Report on current strength and weaknesses of existing seaplane/...

Future Seaplane Transport System - SWOT

FUSETRA – Future Seaplane Traffic Version 1.0

1

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



2

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



3

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



4

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



5

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



6

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



7

Glossary

AAIB Air Accidents Investigation Branch

FUSETRA Future Seaplane Traffic

EU European Union

GPS Global Positioning System

MBTE Methyl Tertiary-Butyl Ether

SWOT Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats

UK United Kingdom

US United States of America

USACE US Army Corps of Engineers

VFR Visual Flight Rules



8

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.



9

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.



10

29%

9%

9%5%

48%

USA

Canada

Australia

India

Europe

Figure 1: Origin of survey participants

10%

20%

20%10%

10%

10%

10%

10%Italy

United Kingdom

France

The Netherlands

Norway

Germany

Malta

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.



11

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.

19%

19%62%

Participants' year of foundation

Before 1990

1990 - 2000

2000 - 2010

Figure 3: Participants' year of foundation



12

16%

6%

16%

8%5%

22%

22%

5%

Type of services offered by participants

Commercial Airline

Commercial Airline Aspirant

Flight Training

Flying Club

Manufacturer

Charter

Tourist

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.

1% 1% 1% 3%

12%

1%3%

8% 8%

29%27%

1% 1% 1% 1%0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

Aircraft in Operation 2010

Figure 5: Aircraft in Operation 2010



13

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.

23%

12%

37%

27%

1%0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

1-3 PAX 4-6 PAX 7-10 PAX 10-15 PAX >15 PAX

Size of aircraft in Operation 2010

Figure 6: Size of aircraft in operation 2010

62%

32%

6%

Undercarriage type

straighfloat

amphibian

normal L/G

Figure 7: Undercarriage types



14

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.

45%

30%

20%

5%0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

50%

1 A/C 2-3 A/C 4-6 A/C >6 A/C

Fleet of operating carriers 2010

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.



15

22%

11%

22% 22% 22%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

<50 50 - 100 100 - 300 300 - 1000 >1000

Flights per year and carrier

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.



16

31%

25%

31%

13%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

15 - 30 min 30 min - 1h 1h - 2h 2h - 3h

Average flight time

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.

38%

25%

38%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

0 - 50nm 50 - 100nm >100nm

Average flight range

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



17

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.

50%

40%

10%

Schedule structure

Only on-demand

Mostly scheduled flights

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.

75%

25%

Carrier times of operation

All-year Summer



18

91%

9%

Purpose of flight (by flight movements)

PAX Cargo Fire Fighting Other

64%

36%

Purpose of flight (by carrier)

Mostly PAX Mostly 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.

81%

7%

12%

Connection type(by flight movements)

Water-to-water

Water-to-airfield

Airflield-to-airfield

Figure 15: Connection type

5 Certification

5.1 Pilots

58%25%

17%

Connection type(by carrier)

Mostly water-to-water

Mostly water-to-airfield

Mostly airfield-to-airfield



19

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.

40%

33%

27%

Availability of pilots: Overall

33%

67%

Europe

86%

14%

North America

Unproblematic

Challenging

Critical

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



20

participants worldwide say that there is a lack of understanding and sensibility for

seaplane operations in the NAA.

27%

20%

53%

Overall

critical

unproblematic

challenging67%

33%

Europe

Certification process for new seaplane operators

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.



21

40%

60%

When starting operation, did you have problems with residents or environment authorities?

Yes

No

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.



22

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.



23

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 commuters

14%

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



24

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%



25



> 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%



26

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.



27

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,

Inverness,

Aberdeen,

Fort William,

Tobermory,

Oban,

Loch Lomond,

Glasgow,

Prestwick,

Perth,

Dundee,

Edinburgh,

Machrie,

Machrihanish.



28

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.



29

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



30

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



31

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



32

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,

http://www.seaplaneturkiye.com/



33

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.

http://www.wasserfliegerverband.de/

http://www.seaplane.org.gr/

http://www.nak.no/sea

http://www.seaplaneassociation.org.uk/

http://www.sjoflyg.com/

http://www.seaplanes.ch/



34

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:



35

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



36

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.



37

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



38

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



39

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



40

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



41

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.



42

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



43

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,



44

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.



45

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

http://www.beriev.com/eng/Be-200_e/Be-200_e.html



46

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.

Report on current strength and weaknesses of existing seaplane/...

Documents

Transcript of Report on current strength and weaknesses of existing seaplane/...