National Academies Press: OpenBook

Practices in Preserving and Developing Public-Use Seaplane Bases (2015)

Chapter: CHAPTER FIVE Preserving Seaplane Bases

« Previous: CHAPTER FOUR Developing Seaplane Bases
Page 38
Suggested Citation:"CHAPTER FIVE Preserving Seaplane Bases." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2015. Practices in Preserving and Developing Public-Use Seaplane Bases. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22148.
×
Page 38
Page 39
Suggested Citation:"CHAPTER FIVE Preserving Seaplane Bases." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2015. Practices in Preserving and Developing Public-Use Seaplane Bases. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22148.
×
Page 39
Page 40
Suggested Citation:"CHAPTER FIVE Preserving Seaplane Bases." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2015. Practices in Preserving and Developing Public-Use Seaplane Bases. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22148.
×
Page 40
Page 41
Suggested Citation:"CHAPTER FIVE Preserving Seaplane Bases." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2015. Practices in Preserving and Developing Public-Use Seaplane Bases. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22148.
×
Page 41
Page 42
Suggested Citation:"CHAPTER FIVE Preserving Seaplane Bases." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2015. Practices in Preserving and Developing Public-Use Seaplane Bases. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22148.
×
Page 42
Page 43
Suggested Citation:"CHAPTER FIVE Preserving Seaplane Bases." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2015. Practices in Preserving and Developing Public-Use Seaplane Bases. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22148.
×
Page 43
Page 44
Suggested Citation:"CHAPTER FIVE Preserving Seaplane Bases." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2015. Practices in Preserving and Developing Public-Use Seaplane Bases. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22148.
×
Page 44

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

36 CHAPTER FIVE PRESERVING SEAPLANE BASES Preserving SPBs refers to the efforts to manage the pressures and challenges that could reduce the opportunities for seaplane operation across the country. This chapter looks at how SPBs can present information to demonstrate their value through marketing, advertising, economic studies, planning, community education, and other outreach efforts. DATA GATHERING AND MESSAGING The preservation of an SPB requires the operator to know information about its use, its users, and its capabilities. As with any plan, and a master plan in particular, data collected about an existing facility are the foundation for analysis. With that data, forecasts can be projected and decisions can be made about the future of the SPB. Collecting information about what improve- ments are needed is one method to help preserve an SPB {Q23}. Operational Data The literature search and survey for this study indicates that limited operational data are collected on seaplane bases. Collecting information about what improvements are needed is one method to help develop or preserve an SPB. Because of their affiliation with a larger air carrier airport, two SPBs have used the master planning process to gather input from users. As with the planning process, information about facility improvements is obtained through interaction with pilots and users; through user surveys or questionnaires, via phone, e-mail, or payment envelopes; and through local general aviation pilot associations. FAA Form 5010 Master Record contains operational data collected annually from airports around the country. At airports with air traffic control towers (ATCTs), the recorded number of takeoffs and landings are accurate for when ATCTs are open. Five SPBs in the survey are located adjacent to a land airport that has an ATCT and therefore their operations are counted when the ATCT is open (they are all part-time operations). Otherwise, the FAA will send a form to the SPB owner of record requesting updated information, or a state’s aviation agency or contractor is tasked with the effort. In many cases, the informa- tion provided back to the FAA is an estimate of the level of activity or a partial count {Q24}. If an airport is served by an air taxi or charter operator, it often submits operational and enplanement data to the U.S. Department of Transportation, though it is not required to do so. Other than through ATCTs, some of the SPBs collect data by relying on pilots to voluntarily sign in. Marinas and SPB operators that conduct flight training often track their activity levels for normal business purposes. Other data collected by SPB operators in the survey include fuel sales, slip rentals, moorage and docking fees, enplanements, and freight volumes. One SPB operator collects data on water evaporation rates from the local sewer treatment plant, because his SPB does not have a natural flow and he has to purchase agricultural water to maintain proper levels. For the most part, data were not available because no one is present to keep track. Verne Skagerberg of the Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities, in a telephone conversation on September 10, 2014, noted that even the state of Alaska, which makes a concerted effort to identify and report operational activities, has difficulty identifying or tracking what occurs at remote bases. One example of an SPB that keeps operational and business data is Tavares, Florida, as it staffs the SPB and related shore park with a municipal employee who monitors activities (see Appendix G). Recognizing that data collection is not very robust at SPBs nationally, the survey asked what data are desired. The range of requested data reflected the level of activity and different uses of each SPB facility. On one end are those little-used SPBs that want basic data. On the other end are high-activity SPBs that prefer more sophisticated data. The following list summarizes data currently used and sought by SPB operators {Q25}. Thirteen operators did not respond to the question.

37 • Number of operations (5) • Time of use data (1) • Enplanement and deplanement data (1) • Fuel sales (1) • Volume of freight (1) • Slip, tiedown, and hangar wait lists (1) • Pilot input and feedback (1) • Economic impact data (1) • SPB management plans (1) • Marketing data on current and potential users (1) • Comparative SPB financial, lease rates, landing fees, and cost benefit data (1) • Minimum standards and type of equipment to have at an SPB (1) • Information on grass control, levee protection, and preventive maintenance (1) • Pictorial drawings of sporting lodge SPB parking and boat launch locations (1) • Accident and incident data (1). Annually, the FAA sends a letter to the SPB owner listed on FAA Form 5010 informing him or her of the total passenger enplane- ments reported by the commercial operators, provided the commercial operators submitted the data to the USDOT and FAA. One organization, Kenmore Air Harbor, has developed an SPB familiarization guide to train its pilots and help ensure safe operations. The guide consists of aerial pictures of the SPBs that Kenmore operates to and from. The guide’s pictures were modified to show water takeoff (green) and landing (red) patterns, where to dock (black), and any operational consideration, such as noise abatement (yellow) (Figure 20). The illustrated guide serves as a good example of the use of data to enhance safety and promote SPB operation. Safety Data Safety data are often used in the aviation industry to measure shortfalls or successes in operations. At certificated airports served by air carriers, 14 CFR Part 139 requires that the airport be inspected daily for safety. No similar regulatory require- ments exist for non–Part 139 airports and SPBs. The responsibility for a public-use SPB’s safety inspection mostly resides with state aviation agencies or other governmental agencies that issue operating or licensure permits, such as the USACE or DNR. For private SPB operators, the responsibility for safety inspection falls within an owner’s normal expectation to exercise normal due-care under tort law. For commercial air taxi or charter operations, their own operating manuals identify means to ensure safe operations of the facilities they frequent. Pilots, using an SPB facility, normally note and report SPBs’ safety and compliance conditions. FIGURE 20 Illustration of a seaplane base guide for pilot use. (Source: J. Gowey, Kenmore Air Harbor. Used with permission.)

38 For one-third of the surveyed SPBs, no inspections are known to occur {Q26}. For another one-third, inspections are performed by SPB personnel, though the frequency was not cited. For the last one-third, the state assesses facilities for safety compliance or general condition on an annual or more frequent basis. The literature review and principal investigator inquiry did not turn up any specific guides or format for inspecting SPB facilities. Overall, the SPBs in the study appear to have safe operations as evidenced by their response to whether an accident or incident occurred in the past 3 years {Q27}. Twenty-eight SPBs operate incident- and accident-free and only three indicated that they had a recent past incident. No details were provided on the nature of the accidents or incidents. For the ability to respond to water emergencies, 12 SPBs rely on local community emergency services. Four of the SPBs have regular aircraft rescue fire-fighting response capability from their adjoining airports. Four operators have skilled dive teams available and another two have harbor marine patrol response capability. Collectively, 15 operators or their community response teams have boats available. Only one SPB has a spill response kit available. If a water accident involving an aircraft occurs, guidance may be obtained from ACRP Synthesis 38: Expediting Aircraft Recovery at Airports (Prather 2012). This synthesis contains information useful for the general recovery of aircraft, but it also suggests the need for recovery operations specific to seaplanes as an area for further research. For recovering aircraft, six of 31 operators have a local salvage or tow company available to remove aircraft from the water {Q28}. Three SPBs have a lift crane or lift bag capability. Two operators would use their own personnel to retrieve the aircraft. The other 10 operators did not indicate any capability to retrieve an aircraft, and only two operators have a water rescue plan in place. Accident Data A review of the FAA’s Accident and Incident Data System (http://www.asias.faa.gov/) found 53 reports related to seaplanes were filed between June 1978 and August 2013. Incident reports do not result from bodily injury but from aircraft damage only. Wind is the number one factor behind seaplane incidents (12), followed by pilot operational error (11), foreign object damage in the water area (9), landing with the gear either up (on hard runway) or down (on water runway) (6), taxiing-related issues (4), other (4), and mechanical problems (2). A search of the NTSB accident database was difficult because it does not allow for a search by terms such as “seaplane” or “water.” One must select the generic term “airplane,” “helicopter,” or “ultra-light” and then subsequently read each report to determine if it was related to a seaplane operation. The search can be refined if one knows which types of aircraft are often used in seaplane operations and searches under the aircraft type. There is a checkbox for “float” or “hull” under the heading “landing gear” on NTSB accident report Form 6120.1. However, it is not a searchable feature. Other than a literature search, research into seaplane and SPB accidents was beyond the scope of this study. The search did find that the Seaplane Pilots Association (SPA) analyzed the NTSB accident reports from January 1983 to December 1995 and determined 195 accidents or incidents were recorded (Seaplane Compatibility Issues 1996). SPA searched the NTSB database by using known types of aircraft and analyzing whether the incidents involved seaplanes and whether they were water-related. At the 2003 International Boating and Water Safety Summit, Aron Faegre, president of the Columbia (Washington) SPA, presented data on the number of accidents between boats or personal watercraft and seaplanes (Faegre 2003). Using the NTSB database and spanning the past 10 years, he reported that there were nine cases of significant interaction between a seaplane and a boat or watercraft. Six of the accidents were a seaplane encountering a boat wake. There was one instance each for a boat striking a seaplane and a seaplane striking a boat. The other situation involved the seaplane trying to avoid a personal watercraft that was chasing it. The difficulty with compiling seaplane accident data also stems from different governmental agencies having jurisdiction over the water. Primarily, the USCG ensures safety on U.S. navigable waterways. On interior lakes and ponds, safety could be the responsibility of any of the government agencies mentioned in chapter three. As an illustration, a Florida newspaper reported USCG data of 662 boat accidents with 50 fatalities in Florida in 2012 (Hobson 2014). The newspaper researched newspaper articles from 2012 to March of 2014 for more information. The search revealed three seaplane accidents in Florida during that time period, none of which resulted in a fatality. If an accident involving injury, death, disappearance of a person, or property damage greater than $2,000.00 occurs on a waterway controlled by the National Park Service, the operator of the vessel involved is responsible for reporting the accident.

39 A study published by Transport Canada identified 1,432 seaplane accidents in Canada between 1976 and 1990 (A Safety Study of Piloting Skills, Abilities, and Knowledge in Seaplane Operations 2013). Its analyses identified the following as basic causes for the accidents: • Loss of control • Propeller contacts • Nose down/nose over • Collisions with objects • Dragged wings • Engine failure • Hard landings • Wheels-down water landing • Overrun. Another special Canadian study was undertaken in 2008 to evaluate hazard and safety risks associated with egress from floatplanes that have flipped and are submerged in the water. Besides serving as a model for undertaking a risk assessment, the safety analysis and report provided a statistical picture of the number and type of floatplane activities in Canada. The conclusions from the study and assessment were that there was no readily identifiable solution that would have a major impact on floatplane safety and that the floatplane safety review was inconclusive (Eley 2008). COMPREHENSIVE TRANSPORTATION AND MANAGEMENT PLANNING One practice that is beneficial for preserving SPBs is to have transportation plans that include SPBs. An example of such a plan was developed by San Juan County in Washington State. A comprehensive plan can benefit an SPB in that it will identify how the SPB fits into the transportation goals and policies of the region and community. Inclusion of an SPB in a transporta- tion plan supports decision making to promote, guide development, and protect an SPB (San Juan County Comprehensive Plan, Section B, Element 6: Transportation 2013). A 2004 comprehensive plan for the Seattle area included analysis of the impact of building height and density in the South Lake Union district of Seattle, Washington. The transportation plan considered the important transportation services that air charter and seaplane service providers such as Kenmore Air Harbor, Inc., and Seattle Seaplanes provide. The final environmen- tal impact study report resulted in protecting the airspace approach and flight path to and from southern Lake Union by limiting the height of tall buildings within the district and below the flight path of aircraft (Figure 21). FIGURE 21 Proposed obstacle clearance limits for aircraft approaches to and departures from Lake Union SPB, Washington. [Source: South Lake Union Height and Density Alternatives (2012)]

40 One additional example of comprehensive planning is the 2001 Regional Airport System Plan developed by the Puget Sound Regional Council (Washington), which includes four seaplane bases. In defining the roles that airports play within the region, the plan states the following: “Seaplane bases are a unique resource and an important component of the regional airport system. The region will support the preservation and enhancement of privately owned seaplane bases through identi- fication of facility needs and through the Regional Council’s role in supporting compatible land use” (2001 Regional Airport System Plan 2001). Compatible Land Use Because conflicts and pressures can arise between an airport and its surrounding community, compatible land use and zoning are means to protect or secure an airport from unfavorable encroachment and potential restrictions on use. The conflicts and pressures normally arise from tall structures and residential communities being located in proximity to airports. The same holds true for SPBs, although they have added pressures of marine, boat, and personal watercraft activity using the takeoff and landing areas. The FAA promotes compatible land use and protects airspace through a number of regulations, orders, and advisory circulars. When an airport sponsor accepts federal grant assistance, the agreement stipulates that airport sponsors will undertake compatible land use measures to protect the federal investment in the airport. The primary land use measures are to establish height or land use zoning requirements in the vicinity of the SPB. Of the 31 SPBs surveyed, 14 have some form of compatible land use measures in place and 17 do not (Table 8) {Q29}. Those SPBs that do have the measures in place are predominately in Alaska, where the state DOT&PF has been active in protecting its facilities and because it provides state assistance to fund or conduct airspace studies. The remaining SPBs in the contiguous United States are located with NPIAS land airports and fall under their protective airspace or zoning umbrellas. ENVIRONMENTAL SAFEGUARDS Environmental safeguards cover a broad range of conditions and actions that address different environments, including qual- ity of life issues. A number of laws protect the water, air, and land, and SPB operators and pilots must be aware of them. The literature search identified a number of articles in which seaplane pilots argue that seaplane operation is less of an endangerment to waterways than other water vessels. The survey asked if SPBs have requirements, processes, or procedures for safeguarding the environment {Q30}. Fifteen of the SPB operators specifically indicated no safeguards are in place. The nine airports that do have safeguards for the water environment referenced requirements under the Clean Water Act and subsequent Federal Water Pollution Control Act requirements. Those federal laws call for a national pollution discharge TABLE 8 SPBS WITH COMPATIBLE LAND USE, ZONING, OR BUILDING RESTRICTIONS REQUIREMENTS Identifier Seaplane Base Name Location 1C9 Frazier Lake Airpark Hollister, California 78B Buckhorn Camps Seaplane Base Norcross (Millinocket), Maine 83B Northern Maine Regional Seaplane Base Presque Isle, Maine .M57 Rangeley Lake Seaplane Base Rangeley, Maine KRNT Renton Municipal Airport Renton, Washington KLHD Lake Hood Seaplane Base Anchorage, Alaska CGA Craig Seaplane Base Craig, Alaska KFAI Fairbanks International Airport Fairbanks, Alaska OOH Hoonah Seaplane Base Hoonah, Alaska ENA Kenai Municipal Airport Kenai, Alaska ENN Ketchikan Municipal Airport Ketchikan, Alaska 8K9 Murphys Pullout Seaplane Base Ketchikan, Alaska KKTN Nenana International Airport Nenana, Alaska A43 Taku Harbor Seaplane Base Taku Harbor, Alaska Source: SMQ Airport Services {Q29}.

41 elimination system permit, stormwater pollution prevention plan, and/or a spill prevention, control, and countermeasure plan. The requirements usually stem from the airport being affiliated with a larger airport or a harbor facility. Under the various plans, SPBs would need to monitor for biochemical oxygen demand, glycol, pH, and suspended oil and grease, if they met the minimum requirements under the regulation. Invasive species prevention and control require a seaplane operator to exercise environmental safeguards. Invasive spe- cies are organisms that are not native to an ecosystem and that cause, or are likely to cause, economic or environmental harm or harm to human health (Executive Order 13112 1999). The U.S. Coast Guard, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. National Park Service, U.S. Departments of Agriculture and Interior, and state departments of natural resources have published information on invasive species control and prevention. Specific to seaplane operation, the USCG has published guidance and practices for seaplane operators (USCG-2000-7206 2000) and SPA has produced a video that describes the actions pilots can take to preserve the waters in which they operate (http://www.seaplane.org). PUBLIC OUTREACH Fourteen of the 31 SPBs do not specifically conduct or participate in public outreach. For a few others, their outreach efforts are limited to attending town council or public meetings, serving on a local airport or community planning committee, or being a chamber of commerce or local pilot association member. Two SPBs that are affiliated with land airports are part of the airports’ overall outreach effort. One SPB in Alaska, citing its island stature, does not conduct outreach because seaplane activity is necessary for its community to function. A common promotion activity at airports throughout the nation is to have a pancake breakfast, open house, or similar fly-in event. For SPBs, the event is normally called a splash-in. Information exists on how to organize a splash-in (Trescott 2012). Other outreach methods include promotional events such as an air fair, marketing, advertising, youth events, and social media outreach. Though social media is a growing source for information in many areas of everyday communication activity, there was no mention in the survey responses of social media use as a communication outlet. Public Relations and Promotional Activities Public relations is “a strategic communication process that builds mutually beneficial relationships between organizations and their publics” (“What Is Public Relations?” 2014). The communication process includes using strategies such as market- ing, advertising, events, good will, sponsorships, educational workshops, social media, and similar means to affect how one thinks or feels about something—in this case, seaplane activity. Information was sought on how SPB operators might attract new or future users to their facilities {Q31}. Some cited physical improvements, such as adding fuel servicing or increasing the number of pullouts, ramps, or hangars. Having a website and advertising on the web were popular choices, as were printing brochures and attending trade shows. Other sug- gestions were posting bulletins at airports and SPBs and being members of aviation associations and clubs. Placing a brochure with economic data where visitors can look at it, either in buildings and offices or on the web, may be a useful preservation practice. For example, the states of Florida and Idaho provide easily downloadable brochures (see Appendices E and F). In Florida, Tavares SPB officials mail the economic impact brochures to key individuals and the community at large. Several operators rely simply on word of mouth. Four airports, all in Alaska, are in the enviable position of not having to do any promotion because they are at capacity and until they expand, promotion is unnecessary. Through the literature search and the viewing of event calendars on a number of seaplane pilot–affiliated websites, it was evident that a number of communities use seaplane activity as a cause for celebration. The marketing and promotional activities for various festivals and splash-ins tend to be conducted by chambers of commerce and tourism councils. The draw of even a few seaplanes can attract many residents and is an opportunity to showcase seaplane activity. Research found that the use of social media is more prevalent with advocacy issues and means to “get the word out.” Advocacy Activities Advocacy is a necessary and important tool in the development and preservation of SPBs and seaplane activity. Advocacy typi- cally arises because someone else is advocating for the exclusion or restriction of seaplanes and SPBs. Efforts to close or restrict

42 SPB activity are evident in newspaper articles and in the number of waterways that are closed or restricted to seaplane activity throughout the United States (Water Landing Directory 2011). Without advocacy efforts for the benefit of seaplane activity, many SPBs would not exist. Backcountry airstrips share a common purpose with seaplane bases. In an ACRP synthesis on backcountry airstrip preser- vation, one common factor identified for the successful preservation of an airstrip is well-organized volunteer efforts (Ander- son 2014). This is also true for SPBs. Because of the various SPB governmental ownership or control options, one particular beneficial advocacy method is to have individuals at the state and local levels monitor legislative or regulatory efforts for their impact on SPBs and then respond to those efforts. A number of advocates exist for SPBs and related operations. Three primary advocate groups are state aviation agencies that are responsible for the safety and promotion of aviation within their state; pilot associations at the national, regional, and local levels; and private individuals. In the literature, one example of advocacy at the state level was found from the State of Michigan. In 2000, the Michigan Bureau of Aeronautics advocated and passed a set of administrative rules establishing guidelines for seaplane operations on state waters and governing the establishment of seaplane regulations. The rule prohibited local munici- palities from establishing new seaplane regulations without the approval of the Michigan Aeronautics Commission (Seaplane Operations 2000). At the time, local municipalities had the authority to establish seaplane regulations because codes were not in place to reserve that authority for the state. As a result, local municipalities established regulations in response to citi- zen concerns and complaints without regard to actual safe seaplane operating characteristics and safety records. This led to a patchwork of arbitrary regulations that were not posted or otherwise easily available to seaplane pilots. In proposing the regulation, the state believed the lack of state-centric rules hindered seaplane use and infringed on seaplane pilots’ rights to use state waterways that were held in the public trust. Unfortunately, the rules were not upheld in a court challenge, as it was determined that only the Michigan legislature could approve such a rule that would be binding on local communities. An example of advocacy on the part of a pilot association is the Open Waters Campaign conducted by SPA. The purpose of the campaign is to educate public policy makers about seaplane operations. Key educational points include safety, pilot profes- sionalism and training, compatibility with boat traffic and residential areas, environmental impact, and noise impact. As part of its advocacy efforts, SPA has produced a number of videos and booklets (http://www.seaplanes.org). The materials discuss the valuable service provided by seaplane operations, address issues and concerns about those operations, and provides back- ground information on the history, utility, and benefit of seaplanes to individuals and communities throughout the country. SUMMARY Preserving SPBs begins with planning for their possibility or continued existence. An SPB needs to be recognized in federal, state, and/or local planning documents so it will be considered when other development is undertaken or when decision mak- ing could affect its use. Individual initiatives and help from seaplane operator associations can accomplish this recognition through advocacy efforts. To support the argument of the viability and usefulness of SPBs, better data collection is needed to substantiate claims of viability and usefulness.

Next: CHAPTER SIX Challenges and Gaps in Practice »
Practices in Preserving and Developing Public-Use Seaplane Bases Get This Book
×
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

TRB’s Airport Cooperative Research Program (ACRP) Synthesis 61: Practices in Preserving and Developing Public-Use Seaplane Bases reviews current practices in developing and preserving public-use seaplane bases throughout the United States. The report reviews and presents information on the planning process, design considerations, permits, regulatory requirements, and facility and service needs of seaplane bases.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!