Future Seaplane Transport System - SWOT
Report on current strength and weaknesses of existing seaplane/ amphibian transport system as well as future opportunities
Authors Giangi Gobbi, Ladislav Smrcek, Roderick Galbraith University of Glasgow Benedikt Mohr, Joachim Schömann,
Institute of Aerospace Systems Technische Universität München Glasgow, UK Garching, Germany Keeper of Document Author or Coauthor Work Package(s) WP4 Status Draft Identification Programme, Project ID FP7-AAT-2007-RTD1 Project Title: FUture SEaplane TRAffic (FUSETRA) Version: 1.1 File name: FUSETRA_D41_SWOT_v01.doc
FUSETRA – Future Seaplane Traffic 1 Version 1.0
Future Seaplane Transport System - SWOT
27.06.2011 Aerospace Engineering Glasgow University James Watt South Building Glasgow G12 8QQ UK
Author: Giangi Gobbi Phone: +44.(0)141.330.7268 Fax: +44.(0)141.330.4885 [email protected] www.fusetra.eu
FUSETRA – Future Seaplane Traffic 2 Version 1.0
Future Seaplane Transport System - SWOT
Control Page
This version supersedes all previous versions of this document.
Version Date Author(s) Pages Reason
1.0 27/6/2011 Giangi Gobbi 46 Initial write/editing
FUSETRA – Future Seaplane Traffic 3 Version 1.0
Future Seaplane Transport System - SWOT
Contents
List of tables ...... 6 List of figures ...... 6 Glossary ...... 7 1 Objectives ...... 8 2 Seaplane Operations ...... 9 3 General Information about Seaplane Operators ...... 9 3.1 Participants‟ origin ...... 9 3.2 Participants‟ field of service ...... 10 4 Seaplane operations ...... 12 4.1 Aircraft in operation ...... 12 4.2 Operational key figures ...... 14 4.3 Connections and flight plans ...... 16 5 Certification ...... 18 5.1 Pilots ...... 18 5.2 Operators ...... 19 6 Infrastructure and Aircraft ...... 21 6.1 Seaport Management ...... 21 6.2 Seaport License & Seaport Approval ...... 22 6.3 Configuration of seaside landing site ...... 22 6.4 Maintenance concept ...... 22 6.5 Connectivity of seaports to landside infrastructure ...... 23 6.6 Restrictions because of availability of suitable aircraft ...... 23 6.7 Future Aircraft Requirements ...... 24 6.8 Main Problems in Seaplane Aviation ...... 25 7 Aspects of Seaplane Operations in Europe ...... 26 7.1 Situation in the UK ...... 27 7.2 Government Regulation and Control ...... 29 8 Stakeholders involved in Seaplane Operations ...... 30 8.1 Europe ...... 30 FUSETRA – Future Seaplane Traffic 4 Version 1.0
Future Seaplane Transport System - SWOT
9 SWOT analysis of existing seaplane operations ...... 33 9.1 Strengths ...... 34 9.1.1 Environment (for cleaner and quieter world) ...... 34 9.1.2 Society‟s needs ...... 36 9.2 Weaknesses ...... 37 9.3 Opportunities ...... 37 9.4 Threats ...... 40 10 Summary ...... 42 11 References ...... 45
FUSETRA – Future Seaplane Traffic 5 Version 1.0
Future Seaplane Transport System - SWOT
List of tables Table 1 Seaport Licensing Institutions ...... 22 Table 2 Landing site installations ...... 22 Table 3 Landside connectivity ...... 23 Table 4 Payload requirements ...... 24 Table 5 Range requirements ...... 25 Table 6 Main problems of seaplane operators ...... 26 Table 7 Noise levels for various operations ...... 36
List of figures Figure 1: Origin of survey participants ...... 10 Figure 2: Origin of European survey participants ...... 10 Figure 3: Participants' year of foundation ...... 11 Figure 4: Type of servies offered by participants ...... 12 Figure 5: Aircraft in Operation 2010 ...... 12 Figure 6: Size of aircraft in operation 2010 ...... 13 Figure 7: Undercarriage types ...... 13 Figure 8: Fleet of operating carriers 2010 ...... 14 Figure 9: Flights per year and carrier ...... 15 Figure 10: Average load factor ...... 15 Figure 11: Average flight time ...... 16 Figure 12: Average flight range ...... 16 Figure 13: Participants' times of operation and schedule structure...... 17 Figure 14: Purpose of flight ...... 18 Figure 15: Connection type ...... 18 Figure 16: Availability of pilots ...... 19 Figure 17: Certification process for new seaplane operators ...... 20 Figure 18: Problems with residents or environmental authorities ...... 21 Figure 19 Maintenance: Inhouse or external? ...... 23 Figure 20 Restrictions by available aircraft ...... 24 Figure 21 Percentage change of participation of seaplane and amphibian aircraft on the total number of registered aircraft in UK [9] ...... 28 Figure 22 Numbers of registered seaplanes and imphibious in UK (1985-2011), [9] 29
FUSETRA – Future Seaplane Traffic 6 Version 1.0
Future Seaplane Transport System - SWOT
Glossary AAIB Air Accidents Investigation Branch FUSETRA Future Seaplane Traffic EU European Union GPS Global Positioning System MBTE Methyl Tertiary-Butyl Ether Strengths, Weaknesses, SWOT Opportunities, and Threats UK United Kingdom US United States of America USACE US Army Corps of Engineers VFR Visual Flight Rules
FUSETRA – Future Seaplane Traffic 7 Version 1.0
Future Seaplane Transport System - SWOT
1 Objectives
Seaplanes have been in the market for over 80 years. However, advance modifications or new designs have not been created since the 1950‟s [1]. Why is it that seaplane design had not been developed over the years? The answer is that seaplanes do not have a wide market as land planes do. The main use of seaplanes is in the private sector, and most of these designs are modified small landplanes, such as the Cessna 185, which is simply adapted with floats, to become a seaplane. The creation of new concepts is expensive and industry is not interested because the market is not very reliable. However, with the increase of tourism around the world, a new opportunity for seaplanes had arisen. People are now focusing on nature tourism, which is based on natural attractions of an area. Therefore, some natural tourist places are inaccessible to arrive by other means of transportation such as cars, buses, trains and even landplanes. So the solution to this problem is seaplanes. Islands in the Pacific Ocean are now one of the main tourist attractions in the world, but are not large enough to construct airports for aircraft, so the only way to arrive is by boat or a seaplane. Not only tourism benefits from seaplanes. In North America, especially in Canada, the large number of bodies of water and the remoteness of many important locations has produced a healthy seaplanes culture [2]. Another important use for seaplanes is to combat fires. Seaplanes are adapted as water bombers to carry up to 12,000 liters of fluid, such as the Beriev Be-200, and combat forest fires [3]. United States, Canada, Greece, Portugal, and Russia are some countries that rely on water bombers for fire-fighting. In Europe, however, the seaplane market is not as well developed as in North America. Most seaplanes are owned privately, and some are used as water bombers. Seaplane Airlines are scarce, and they have to compete against other types of transportations, such as ferries and trains.
The objective of this document is to establish a common understanding of current strengths and weaknesses of existing seaplane/amphibian transport system as well as future opportunities for a new seaplane/amphibian transport system. In this report a market analysis is discussed to show the actual point in which seaplanes stand in today‟s European market together with suggestions for a new establishing seaplane business. Starting from this point of view, strengths and weaknesses of existing seaplane market/operation/design are taken in account in order to understand which aspects need more attention, and, on the other hand, what are the areas where existing seaplanes are already superior to other means of transportation. The European Vision 2020 for aeronautics [4], and the concept of sustainable aviation stated within, is here considered as guideline in the strength/weakness assessment.
FUSETRA – Future Seaplane Traffic 8 Version 1.0
Future Seaplane Transport System - SWOT
On the base of this analysis some suggestions are then made to obtain a better, more reliable and least expensive seaplane operation for the market today, in a near future and long term period.
2 Seaplane Operations
To get an overview about the current application of seaplanes and amphibians an online survey has been created and made accessible to operators worldwide on the project website (www.fusetra.eu). The following topics have been identified as subject of interest:
General Information about Seaplane Operators
Operational Issues
Pilots, Regulations and Certification
Infrastructure and Aircraft
General issues and comments on the future development of the seaplane transport system.
3 General Information about Seaplane Operators
3.1 Participants’ origin
The distribution of survey participants, given in Figure 1 and Figure 2, shows that around one half them was European, more than one third North American and the rest from India and Australia. The European participants are equally distributed over the continent with slightly more participation in France and the United Kingdom. Surprisingly operators from countries with long coast lines, for example from the Iberian Peninsula, the Spanish Isles or Scandinavia (except Norway) did not participate. There are no participants from Russia, which is home to a very active seaplane industry and has a lot of inland waterways.
FUSETRA – Future Seaplane Traffic 9 Version 1.0
Future Seaplane Transport System - SWOT
29% USA Canada 48% Australia India 9% Europe 9% 5%
Figure 1: Origin of survey participants
Italy 10% 10% United Kingdom 10% France 20% The Netherlands 10% Norway
10% Germany 20% Malta 10% Greece
Figure 2: Origin of European survey participants
3.2 Participants’ field of service
The participants‟ companies or clubs were found from 1930 to now. Almost two thirds of them were found in the current decade as to be seen in Figure 3. This result strengthens the assumption that a long-lasting seaplane business is very difficult to establish and maintained, but without proven information of former operators it only stays an assumption.
Concerning the services offered by the participants, a general statement has to be made, that most of them offer more than one. The activities are divided into those given in the following list and the results are shown in Figure 4.
FUSETRA – Future Seaplane Traffic 10 Version 1.0
Future Seaplane Transport System - SWOT
Commercial airline Commercial airline aspirant (or former commercial airline) Flight training Flying club Manufacturer Charter Tourist Consultant
Popular combinations of services are flying schools that offer charter flights, generally the combination of charter and scenic flights and former commercial airline or aspirants that offer their services as consultants. The manufacturers that participated just provided data about the availability on pilots. Commercial airline aspirants are either working on obtaining their Air Operator Certificate (AOC) or already abandoned this plan.
Participants' year of foundation
19%
Before 1990
19% 1990 - 2000 62% 2000 - 2010
Figure 3: Participants' year of foundation
FUSETRA – Future Seaplane Traffic 11 Version 1.0
Future Seaplane Transport System - SWOT
Type of services offered by participants
Commercial Airline 5% 16% Commercial Airline Aspirant 22% 6% Flight Training Flying Club
16% Manufacturer Charter 22% 8% Tourist 5% Consultant
Figure 4: Type of servies offered by participants
4 Seaplane operations
4.1 Aircraft in operation
Figure 5 shows the types and amount of aircraft in operation 2010. The large portion of the deHavilland models is due to the fleet of the world‟s largest seaplane operator that almost only consists of DHC-2 and DHC-3. Its fleet marks almost half of all the aircraft considered for this study. The Cessna models 172, 206 and 208 are also widely used. The 172, that is also very popular with a conventional landing gear is the most wide spread one of them.
Aircraft in Operation 2010 35% 29% 30% 27% 25% 20% 15% 12% 10% 8% 8% 5% 3% 3% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 0%
Figure 5: Aircraft in Operation 2010 FUSETRA – Future Seaplane Traffic 12 Version 1.0
Future Seaplane Transport System - SWOT
When regarding the passengers that the above aircraft types are certified for, the distribution is given in Figure 6. The portion of aircraft with more than 15 passengers results from one Grumman HU-16 operated by a US based company. While models with one to three passengers are obviously mainly used for flight training, scenic and charter flights, the aircraft used for passenger transportation offer seven to fifteen seats.
The results on the undercarriage used are again mainly influenced by the fleet of the world‟s biggest seaplane airline that uses only straight floats. On the rest of the aircraft, more amphibian systems are mounted. The portion of aircraft with regular landing gear is included due to operators not exclusively focussed on seaplanes that included their whole fleet.
Size of aircraft in Operation 2010 40%
35% 37% 30%
25% 27% 20% 23% 15%
10% 12% 5% 1% 0% 1-3 PAX 4-6 PAX 7-10 PAX 10-15 PAX >15 PAX
Figure 6: Size of aircraft in operation 2010
Undercarriage type
6%
32%
62%
straighfloat amphibian normal L/G
Figure 7: Undercarriage types
FUSETRA – Future Seaplane Traffic 13 Version 1.0
Future Seaplane Transport System - SWOT
Three-quarters of the participating operators run three or less aircraft. Only five percent operate more than six. The maximum absolute amount of thirty three is an absolute exception. The complete distribution can be seen in Figure 8.
Fleet of operating carriers 2010 50% 45% 45% 40% 35% 30% 30% 25% 20% 20% 15% 10% 5% 5% 0% 1 A/C 2-3 A/C 4-6 A/C >6 A/C
Figure 8: Fleet of operating carriers 2010
4.2 Operational key figures
To get a picture of the actual all-day performance of the seaplanes in operation, we asked the participants to state on the number of flights per year, the average flight time and distance as well as the average load factor. The results are shown from Figure 9 to Figure 12. The percentage of participants that provided this type of data is 41%. The numbers gathered for the amount of flights per year unfortunately does not allow a clear statement, as the distribution is almost equal. Furthermore there are commercial airlines with a very high number of flight movements, but also those with a very low number. The same phenomenon can be seen for the participants offering flight training, charter and scenic flights. Some have around 40 flights per year while others are above 1200 movements. The highest amount registered is 5000 movements per year.
FUSETRA – Future Seaplane Traffic 14 Version 1.0
Future Seaplane Transport System - SWOT
Flights per year and carrier 25%
20% 22% 22% 22% 22%
15%
10% 11% 5%
0% <50 50 - 100 100 - 300 300 - 1000 >1000
Figure 9: Flights per year and carrier
Figure 10: Average load factor The average load factor worldwide for passenger aviation is around 75%. The average taken from the survey is only slightly higher at 79%. Here a clear tendency can be seen that the load factors of the commercial airlines with fixed schedules are slightly below the average and those of flying schools and for charter and scenic flights are mostly above. This tendency is also to be seen in passenger aviation in general.
FUSETRA – Future Seaplane Traffic 15 Version 1.0
Future Seaplane Transport System - SWOT
Average flight time 40% 35% 30% 31% 31% 25% 20% 25% 15% 10% 13% 5% 0% 15 - 30 min 30 min - 1h 1h - 2h 2h - 3h
Figure 11: Average flight time When comparing the flight times given in Figure 11, the only clear result is that the endurance or a seldom more than two hours. Again, no clear separation of commercial airlines and the other participants can be done by the flight times.
Average flight range 40% 35% 38% 38% 30% 25% 20% 25% 15% 10% 5% 0% 0 - 50nm 50 - 100nm >100nm
Figure 12: Average flight range The maximum flight range registered is 120nm. The highest values are reported by flying clubs and flying schools, while the average distances of the commercial airlines move between 30 – 70nm. The absolute average is 68nm.
4.3 Connections and flight plans
FUSETRA – Future Seaplane Traffic 16 Version 1.0
Future Seaplane Transport System - SWOT
Figure 13 shows that one quarter of the participants do not operate in winter. Those are mostly those that offer charter and scenic flights, but the main aspect of winter operation is of course the geographic location.
Carrier times of operation Schedule structure
10% 25%
50%
40% 75%
Only on-demand Mostly scheduled flights All-year Summer Mostly on-demand flights
Figure 13: Participants' times of operation and schedule structure Half of the carriers fly only on-demand, 60% mostly. With respect to the flight movements stated, the percentage of on-demand flights is 76%. The scheduled flights are, other than expected, mostly scenic flights. Only one quarter of the participating commercial airlines have a fixed schedule.
The purpose of the flights, with respect to the participants is mostly passenger transportation, but as to be seen in Figure 14, a remarkable portion is declared as other flight. From the services the participants offer, it can be assumed that this is mostly flight training or leisure flights in flying clubs. Fire fighting and cargo transport were offered as flight types in the survey but are only performed by a very low percentage of the participants. Only one participant based in Canada uses his aircraft for firefighting (15% of all flights). Two of the commercial airlines have a very low percentage of cargo transport.
FUSETRA – Future Seaplane Traffic 17 Version 1.0
Future Seaplane Transport System - SWOT
Purpose of flight Purpose of flight (by carrier) (by flight movements)
9%
36%
64%
91%
Mostly PAX Mostly Other PAX Cargo Fire Fighting Other
Figure 14: Purpose of flight The results on the question whether the connections are from water to water, from water to land or land connections can be seen in Figure 15. When watching them with respect to the participants, more than half are connecting mostly water sites, and this impression is even stronger when relating the results to the number of flights. Then over 80% of all flights are water-to-water connections.
Connection type Connection type (by carrier) (by flight movements)
17% 12% 7%
25% 58%
81%
Mostly water-to-water Water-to-water Mostly water-to-airfield Water-to-airfield Mostly airfield-to-airfield Airflield-to-airfield
Figure 15: Connection type
5 Certification
5.1 Pilots
FUSETRA – Future Seaplane Traffic 18 Version 1.0
Future Seaplane Transport System - SWOT
The comments on the availability of pilots with seaplane rating are shown in Figure 16. The general situation when summarizing all results is not alarming. Almost three quarter of the participants do not characterize the situation as critical. Dividing up the continents shows that in North America the availability of pilots is unproblematic for over 85%, while for two-thirds of the European participants it is critical and challenging for the remaining one-third. In Asia and Australia the situation is generally characterized as challenging.
Availability of pilots: Overall
27% 40%
33% North America Europe
14% Unproblematic 33% Challenging Critical 67% 86%
Figure 16: Availability of pilots It was further asked where the pilots employed with an operator received their original flying license. Without exception it was issued in the country the operator is based in. Free comments on the situation included that mostly North American pilots are available. It was also remarked that even if a pilots are rated for seaplane operation, a big amount lacks sufficient open water experience. A specific problem in the northeast US seems to be that seaplane pilots are only employed seasonally.
5.2 Operators
All of the participants that answered to the following section of the survey own the aircraft operator certificate (AOC), except for the US based flying schools and the commercial airline aspirants. In all cases it was issued by the national aviation authorities (NAA) of the country the operator is based in. When looking at the participants‟ description of the certification process, Figure 17, it is clearly to be seen that only in a minor number of cases it was considered unproblematic. All these cases are North American companies. The Canadian Department of Transport is explicitly mentioned for an uncomplicated working relationship. In Europe the process is mostly seen as critical. In one case, a participant describes his impression that his NAA seemed to be complicating the process willingly. Several statements from
FUSETRA – Future Seaplane Traffic 19 Version 1.0
Future Seaplane Transport System - SWOT participants worldwide say that there is a lack of understanding and sensibility for seaplane operations in the NAA.
Certification process for new seaplane operators
Overall Europe
27% critical 33% unproblematic 53% challenging 20% 67%
Figure 17: Certification process for new seaplane operators When asked if they were assisted with the licensing process by their NAA, North American participants generally answered that they were not, but the process was feasible and known. A Canadian operator was assisted when looking for a new aerodrome. European participants complain about the unclear regulations and a missing point of contact within EASA. Expanding the question to the expectations they have for a central certification process governed by EASA or a central institution, and which points should be included, various points were mentioned. A specific European concern is to modify EU-OPS, so that for international business, it is not necessary to study the varying national laws. Furthermore a seaplane licence rating and standardisation in issuing landing sites was prompted. One European operator wished for a distinction between commercial and private operations with respect to the level of experience.
North American participants would like to include a clear regulation about the availability of waterways. They recommend that the assessment of landing sites is done analogue to those on land with a rating for the environmental impact and designated flight and noise abatement areas. One participant states that maritime regulations should be applied for the movements on the water while aviation regulations should become effective when the aircraft becomes airborne.
Further questions were addressing specific points of contacts with authorities. As to be seen in Figure 18, 40% of the participants are having problems with environmental authorities or residents. The reason is almost exclusively noise. In some cases in North America, participants are operating in or close to national parks.
FUSETRA – Future Seaplane Traffic 20 Version 1.0
Future Seaplane Transport System - SWOT
When starting operation, did you have problems with residents or environment authorities?
40% Yes No 60%
Figure 18: Problems with residents or environmental authorities More than half of the operators are affected by special regional regulations concerning the use of waterways. Besides the mentioned national parks, they face generally restricted areas, excessive diffusion of water plants or are restricted to coastal regions, as reported from Norway or the United Kingdom. One operator complains that the designated permitted areas are too small and in the wrong location for typical conditions.
When asked if the compliance with both, maritime and aviation regulations leads to a conflict, one-third thought that they do. It was stated that maritime regulations do not consider the lack of manoeuvrability and ability to come to a sudden stop when compared to a boat. In one case in Australia, the port authorities require seaplane pilots to have a recreational boat license for their commercial operations. A participant from the United Kingdom reported that the restrictions to operations the maritime authorities imposed to guarantee safety of maritime traffic were not improving the latter but reducing aviation safety.
6 Infrastructure and Aircraft
6.1 Seaport Management
Operators were asked if they manage their seaport themselves or if their seaport is managed by other institutions. 55% of the participating seaplane/amphibian operators were managing theirs seaports on their own. However, no link could be made between business size (number of aircraft operated) and seaport management. If an operator has to manage the seaport on its own seems to be dependent on the availability or the obligation to use managing services and/or special regulations varying from country to country.
FUSETRA – Future Seaplane Traffic 21 Version 1.0
Future Seaplane Transport System - SWOT
6.2 Seaport License & Seaport Approval
Operators were asked which institutions issued their seaport license and/or approval. The following information could be gathered in the survey:
Seaport License Seaport Approval
USA FAA, DOT (State department)
Canada Transport Canada
Malta DCA Malta
Australia State Maritime Authority
Table 1 Seaport Licensing Institutions
6.3 Configuration of seaside landing site
The following table gives an overview about installations currently used by seaplane operators. The use of moorings, pontoons and respective foot bridges is commonly part of a seaport. Amphibian operators need not rely on seaside infrastructure and can used land bound landing strips, of course. The use of own maintenance hangars, offices and fuel stations is also not related to business size (or aircraft operated). Additionally, the use of emergency equipment seems not to be regulated differently from country to country.
Installation item Operators using installation [%]
Moorings / Pontoons 50% Foot bridges 41% Navigation lights 5% Maintenance site/ Hangar 18% Office 36% Fuel Station 32% Emergency / Fire Services 14% Table 2 Landing site installations Other items mentioned apart from the above list were safety boats, fuel barges and navigation marks.
6.4 Maintenance concept
According to the use of own maintenance sites/hangars about a third of the operators use external maintenance concepts.
FUSETRA – Future Seaplane Traffic 22 Version 1.0
Future Seaplane Transport System - SWOT
Figure 19 Maintenance: Inhouse or external?
It was asked how many days per month the average aircraft is out of service due to maintenance. The number of days ranges from one to six days of maintenance per month. Astonishingly, aircraft which are used commonly (DHC-2 and Cessna 208) have the largest necessity for maintenance with 5 to 6 days per month not in operation. (Note: these numbers are results from the online survey and are not checked for plausibility, e.g. from OEM maintenance instructions.)
6.5 Connectivity of seaports to landside infrastructure
Table 3 shows that most operators are connected to some kind of street/motorway infrastructure but no seaplane operator is connected to larger airports. Main business is leisure travel for most seaplane operators. Still, the option of feeding traffic into larger hub airports by amphibian aircraft is possible but not executed. About a quarter of all participating operators rely on existing seaport or airport infrastructure. However, most businesses seem to be remote locations not closely coupled to other means of transport.
Connection % of operators Landing site connected to roads / motorways 91% Landing site connected to long distance railroad system 5% Landing site connected to public metropolitan and suburban 14% commuters Landing site integrated in seaport 23% Landing site connected to local airfield 23% Landing site connected to international airport 0% Table 3 Landside connectivity
6.6 Restrictions because of availability of suitable aircraft
FUSETRA – Future Seaplane Traffic 23 Version 1.0
Future Seaplane Transport System - SWOT
Operators were asked if they see the growth of a future seaplane transport system being restricted by the availability of suitable aircraft. At least 41% answered YES to this question. The year of first manufacturing of most seaplanes in operation has been several decades ago and the wish for efficient new aircraft is rising. Operators indicate the will to participate in the definition of requirements towards new aircraft in future FUSETRA surveys.
Figure 20 Restrictions by available aircraft
6.7 Future Aircraft Requirements
The main requirements towards future aircraft have been asked, too. The requested payload lies between 250kg and 1500kg for the greatest part of operators. Only few requested larger payloads over 4 tons.
Payload Requirement [kg] % of operators
<500 kilograms 29%
500-1000 kilograms 29%
1000-1500 kilograms 29%
>1500kg (i.e. 4800kg, 5600kg) 14%
Table 4 Payload requirements The range requirements are more uniform and show that characteristic stage lengths are far below conventional commercial operations.
Range Requirement [nm] % of operators
< 250 nautical miles 30%
250- 450 nautical miles 30%
FUSETRA – Future Seaplane Traffic 24 Version 1.0
Future Seaplane Transport System - SWOT
450- 650 nautical miles 20%
650- 850 nautical miles 20%
> 850 nautical miles 0%
Table 5 Range requirements The required speed for future seaplanes is ranging from 140-180 knots.
Additional comments on features which should be considered in aircraft development in future:
Capable of operating in open / rough water (good sea state capability)
High wing
Amphibian
IFR capable (Instrument Flight Rules)
Engine designed to cope with very short cycles 5/hr
Hot salt water tolerant corrosion
Good visibility for passengers
Suitable for use in confined areas
Suitable for working with boats
Low operating costs
6.8 Main Problems in Seaplane Aviation
Table 6 shows the main problems indicated by seaplane operators. The table distinguishes between worldwide and European operators in order to identify problems specific to European operations. It can be concluded that availability of pilots and suitable aircraft is a major problem in Europe. Other major problems are aviation authority regulations and their implementation. On a worldwide basis environmental issues of seaplane operations are posing difficulties to operators during the licensing process of seaplane bases.
Main Problems of Operations Worldwide Europe
Availability of licensed pilots 18% 50%
Availability of suitable aircraft 27% 50%
Safety issues 14% 20%
FUSETRA – Future Seaplane Traffic 25 Version 1.0
Future Seaplane Transport System - SWOT
Passenger reservation about seaplanes 0% 0%
Opposition of environmental authorities 41% 20%
Aviation authorities regulations 32% 40%
Naval authorities regulations 18% 20%
Table 6 Main problems of seaplane operators
7 Aspects of Seaplane Operations in Europe
No matter how the economic conditions appear to be or how suitable for seaplanes they are, it is very difficult to talk about seaplane traffic in Europe. Around the whole of Europe there is lots of strict government regulations, usually related with thoughts of possible environmental damage. These regulations are mostly too strict and they do not correspond with modern transport equipment. In fact, as explained by an experienced seaplane pilot, the greatest difficulty for the new seaplane operator is to convince the authorities that there should be no rigid rule as to the exact landing and maneuvering areas for safe seaplane operations [5]. In this paper, the future of landing sites and passenger terminals is approached, it is emphasized all negative and positive points that seaplanes face today. It is stated that the best way to convince the authorities is by demonstrating that seaplanes can operate safely in busy boating areas, the aircraft has the necessary safe water maneuverability, and stopping capabilities. It is true that most problems faced today by seaplanes are of social issues, regulations, operations and infrastructure, rather than technological issues. However, if there is no technological advancement that proves that seaplanes are safe, and have optimized water and air capabilities, both the market and the authorities will not be convinced that seaplanes can operate as safe and efficient as a boat or an aircraft does. In order for a seaplane operation to be successful a careful attention must be made to the landing sites, geographic relief, weather conditions, availability of fuel, and good market research. Finally, a Landing Site Manual should be created the same way as any other airport manual is created, as in contrast to North America, in which seaplanes operate with their own manual instructions, separate from all aircraft operations.
It is also possible to make a better equipped seaplane that can operate in rougher seas; hence it could be operated over a greater variety of destinations.
There is a large market potential in rivers, canals, sea, lakes, etc., places inaccessible for other planes. So, to find a demand should not be difficult after the redesign of the plane‟s equipment and operation.
FUSETRA – Future Seaplane Traffic 26 Version 1.0
Future Seaplane Transport System - SWOT
They can also operate in areas with minimum infrastructure, assistance and radio facilities. Despite the higher costs when compared to the no-frill airlines, there is an opportunity to promote the added experience and convenience that a seaplane can offer as opposed to landplanes. Their high versatility makes them a perfect choice for holiday destinations, allowing passengers to get closer to nature and visit areas that would have otherwise been inaccessible to them. For many passengers it offers a unique and „special‟ type of journey and provides an aeronautical culture opportunity for those who do not live close to airports. Last but by no means least, it provides a sense of freedom for the passengers by moving outside of the artificial world of airports, controlled airspace and aeronautical bureaucracy [6], [7].
7.1 Situation in the UK
Although there is a long history of seaplanes and amphibian aircrafts, the first commercial operator, that operates Europe‟s first city centre seaplane service, comes from Scotland. It started this service only eight years ago. The region was not chosen accidentally: Scotland is very suitable for seaplanes by its nature, because it has more than 790 islands.
Almost all the seaplane services in Scotland are operated by Loch Lomond Seaplanes Ltd; a company founded in 2003. The company holds a United Kingdom Civil Aviation Authority Type B Operating Licence; it is permitted to carry passengers, cargo and mail on aircraft with fewer than 20 seats and/or weighing less than 10 tonnes. The Loch Lomond Seaplanes Ltd also operates “Glasgow Seaplane Terminal” airport, opened in 2007 [8].
The airline operates tour and charter flights, as well as regular flights around the west coast of Scotland, with a two times a day service on some routes. The operated destinations include:
Portree, Edinburgh, Inverness, Machrie, Aberdeen, Machrihanish. Fort William, Tobermory, Oban, Loch Lomond, Glasgow, Prestwick, Perth, Dundee,
FUSETRA – Future Seaplane Traffic 27 Version 1.0
Future Seaplane Transport System - SWOT
This company has around 10 employees and operates two amphibious: CESSNA 208 and CESSNA T206H type. Although it does not seem to be a big company, it operates on a lot of routes on demand and it is also planning to expand to Europe. Its future vision is to have 30 employees at least and operate flights across the English Channel.
Although Loch Lomond Seaplanes Ltd operates seaplanes in Scotland, it is only a drop in the ocean in comparison of all land-based aircrafts operated across the country.
Today the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) registers only two seaplanes and twenty amphibians [9]. It is a small number in comparison with 20,379 of total registered aircraft.
In Figure 21 is shown how small the participation of seaplane and amphibian aircraft compared to the total number of registered aircrafts is and how this has changed through the past few years.
Figure 21 Percentage change of participation of seaplane and amphibian aircraft on the total number of registered aircraft in UK [9] The graph depicted in Figure 22 illustrates the numbers of fixed-wing seaplane aircraft registered in the UK each year as well as fixed-wing amphibian aircraft.
FUSETRA – Future Seaplane Traffic 28 Version 1.0
Future Seaplane Transport System - SWOT
Figure 22 Numbers of registered seaplanes and imphibious in UK (1985-2011), [9]
The chart above clearly shows that the number of registered serviceable seaplanes in the UK is only 2. Together with amphibious planes it is still only 22 planes. This is only 0,108 % of the total registered aircraft (as shown in Figure 21).
7.2 Government Regulation and Control
Regulation and control of seaplanes includes regulations from both the aviation and naval authorities. To make the situation even more difficult there are many regulations for seaplane pilots. They must adhere to the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea, 1972 (COLREGS), The Merchant Shipping (Distress Signals and Prevention of Collisions) Regulations, 1996 and the multiple connotations of the Civil Aviation Act, 1949 [7,10,11].
- Regulations related with harbour
Seaplanes could be operated as a ship, which means that seaplanes must adhere to terms given by harbours and they also have to adhere to limitations imposed on approach speed when near to other vessels and the manner at which these vessels pass each other (seaplanes are required to always give way to shipping, given their superior aerial visibility). The sole responsibility above these things is placed on the pilot [7]. They would require permission from the relevant harbour authority, which FUSETRA – Future Seaplane Traffic 29 Version 1.0
Future Seaplane Transport System - SWOT owns the water on which they are taking off or landing, and they will need to ensure the coastguard or the relevant search and rescue authority has been informed of their plans.
- Regulations related with landing
Moreover, to land in inland waters, permission from the landowner is mandatory, which can prove to be an extremely difficult task. Although some regulations in Europe allow landing at unlicensed water aerodromes by issuing exemptions where there is a need (e.g. Oban bay in Scotland), many still insist on the full approval of the water aerodrome. Among these exemptions, the one which is most likely to be relevant for seaplanes, in the UK, is that craft weighing less than 5.7 tonnes do not need to use licensed aerodrome (this would cover pretty much all the smaller tourist- type seaplanes currently in use). However, even in circumstances where operators attempt to set-up licensed aerodromes, there is still an issue of coherency and it is often impractical and expensive. These permissions and private land issues defeat the whole purpose of seaplanes flexibility, and greatly damages what they stand for [7].
- Regulations related with luggage
One of the key added benefits is the lower or non-existent luggage restrictions for seaplanes which are plentiful on commercial landplanes. This is especially relevant for the “on demand” trips, yet there is always possibility of random security checks from time to time. Although this may appear as a significant security issue for some, the rapid turnaround times are a major benefit. Seaplane travel enables passengers to fly from A to B as quickly as possible, and in many cases to board almost directly from their car [7,12].
Nevertheless, as the number of routes increases with the development of seaplanes, this lack of security is expected to diminish.
8 Stakeholders involved in Seaplane Operations
There are plenty of possibilities across the whole Europe to operate seaplanes, especially in Scandinavia, United Kingdom and Greece. If there were good-will from governments to make landing on the water more accessible, there could be far more interest from operators and result in a more flexible market.
8.1 Europe
FUSETRA – Future Seaplane Traffic 30 Version 1.0
Future Seaplane Transport System - SWOT
The European seaplanes market is currently very limited, especially the number of market operators and types of planes in use. A comparison between Canada, North USA and Europe would show Europe to be far behind. This is because the current number of route, companies and traffic is small. Almost all of these European stakeholders are small or medium sized enterprises. For completeness examples of countries with some seaplanes traffic in Europe, types of aircrafts used and operators are listed below (everything is gathered from operator‟s websites). However, for a more accurate and complete overview, Fusetra survey/database gathers together all the enterprises that operate in Europe.
Croatia European coastal seaplanes, their fleet The Lake Buccaneer, LA 4-200, Lake-4 seater De Havilland DHC-6 Twin Otter G21-A Goose Finland PNF Pure Nature Flyers Ikarus C42 France Eads-Irkut seaplane Beriev BE-200 Beriev BE-210 Germany Drive and Fly (Clipper is missing, Mosel ??) Ikarus C 42 B Cessna FA 150 K Greece Argo Airways De Havilland DHC-3 Turbine Single Otter Ireland – Amphibious flying club and Ulster Seaplane Association Ltd N/A for both Italy - Aero Club Como Cessna 172 Cessna 172 XP Piper PA 18 Cessna 305 C FUSETRA – Future Seaplane Traffic 31 Version 1.0
Future Seaplane Transport System - SWOT
Cessna 206 Lake LA4-200 EP Malta - Air Malta DeHavilland DHC-3 Turbine Single Otter Norway – Fonnafly Cessna U / TU 206 United Kingdom – Caledonian seaplanes training school, temporarily N/A Cambrian aero – training, Lake250 Amphibian, C172 pumping floats, St Angelo NI, Maule M7 Euro plane Services Limited, Cessna 182R Skylane Loch Lomond seaplanes, Cessna 208 Caravan Cessna Turbo Stationair T206H Neil‟s seaplanes limited, Christen Aviat A-1 Husky amphibian On-Track Aviation Limited Cessna 152/172s, PA28/34s, T67M Firefly, Bulldog, Robin 200/2160is, Husky A-1 Amphibian, C172 Amphibian Maule 235 Amphibian Sweden Float plane training - Grafair seaflights and Täby Seaplane Club N/A Turkey Hakan Osanmaz Charters and Sea Plane Türkiye N/A
The above list reveals that there are more old than new planes. This again is a proof that the golden age for seaplanes was the first half of the twentieth century. It may also be seen that many operators are placed in very suitable areas for seaplanes, FUSETRA – Future Seaplane Traffic 32 Version 1.0
Future Seaplane Transport System - SWOT especially in regions like Scotland. Scotland has many islands and lochs/lakes. These European operators are usually voluntarily gathered in organisations [13]:
Austria - Seaplane Pilots Association Austria (http://www.spaa.at/) Finland - Finnish Sea- & Skiplane Association (http://www.vesilento.com/) France - Seaplane Pilots Association France Germany - Seaplane Pilots Association Germany (http://www.wasserflieger.com) Greece - Hellenic Seaplane Association (http://www.seaplane.org.gr) Italy - Seaplane Pilots Association Italy (http://www.aeroclubcomo.com) Norway - Norwegian Ski- & Seaplane Association (http://www.nak.no/sea) Scotland - UK Seaplane Association (www.seaplaneassociation.org.uk) Spain - Seaplane Pilots Association España Sweden - Swedish Seaplane Association (http://www.sjoflyg.com/) Swiss - Seaplane Pilots Association Switzerland (http://www.seaplanes.ch)
9 SWOT analysis of existing seaplane operations
The aim of this SWOT analysis is to recognize the key internal and external factors that are important to seaplane operations. The swot analysis may be then split into two main categories as follow:
Internal factors: strengths and weaknesses internal to this particular type of transportation.
External factors: opportunities and threats presented by the external environment.
Strengths and weaknesses of seaplane operations are here analyzed under the light of the “European Aeronautics: a vision for 2020” document [4], where the concept of sustainability is introduced and made the kernel of the aviation future. EU vision 2020 in not a deadline, but a sensible reflection on what should lie ahead for Europe in the near future in order to win global leadership in aeronautics. In vision 2020 aeronautics must satisfy constantly rising demands for lower costs, better service quality, the highest safety and environmental standards and an air transport system that is seamlessly integrated with other transport network. In the document it is stressed that, at all prices, an airline ticket buys the four C‟s:
Choice: variety of choices for a passenger to construct his/her journey.
Convenience: departure and arrival are dependable in all traffic densities and weather.
FUSETRA – Future Seaplane Traffic 33 Version 1.0
Future Seaplane Transport System - SWOT
Comfort: cabins are passenger friendly and interiors are no longer cursed by noise, vibrations and turbulence.
Costs: the airline system is operated with great efficiency and with less costs, operate and maintain, savings are passed to passengers.
Skies have to be always safer and the most advance automated systems have to be integrated to eliminate accidents. Aircraft need to be cleaner and quieter and the environment sustainable with the contribution of the aeronautic sector. The definition of sustainability states that „sustainability is the concept to endure“. It depends on the wellbeing of the natural world as whole and the responsible use of natural resources. One EU main objective, in this regard, is to halve, by 2020, carbon dioxide (CO2) emission, perceived noise pollution, and reduced nitrogen oxide (Nox) emission by 80% from 2000 levels. In conclusion it can be said that if a generation ago the imperatives were: higher, further and faster, then, according to the vision 2020 guidelines, these have become: more affordable, safer, cleaner and quieter. On the bases of these concepts, and of the market analysis presented in previous paragraphs, a comprehensive SWOT analysis can be conducted for the European seaplane/amphibian sector.
9.1 Strengths
9.1.1 Environment (for cleaner and quieter world)
One of the major deterrents facing the seaplane market today is the opposition by environmental authorities on the perceived impact of seaplane. The main argument is based on the noise impact of seaplane landing, taxiing and taking off, which is known to exceed the ambient noise level. Additionally, there is a belief that noise, landing and take-off all impact on wildlife. A current example of this is the on-going dispute between Loch Lomond Seaplanes and Trossachs National Park. Also a recent survey conducted by Fusetra showed that worldwide, the greatest obstacle facing seaplanes was considered to be the opposition of environmental authorities. In Europe this was also agreed by 20% of operators [14].
air/water pollution:
Only few studies have been completed to assess the seaplane environmental impact anywhere in the world and in many cases these are independent studies carried out by private seaplane operators [15,16]. The most inclusive and unbiased is probably an investigation conducted by US Army corps of Engineers (USACE) [17]. The outcomes were:
FUSETRA – Future Seaplane Traffic 34 Version 1.0
Future Seaplane Transport System - SWOT
Air quality: no impact
Water quality: no impact
Soil quality: no impact
Wildlife: no impact
Fisheries: no impact
Hydrology: no impact
It is true that carbon emission generated from seaplane exceed the emission produced by boats. However, consideration should be given to the fact that the number of boat movements within any given area greatly outweighs seaplane movements in this area. Additionally It should be considered that the next propulsion generation (which is already tested) will have much lower noise and carbon emission levels. Attention should also be drawn to the fact that seaplanes do not discharge sewage or oily bilge water and are not treated with toxic anti-fouling paints unlike boats. Seaplane exhaust are emitted into the air, much above the water giving low water impact, and currently used seaplane fuel does not contain the flammable and volatile compound MBTE, which is found in boats. Moreover, seaplane propellers are located away from the water, giving no disturbance on sediments or marine life, and they are near negligible polluters in regard of foul water and waste from chemical toilettes. Evidently, a further study validated that floatplanes generate no more than a three inch wake without any shoreline erosion effects [18].
Noise:
Seaplanes have relatively low impact on noise pollution. The majority of noise is generated during take off when high engine power is required to make the seaplane airborne. The following table lists typical noise levels for various operations at typical distances from the sound source and, once again, highlights the minimal impact seaplanes produce [19].
Noise dBA Example Military jet 120+ Jet ski 110 e.g. watersports on lake Chainsaw 100-104 e.g. tree felling/forestry/logging Grass Cutting 88-100 Golf courses Tractors 95 e.g. general operations
FUSETRA – Future Seaplane Traffic 35 Version 1.0
Future Seaplane Transport System - SWOT
All terrain vehicles 85 Speedboat 65-95 e.g. watersports on lake Seaplane 75 on take-off only @ 300m (20 sec) Inside car – 30 mph 68-73 Normal conversation 65
Table 7 Noise levels for various operations Attention should be also paid to the fact that the figure quoted is representative of the seaplane taking off, a short period of daytime-only occurrence which, compared to taxiing and landing, requires the highest throttle power.
In conclusion it may be said that seaplane do not have negative effect on hydrodynamics, hydrology, water quality, air quality, wildlife fisheries and birds or noise pollution when compared to existing background activities on lakes and seaports.
9.1.2 Society‟s needs
Air travel does not develop in a vacuum: its size, shape and success will be determined by society as a whole. Nowadays there are specific aspects of air transport that can be better or only satisfied by seaplane/amphibian operations. The most noticeable strengths in this regard are:
Very versatile type of transportation.
Point to point connections.
Connections to very difficult to reach places (access to afield touristic or industrial areas).
Safe and efficient surveillance in otherwise inaccessible destinations.
Monitoring of wildlife and management of national parks.
Very good safety records with few incidents during takeoff, landing operations or related to collisions with boats.
Sightseeing tours/tourism. Seaplanes still hold a considerable novelty value amongst most of the population and therefore will attract tourists and other adventurous types who want to experience something different and are willing to pay more to experience it.
Ability to conduct rescue operations over large bodies of water, water bombers. FUSETRA – Future Seaplane Traffic 36 Version 1.0
Future Seaplane Transport System - SWOT
Avoid the ever congested airfield, holding patterns and control sequences that other passenger aircraft must adhere to when landing.
No need for runway infrastructures, “unprepared” landing strip, smaller landing fees than landplanes.
Access from 40% (flying boats) to 70% (amphibian plane) more of the earth‟s surface area than a conventional land plane.
9.2 Weaknesses
Seaplanes today are “endangered species” and although they posses undoubted potential, the lack of ability to unlock this potential is due to numerous problems. These are of a various nature and involve different aspects of seaplane/amphibian‟s environment. Certainly, the design aspect is a major impediment on seaplane advancement and is linked to many other areas. In fact, as with the introduction of new efficient commercial aircraft designs, the use of the seaplane declined, no new advanced designs have been made, and most extant seaplanes existing these days are approaching the end of their operating life. This situation has resulted in a scarcity of modern and cost-efficient seaplanes. The lack of innovative designs and use of today‟s technology then force seaplanes to VFR and make them not suitable in adverse weather conditions or rough waters. In addition, some environmental issues could, in the near future, change what is currently a strength factor into a weakness. As stated before, vision 2020 aims to reduce polluting emissions by 50% for CO2 (Carbon dioxide) and by 80% regarding Nox (Nitrogen oxide). Alternative fuels and new generation engines, together with better aerodynamic performances, must be considered in order to keep these values as low as possible and match the suggested targets by the year 2020.
Finally, but equally important, the limited amount of seaplane bases and missing standard infrastructure equipment is surely a weak point that limits the seaplane market. It means that refueling and regular maintenance are factors which need serious consideration.
9.3 Opportunities
There is huge room for improvements in seaplane operations and many opportunities that can be exploited in such market. While demand is difficult to forecast without a detailed market research and an overview of current trends, something that is not available to fledgling industries, it can be presumed that demand should arise if the industry can offer a different service from large commercial airlines, either in terms of
FUSETRA – Future Seaplane Traffic 37 Version 1.0
Future Seaplane Transport System - SWOT savings, convenience or novelty. Following is a list of the main features that may be considered as reliable new opportunities for seaplane:
Easy usability among places with lots of islands and area/s with (many) resource/s of water.
Faster service compared to ferries when connecting mainland-islands or island-island (e.g. Greece, UK, Ireland, etc) and the possibility to fly directly from major inland cities catering also specific groups of commuters in their daily journeys [20]. For example, around 90% of the UK‟s 61.8 million population lives in 66 cities. Of these, 53 have rivers or waterways [21] that are wide enough for a seaplane to land and with at least one straight of 500m in length. Potentially this means that 53 of the UK‟s 66 cities (80%) could entertain the concept of seaplane operations, which in turn would open up 72% of the country‟s population. In other words, seaplane travel and seaplane ports could potentially encompass as many people as both motorway and rail if they were opened in all major UK cities. In addition, the department of transport suggests that people allow for more time when travelling on motorways due to unpredictability of congestion [22]. A problem that is only going to get worse and give credence to the need for new and innovative form of transportation.
“Green” type of transport (seaplanes could be very popular because of their ecology operation – public opinion is very focused on ecology in these days).
Unconventional experience from transport (especially for tourists).
Transport with quick dispatching.
To shorten travel times avoiding the use of a combination of other means of transportation connecting places directly (e.g. Malta-south coast of Sicily) or considerable time savings that can be made where travel by any land based means is significantly time consuming (e.g. Scotland has got 670 major islands and 560 large fresh water lochs with a not very well developed rail and road network, especially north of Glasgow and highlands in general).
Avionics systems (lighten the burdens on the pilot, help making correct decisions and reduce human error, night flight). In fact, seaplanes are limited to daytime VFR. Then the way to eliminate this disadvantage is by adding
FUSETRA – Future Seaplane Traffic 38 Version 1.0
Future Seaplane Transport System - SWOT
advance cockpit technology, or the used of advance gear such as GPS, radar, laser altimeters, gyros, advance sensors, among other gear.
Larger seaplanes with better range, more seats and less affected by weather/water conditions.
Efficient, safe, comfortable infrastructures [23] (seaports, docking facilities, accessibility…), in order to conduct all seaport operations, such as passenger boarding and refuelling, in the safest possible manner avoiding any dangerous or hazardous situation for the operating staff, travellers, technical structures and environment.
Air freight services: cargos travel by air because it is more competitive.
Start a travel agency simultaneously or to make joint venture with some other travel agency.
Modifications of existing planes with innovative new design. Based on the market research and the technological review, the creation of a new seaplane design will require time, manufacturing costs, regulation and certification, and social acceptance. The most convenient solution for the near future will be to create an innovative seaplane design based on existing certified aircraft (e.g. FAR 23/CS 23), and adapting a floating device. Innovative ideas to reduce drag, decrease weight, and obtain optimized hydrodynamic performance [24] such as retractable floats, composite materials and novel boathull shapes must be considered. A seaplane conversion will be also cheap to repair due that it will share all the parts of its landplanes counterparts, except for the floating devices that will be used, and the extra maintenance that is taken into account with corrosion.
Investments in new technology, materials and new seaplanes/amphibians advance design. For instance, research on hydrodynamics is essential to make seaplanes easy to maneuver on water, operate on relative strong winds, operate on sea docks without any trouble for docking or loading and, finally, operate on high waves in order to make seaplanes more accessible to much more water destinations. Innovative solutions as folding wings to increase maneuverability and decrease the risk of impacts at busy seaports/aerodromes, and new engine design/location, in order to keep it as
FUSETRA – Future Seaplane Traffic 39 Version 1.0
Future Seaplane Transport System - SWOT
far away from water spray as possible [25] and avoid incidents during seaport operations, are just an example of possible advance design for a long term future. When new advance design is involved, it should be consulted with operators, due to future equipment plans, and maritime authority regulations should be considered in advance of the design process. However, it may be expected that new solutions that lower drag when airborne, maintenance times and costs, and enhance competitiveness in cost/seat/miles ratio will be always looked forward by operators.
Add value to the air transport market by opening up more locations to air travel and in doing so make it more convenient, while reducing the congestion on airfields and offering significant time savings to passengers.
Many others, depends on concrete situation.
9.4 Threats
For seaplanes to really take off there are a number of barriers that must first be overcome. This paragraph highlights the major threats that seaplane operation is facing today and the fundamental issues that need to be addressed. Some points are also mentioned in a recent publication by Fusetra, written by a Flight Operations and Ground Operations Manager at the largest European seaplane port [26].
Possibly difficult accessibility of airport (to replace automobile and railway means of transport is very hard in this case because of difficult approach of airports).
Public perception of light aircraft safety may impact on the acceptability of seaplane transportation. However, it should be noted that in the UK there has not been a single reported accident according to their air accidents investigation branch (AAIB) [27], though this is in part due to the fact that there have been historically very few seaplane operated in the UK. A better understanding of the issue by the public could be achieved through two methods: by dissemination of potentially relevant safety data (such as accident statistics) and information amongst passengers, and to provide neutral but informative supplementary analysis about safety issues. By presenting these information in a clear and open way and by making passengers aware of emergency procedures associated with seaplane aircraft while on the ground FUSETRA – Future Seaplane Traffic 40 Version 1.0
Future Seaplane Transport System - SWOT
then it will go a long way to addressing some of the public‟s safety concerns [28].
Acceptance from population and environmental activists. It is a not-well known means of transport and it could seem to be difficult to use.
Fly time limitations. Alleviation on this regulation is needed so as to better meet the requirements of seaplane operations thus making them more financially sustainable without any subsequent of flight safety standards.
Lack of a minimum level of training and acceptability of Dock Operating Crew so as to be multifunctional with regard to, assisting in the arrival and departure of aircraft on pontoons or piers, passenger handling, as well as manning the requirements of Rescue and Fire Fighting activities.
Certification process for new seaplanes (Modification of existing, and already certified, planes should also be considered).
General regulations: government regulation and control includes both aviation authority regulations and naval authority regulations. Nowadays there is not a set of unified regulations throughout Europe and these can be also sometimes in conflict. Within the same country, regulations are often too strict, out of date, ambiguous or, on the other hand, even missing. Permission to land in inland waters can prove to be extremely difficult and even the attempt to set up licensed aerodromes has still issues of coherency and it is often unpractical and expensive, defeating the purpose of the flexibility of seaplanes. Regulations affect also the pilot licensing process, making it very complicated and difficult when compared to land planes. A survey conducted by Fusetra clearly shows that the availability of qualified pilot is a very urgent problem in Europe and it is no surprise considering the lack of training schools, the cost of the whole procedure and the complexity administration process for getting a licence.
Air traffic is expensive in general and costs will be high especially at the beginning.
Air traffic is perceived as expensive in general by people.
Some people are scared from flying.
FUSETRA – Future Seaplane Traffic 41 Version 1.0
Future Seaplane Transport System - SWOT
Corrosion resistance. Use of new materials or methods to help to alleviate, delay or fully prevent corrosion should be available in order to widen the number of solutions that can be chosen among, based on functionality, cost and ease of maintenance.
Seaplanes are still too much depended on the weather conditions.
There are ordinary means of transport used everywhere and people are used on them.
Prices of tickets could be too expensive for common journeys (because of operational costs).
Many problems related with getting allowance to land on lakes or other water resources.
Others.
10 Summary
Throughout this report, the reader has been presented with a wide variety of different concepts ranging from market analysis of the existing seaplane operation, and stakeholders involved in Europe, with a particular focus on the UK, to the possibility of establishing new seaplane operation businesses with an eye on future operating routes and their potential cost. This was achieved through the investigation of current regulations, novel seaplane design, strengths/weaknesses and opportunities/threats analysis for a complete overview of all the aspects that such a market is facing today, will have to deal with or take advantage of in the near future to become a feasible alternative to other means of transportations. This has all been done to highlight the viability that seaplane operations have in a continent with abundant waterways, lakes, rivers, islands and shores. Indeed the seaplane industry in North America has flourished over the last few decades and in many cases has leapt ahead of regulations inadvertently restraining it. Conversely, the European market has slumped and now faces a real challenge of over coming to obtuse and sometimes opaque aviation regulatory requirements that are completely insensitive to particular seaplane operations. Certainly, this is the main challenge to be taken in account when considering a bright future for seaplane operation in Europe. European regulation is not in its current state universally applicable and is, therefore, a stumbling block against further seaplane development. North America, on the other hand, has been largely bounding ahead of aircraft regulation authorities and in doing so naturally helps forge a seaplane path in any subsequent regulation. On the contrary, indeed due to the stagnant market since WW2, emerging seaplane FUSETRA – Future Seaplane Traffic 42 Version 1.0
Future Seaplane Transport System - SWOT companies have to deal with obsolete, and sometimes clashing, aircraft/operation regulatory requirements. Often, a seaplane operator will therefore have to petition the secretary of state and other regulatory bodies to alter legislation through the addition of by-laws in order to make seaplane operations more realisable which can be time- intensive procedure and which are not guaranteed. Of particular note are the regulations surrounding seaplane base/landing sites which can vary wildly on a local, national and international level. This adds complexity to the decision process when choosing a seaplane base and means that not all bodies of water that appear acceptable at first glance are suitable.
A second issue that is for sure a key aspect for seaplane‟s future is its acceptability. There are currently many reasons that affect the acceptability of seaplane operations both from a commercial standpoint but also from the stand point of general public. It may be suggested that the two most important ones are concerns about safety and environmental impact, intended as sustainable means of transport as whole. It is to be expected, and taken into account, the natural opposition by environmentalists and local councils when opening a seaport for example. It is, however, shown in the report how studies on sites with some kind of seaplane operations demonstrate the low or practically nonexistent impact that they have on the environment, especially when compared to already existing background operations. Moreover, seaplanes exhibit very good safety records, with very few accidents in general, and particularly if compared to landplane or other activities that may be found on water. In other words they are already meeting some requirements/suggestions stated in the Vision 2020 for the future of a sustainable aviation. Other main points that look to be more urgent than others in today‟s market, holding it back and slowing down any development, are the lack of qualified pilots, as confirmed by a Fusetra survey, investment in new technologies such as modern avionic systems and new materials amongst the others, the need of larger seaplanes with more seats, better range and less dependent on weather/water conditions and the availability of safe, comfortable seaports or docking facilities.
However, seaplanes are uniquely placed as point to point connections and should certainly be marketed as such for new routes. They are very versatile and can cover very different type of missions that are peculiar of only this mode of transportation. They have access to more of the planet surface than landplanes, using unprepared landing strips, that makes them suitable for direct link between city centres (all major cities in Europe are situated near large enough bodies of water) and sightseeing tours or tourism towards otherwise inaccessible places unfolding a completely new list of locations to air travel without the necessity of major ground works, safe and efficient surveillance/monitoring of particular areas such as wildlife/national parks, FUSETRA – Future Seaplane Traffic 43 Version 1.0
Future Seaplane Transport System - SWOT ability to conduct rescue operations over large water bodies and fast and efficient way in fire fighting when used as water bombers. In several cases they can definitely offer a faster service toward certain destinations in order to shorten travel times avoiding the use of a combination of other means of transportation or may provide a considerable time saving alternative where travel by any land based transport is considerably time consuming.
In conclusion it may be said that seaplane operations are, without doubt, a unique case in the whole transportation system, there is big room for improvements and a lot of new opportunities waiting to be grabbed by existing seaplane operators and new emerging players in the industry. Only putting any fear to rest and investing in the potentiality of this market can lead the way to a rapid and continuous expansion in the next decade. At the same time this will also make apparent to the competent organisms the necessity of new, common European standards, shaped on, and in line with the new market requirements and seaplane capabilities.
FUSETRA – Future Seaplane Traffic 44 Version 1.0
Future Seaplane Transport System - SWOT
11 References
1 Huda S., “Amphibian Aircraft Concept Design Study,” Dept of Aerospace Engineering, University of Glasgow, 2009.
2 MacGregor Garcia G. K., “Future Seaplane Traffic” Dept of Aerospace Engineering, University of Glasgow, 2009.
3 ”Beriev BE-200” beriev.com, 2011, http://www.beriev.com/eng/Be-200_e/Be-200_e.html [Cited Jan 26, 2011]
4 Report of the group of personalities, “European aeronautics: a vision for 2020. Meeting society‟ needs abd winning global leadership“, Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, 2001.
5 Lightening, Barry, “Future Landing Sites and Passenger Terminals”, Seaplane Pilot, FUSETRA notes, 2011.
6 DeRember D., Bay C., “Seaplane Operations”, 2004.
7 Henderson, C., “A review of the current seaplane industry and market in the UK”, 2011
8 http://www.lochlomondseaplanes.com/
9 CAA, “Current records of registered planes by CAA“, 2010. http://ww.caa.co.uk/default.aspx?catid=56&pagetype=90&pageid=107
10 The National Archive, Civil Aviation Act 1949. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1949/67/section/52/enacted
11 Department for Transport, Maritime and Coastguard Agency, 2010. http://www.mcga.gov.uk/c4mca/msn_1781-2.pdf
12 Charlotte Amalie Harbor Seaplane Base Charter Flights and Air Charter Service, “Superior Private Jet Hire and Rental Experience“, 2010.
13 Drancakova A., “Operation of Seaplanes“, Individual project 4, 89QM, University of Glasgow, 2010.
14 http://www.fusetra.eu/documents/malta/Survey_Results_Malta.pdf
15 http://www.seaplanes.org/advocacy/environment.pdf
16 http://www.seaplanes.org/advocacy/booklet.pdf
17 http://www.seaplanes.org.au/PDF/Seaplanes-The_Facts.pdf
18 http://www.seaplanes.org.au/PDF/Seaplanes_and_the_Environment.pdf
19 http://www.harbourair.ie/environmental-impact.pdf
FUSETRA – Future Seaplane Traffic 45 Version 1.0
Future Seaplane Transport System - SWOT
20 Office for National Statistics, “An investigation into the location and commuting patterns of prt-time and full-time workers in the United Kingdom, using information from the 2001 Census1 Alistair Dent &Stephen Bond”, Executive Summary, 2008.
21 “Importing and Exporting: Wayne K. Talley foreword”, Guest Editor, Vol3, Issue 2, pp 83-85, June 2004.
22 Department for Transport, “Roads:delivering choice and reliability“, Roads Command Paper, july 2008.
23 Department of Transport, “Public experience of and attitudes towards air travel”, 29th July 2010.
24 Odedra J. et al, “Use of seaplanes and integration within a sea base”, Naval Surface Warfare Division, Carderock, September 2004.
25 DeRemer D., Bay C., “Seaplane Operation Book”, Aviation Supplies & Academics Inc., ISBN:1-56027-502-2, January 2009.
26 Lightening B., “Road Map for Fullfilling Market and Operator Needs in Seaplane Operation Within Europe“, Fusetra, 2011.
27 http://www.aaib.gov.uk/home/index.cfm
28 Transportation Safety Board of Canada, “A SAFETY STUDY OF SURVIVABILITY IN SEAPLANE ACCIDENTS“, Report Number SA9401, 1994.
FUSETRA – Future Seaplane Traffic 46 Version 1.0