/m ... -1.6859263

[Tbayer2021]

“ I’m an AC pilot”

Call me. I’d bring a chainsaw.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/m ... -1.6859263

Well, you know where it is. Go ahead and bring your chainsaw, tough guy.

[‘Bob’]

Chainsaw vs steel. Hmm….

I’d love to have an environmental assessment done. But impact of boats to be included as well. Just watch how quickly all of the Karens backpedal.

[Blueontop]

a 20+ year WB Cap, taking VO as well??…

I’d probably bet

[Chelsea Handler]

Apparently the dock is not far enough north to avoid the Karen's who want a 10 step federal, provincial, municipal decade long evaluation when a neighbour wants to build a shed.

[digits_]

Abusing aviation regulations to build a big dock for a boat (at least partially) doesn't do any of us any favours.

[PilotDAR]

Abusing aviation regulations to build a big dock for a boat (at least partially) doesn't do any of us any favours.

Agreed. In my opinion, if the fellow requires a dock for his floatplane, build what he needs, as harmoniously as he can. If he needs a dock for his boat also, make that an apparently separate, and compliant effort, even if the two docks are to be one. We who enjoy flying are the minority, we are not served well by invoking the "privilege" of aviation to enable regulatory excursions from non aviation activities.

[TrilliumFlt]

Abusing aviation regulations to build a big dock for a boat (at least partially) doesn't do any of us any favours.

Agreed. In my opinion, if the fellow requires a dock for his floatplane, build what he needs, as harmoniously as he can. If he needs a dock for his boat also, make that an apparently separate, and compliant effort, even if the two docks are to be one. We who enjoy flying are the minority, we are not served well by invoking the "privilege" of aviation to enable regulatory excursions from non aviation activities.

+1, This isn't a "right" its a privilege that if abused can be rescinded forever and for all.

[altiplano]

Did they consult the local band council too? Jeesh...

He's within the law, loophole or not.

It's a dock in front of his property, who cares, I've seen plenty worse up in cottage country.

[photofly]

I doubt that he's within the law. Water aerodromes are for airplanes, not boats. If what you build is specifically for boats, it's not an aerodrome any more.

The comment in the article about not having a toilet is wrong however; it was held in one of the various cases (can't find it right now but will post it when I do) that since almost all airports have bathrooms, it cannot be said that having a bathroom in a building invalidates its claim to federal jurisdiction as an airport.

[pelmet]

I doubt that he's within the law. Water aerodromes are for airplanes, not boats. If what you build is specifically for boats, it's not an aerodrome any more.

The comment in the article about not having a toilet is wrong however; it was held in one of the various cases (can't find it right now but will post it when I do) that since almost all airports have bathrooms, it cannot be said that having a bathroom in a building invalidates its claim to federal jurisdiction as an airport.

What if it is 51%/49%?

[ant_321]

As someone who moved to Ontario and finds all of the rules and regulations insane, this made me chuckle. Good for him for finding a loop hole. You can’t fart in this province without getting a permit or paying a fee. I found that out when I bought my first house in a small town in Ontario and discovered I couldn’t have a campfire in my backyard when the fire department showed up and made me put my fire out.

[RoAF-Mig21]

Must be nice to have a cottage, when most Canadians can't afford rent. I'm thankful for my tiny house 3 hrs from YYZ. I may die on the 401 commuting to work, but I own* a house.

*Disclaimer: May not be a true owner, as the bank may own most of it, but the idea of being an owner sounds high class. "Canada! Communist control with capitalist prices. Canada f*ck yeah!"

For those of you that don't get my foreign humor, it was a joke, so chill out...

[digits_]

Whether you agree with all the permit and zoning stuff is a whole other discussion. The issue here is abusing the aviation regulations to build something that is not meant for full aviation use.

If he built that mega thing to dock 5 airplanes or a dc3 on floats, it would be completely different.

Likewise you'll have a hard time if you build an 'airplane hangar' to avoid permits, and it has 5 small garage doors to house your sports car collection.

[photofly]

I doubt that he's within the law. Water aerodromes are for airplanes, not boats. If what you build is specifically for boats, it's not an aerodrome any more.

The comment in the article about not having a toilet is wrong however; it was held in one of the various cases (can't find it right now but will post it when I do) that since almost all airports have bathrooms, it cannot be said that having a bathroom in a building invalidates its claim to federal jurisdiction as an airport.

What if it is 51%/49%?

Pretty sure it would have to be 90%/10% to avoid provincial jurisdiction.

[cdnavater]

Abusing aviation regulations to build a big dock for a boat (at least partially) doesn't do any of us any favours.

Agreed. In my opinion, if the fellow requires a dock for his floatplane, build what he needs, as harmoniously as he can. If he needs a dock for his boat also, make that an apparently separate, and compliant effort, even if the two docks are to be one. We who enjoy flying are the minority, we are not served well by invoking the "privilege" of aviation to enable regulatory excursions from non aviation activities.

I don’t know about this whole train of thought, what if we were talking about tax loopholes?
Every single tax paying citizen would absolutely use a loophole to pay less taxes if they could, if you say no, you’re a fu$*%ng liar,
Loopholes exist until they don’t and not using them on principle won’t change anything because someone else will.
What if he built his 45 square meter boat dock and right beside it a completely separate but not really separate aerodrome dock to whatever that limit is, the end result would not be any different and nothing prevents him from using the aerodrome portion for boats.
This is a case of pure jealousy, people with money always find a way to bend the system to their liking and those who can’t bitch about it.
Btw, I am a those who can’t individual, wish I could, especially the tax loopholes, maybe then I could afford a monstrous dock.

[digits_]

Abusing aviation regulations to build a big dock for a boat (at least partially) doesn't do any of us any favours.

Agreed. In my opinion, if the fellow requires a dock for his floatplane, build what he needs, as harmoniously as he can. If he needs a dock for his boat also, make that an apparently separate, and compliant effort, even if the two docks are to be one. We who enjoy flying are the minority, we are not served well by invoking the "privilege" of aviation to enable regulatory excursions from non aviation activities.

I don’t know about this whole train of thought, what if we were talking about tax loopholes?
Every single tax paying citizen would absolutely use a loophole to pay less taxes if they could, if you say no, you’re a fu$*%ng liar,
Loopholes exist until they don’t and not using them on principle won’t change anything because someone else will.
What if he built his 45 square meter boat dock and right beside it a completely separate but not really separate aerodrome dock to whatever that limit is, the end result would not be any different and nothing prevents him from using the aerodrome portion for boats.
This is a case of pure jealousy, people with money always find a way to bend the system to their liking and those who can’t bitch about it.
Btw, I am a those who can’t individual, wish I could, especially the tax loopholes, maybe then I could afford a monstrous dock.

The thing is that tax loopholes are just (?) about money. Abusing it could result in higher or lower taxes for other individuals.

Abusing the so called TC loophole (which I disagree with, it's not a loophole, he's doing illegal stuff, the county just doesn't seem to want to go the legal route) can very much impact the very existence of airports and aerodromes. This guy was not trying to save money, he was trying to do something that would otherwise not be allowed, and in the process is likely making it that much harder for the next guy who genuinly wants to run a float operation from a private dock. Not to mention the PR issues.