Applying the KISS Rule Using SMS
It should tell you something that, with all their seaplanes, neither Canada nor the US regulate the establishment of water aerodromes. Transport Canada publishes a detailed Water Aerodrome Supplement with all relevant information about each landing site, including diagrams and jurisdictions, i.e., who manages it. These are the Jeppesen Charts for seaplane pilots. That is all they require.
With hundreds of thousands of potential water landing sites, Canada has only one certified water airport. It took Canada over a hundred years, but finally, one harbour, in Victoria, B.C., published a joint aviation and marine traffic scheme with rules and restrictions. This simple and ingenious solution allows all marine and seaplane traffic to use the harbour and port jurisdictions safely and efficiently, even with 100 seaplane movements per day. Properly thought-out guidelines define the seaplane taxi, takeoff and landing areas as protected when active and open when not, leading to cooperation and shared responsibilities between marine and aviation traffic.
When seaplane operations first started in the Maldives, regulators decided that, since there were no precedents, operators would obtain permission to land in a new location and then create a route guide. In other words, they allowed us to conduct proving flights to set the precedents and establish the standards and guidelines for others to follow.
As the company’s Operations Manager, I was given permission to conduct flights to 18 never-before-landed-in locations in the Maldives. I was the first to land a seaplane in the northernmost lagoon in the northernmost atoll. It was a big deal, and the island’s Chief organized a welcoming party, including honouring us with fresh coconuts from the nearby trees. During the ceremony, I explained that I felt privileged to be the first-ever pilot to land an airplane in his atoll. He hesitated momentarily and said, “You are not the first pilot to land here. In World War II, a British Hurricane fighter plane caught fire, and the pilot managed to fly it into the water. He pointed to a distant, shallow part of the lagoon. He thoughtfully continued, “You will be the first to take off again.”
The Maldives, which supports arguably the busiest seaplane operation in the world, requires all frequently visited water aerodromes to be regulated. The difference between the Maldives and other countries with seaplane potential is that all water aerodromes are at resorts, and the resorts are the only reason seaplanes fly to the islands. Thus, they only have an estimated 86 easy-to-regulate destinations.
Their most significant step forward was developing a seaplane-specific water aerodrome in conjunction with and near their international airport. To become a premier luxury destination, they prioritize inter-atoll passenger seaplane transfers by restricting boat traffic within the seaplane waterways and setting standards others can follow.
Reviewing busy seaplane water aerodromes like Victoria, Vancouver, Anchorage, Ketchikan, Seattle, and the Maldives taught us that a simple set of guidelines is all you need, even within busy cities.
Indonesia, with more than 17,000 islands and only 673 airports, has four certified water aerodromes, and the Philippines, with over 7,600 islands and 84 airports, has two. Both countries have thousands of viable water landing sites, some more commercially viable than others. Insisting on having a certified seaplane water aerodrome at every possible water landing location is unnecessary and detrimental to progressive development.
Seaplane safety and security standards should be scaled, using a risk assessment, based on the number of movements (landings and takeoffs) at any water location or the number of passengers transferred. If it is a one-off charter flight, there should be no certification requirements. Seaplane bases within city jurisdictions would be certified based on the frequency of seaplane movements and the number of boats operating in the vicinity.
All countries wanting to regulate seaplanes should focus on Certifying Water Aerodromes by establishing guidelines, safety procedures and traffic schemes in conjunction with the local marine traffic. The simpler, the better.
The remaining question is: If ICAO does not have guidelines for designing or managing seaplane water aerodromes, who does? How is any country without such regulations supposed to allow seaplane operations if it does not have the guidelines? The answer is that ICAO has not been napping.
The ICAO Water Aerodromes Small Working Group included regulators and representatives from various countries, with me as the sole consultant. I contributed to developing the guidelines by leveraging my experience in assessing seaplane landing sites across ten different countries and establishing over thirty water aerodromes. This allowed me to identify common factors despite various environmental differences between locations.
This APAC guide is an ICAO initiative to help regulators understand that they do not need to follow ICAO Annex 14 by regulating water aerodromes like cookie-cutter airports. The specifications focus on the dimensions, facilities, services and equipment required to safely operate and regulate water aerodromes.
Using this ICAO-sanctioned guide, countries can establish robust regulatory frameworks for seaplane operations, even without specific national regulations. Adapting existing international standards, implementing comprehensive safety management systems, and ensuring environmental compliance will facilitate the safe and efficient integration of seaplanes into national transportation systems. This approach enhances connectivity to remote and exotic locations and promotes sustainable and responsible aviation practices.
If your CAA says they do not have guidelines or standards for establishing seaplane regulations, hand them a copy of our ICAO APAC guidelines and then call me.
After all, would you go to court without a lawyer?
Remember KISS – Keep It Simple, Seaplanes.
