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

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.

57 CHAPTER EIGHT CONCLUSIONS The history of seaplane development is well documented. The history of seaplane base development is not so well documented. With the exception of research in Europe in the 2003–2013 period (FUSETRA 2012), little research is being conducted in the United States on seaplane operations and their possible benefit to communities across the country. This report documents litera- ture and practices in developing and preserving SPBs by surveying 31 SPB operators in 11 states. As with any group with common goals and interests, the seaplane community promotes its operations through literature and activities. It is outside the seaplane community where understanding and interest are lacking, thereby presenting an out- reach challenge to the seaplane community. The survey and literature showed pockets of different challenges that exist across the country depending primarily on the SPB’s location and the people affected, whether it is in an urban setting, a remote natural area, or an isolated community that depends on seaplanes to connect it to other communities. An SPB, like any other general aviation airport, can support many types of activities. The study found that seaplane bases can be grouped into three general categories: (1) those that exist to meet basic community transportation needs and access to the national airspace system because of the town’s remote location; (2) those that serve a recreational or sport- ing purpose; and (3) those that serve as an economic focal point for community development, commercial services, and tourism. Recreational use is the most commonly cited purpose in the survey. However, in Alaska and other remote areas where alternate transport modes are limited or nonexistent, SPBs and seaplane activity serve as a lifeline for the com- munity by connecting it to the NAS. The recognition of SPBs as a means to promote economic development appears to be an area for growth. As communities work to develop their SPBs, they serve as an attraction for economic development and tourism within the community. A major gap was identified in defining exactly what constitutes a seaplane base. The literature search identified conflict- ing and confusing terminology. The unclear definition of an SPB has implications when discussing licensing and permitting, capital improvement, governmental financial assistance, maintenance, environmental responsibilities, and public purpose. Relative to licensing and permitting, the research highlights the varying number of governmental entities that have regula- tory oversight over a water landing area can be an impediment to continued SPB operation. The different missions, goals, and capabilities of the oversight agencies can be in conflict with other agencies. SPBs tend to do well where a knowledgeable and interested person advocates for the base. Capital and operational funding of an SPB is clearly a challenge. The lack of activity and the lack of government or public interest are two factors. The study points out that while SPBs allow access to the NAS, the majority of SPBs do not rise to the level of activity to warrant inclusion in the NPIAS, thereby making them ineligible for AIP funding. Exceptions are those SPBs affiliated with a larger land airport. SPBs appear to benefit the most when they are affiliated with a land airport or where a supportive state aviation agency program is in place. This study documents data collection to be a weak area in need of improvement. To help demonstrate the value and benefit of an SPB, the collection of use and other operational data is necessary. Close to half of the SPB operators indicated that they do not collect operational data nor specifically conduct or participate in public outreach. Those operators that do reach out vary in their data collection efforts. Splash-ins are a common marketing tool at SPBs with active operators. The majority of SPBs throughout the United States do not have active SPB operators. The lack of active SPB operators is primarily the result of either low activity that makes an SPB operation unsustainable on its own, or the remote locations of many SPBs. In asking what amenities or services the SPB operators would like to have at their SPB, the responses report little is wanted or needed beyond what exists, except in Alaska, where the SPBs are more remote and basic utility services are the most desired amenity.

58 The range of facilities provided at the SPBs surveyed reflects the nature of their geographic location and the type of water access available. The design and construction of shoreline facilities is influenced by a number of factors including available space, water depth, wave and tidal action, construction and maintenance costs, weather and environment exposure, its overall purpose, and its expected demand. Weather and water action take a toll on SPB facilities. Preserving SPBs begins with planning and advocacy. The SPB needs to be recognized on federal, state, and/or local plan- ning documents, so it is considered when other development or decision making could affect its use. Individual initiatives and help from seaplane operator associations can accomplish this recognition through advocacy efforts. To help promote SPB preservation, an economic impact study is a useful tool for demonstrating an SPB’s importance and value. The research found that a number of states conducted economic impact studies for airports and SPBs within their state, or within a particular region. However, the economic models need refinement to better address the unique aspects of SPB operations. In particular, better data collection is needed to help validate any model used to determine economic impact. The research and survey identified numerous threats, pressures, and challenges that face the development and preservation of SPBs. Issues such as safety, management, funding, regulation, airspace, noise, invasive species, and public education are found across the nation. From an operational safety perspective, the biggest challenge is operating on the water with a mix of boat and recreational activity. From a developmental perspective, gaining permission to operate an SPB on a body of water and funding are the two main challenges. For the continued preservation of SPBs, the general state of the economy was identified as the greatest perceived impedi- ment. Limited demand, the cost of flying, and low numbers of seaplane pilots contribute to the challenge of preserving SPBs. Cited as further impediments are a lack of public understanding of SPB operation and the sometimes conflicting cross-pur- poses of mission and goals of governmental entities that have regulatory authority over seaplane activity. The continued development and preservation of SPBs often relies on having a sponsor or champion from either the public or private sector. SPBs appear to be thriving in those states that have active and supportive state aviation agencies or a seaplane pilot organization. The research concluded that support from governmental agencies in the promotion of SPBs varies from little to very supportive. Owing to the different governing agencies that can have oversight of SPB facilities and operation, a lack of consistency exists in how SPB information is disseminated and standards enforced. A more uniform and publicly available database or tool of available information may close the gap. A review of governmental regulations related to SPBs could pro- mote consistency across the regulatory entities. Additionally, consideration for better definitions of “water-landing area” and “seaplane base” is suggested to help avoid a misunderstanding of terms. FURTHER RESEARCH A number of challenges and gaps in practices are outlined in this report. Additionally, survey respondents were asked specifi- cally if there were research areas that might be pursued to address other perceived gaps {Q42}. The following list summarizes potential research problems to be considered, as suggested by respondents and the literature research: • Research to identify ways to collect actual SPB operational and user data. • Research to identify ways to collect and disseminate seaplane pilot and aircraft data, as distinct from marine vessels or land-based aircraft. • Aggregate, compile, and publish current seaplane base data. • Research ways to address different regulatory agency oversight issues across states. • Research ways to address rising insurance costs. • Research to identify additional technological or noise reduction techniques for seaplane operations. • Research to develop an emergency response guide for SPB operators and communities. • Evaluate how to grow interest and participation in seaplane activity. • Research methods for detecting foreign object debris on or in the water. • Research funding mechanisms to help SPBs maintain or expand capabilities. • Research a wheel/float arrangement for amphibian aircraft that will not cause an aircraft to flip when landing in the water with wheels down.

59 As a result of research in Europe, a basis may exist for using FUSETRA’s findings and conclusions in the future develop- ment and preservation of seaplane bases and activity in the United States. In a technical report produced by the U.S. Navy, suggestions are made for possible research into advanced seaplane design that includes advanced hull designs to optimize aero-/hydro-dynamic performance, reduce spray, reduce structural loads, and improve fatigue characteristics; the application of suitable composite materials to minimize weight and prevent corrosion; the use of nonconventional landing systems to provide better docking and beaching methods; advances in high-lift devices to reduce takeoff and landing distances; and the use of all-weather sea surface monitoring and prediction systems to locate benign patches of water and anticipate adverse seastate conditions (Odedra et al. 2004).