Regional Seaplane Pilot Focus Groups

Introduction

A total of 25 seaplane pilots from across the United States gathered virtually from September through November 2024 as a follow-up to a seaplane pilot survey conducted months earlier. The purpose of the convenings was to explore in greater detail the risk associated with seaplanes transporting aquatic invasive species, characterize seaplane pilot perspectives, and incorporate their feedback into project products as well as recommendations to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Methods

The focus group questions included the following topics 1) pilot activities and flight preparation relative to AIS, 2) tools and methods of information dissemination most suitable for pilots, 3) best practices to prevent the spread of AIS, and 4) perceptions of seaplane design contributing to AIS spread. The intent was to encourage participants to provide feedback and impressions on a variety of topics and share personal experiences.

A total of five small focus groups were held (the number of pilots in each is listed in parentheses – in all cases, numerous pilots registered for the focus groups, but did not participate):

Eastern FAA Region Focus Group - September 18, 2024 4pm-7pm Eastern Time (7)
Southern and Southwest FAA Regions Focus Group - September 19, 2024 4pm-7pm Eastern Time (4)
Great Lakes and Central FAA Regions Focus Group - October 8, 4pm-7pm Central Time (3)
Western Pacific and NW Mountain FAA Regions Focus Group - October 9, 4pm-7pm Pacific Time (3)
Alaska FAA Region Focus Group - November 21, 4pm-7pm Alaska Time (8)

Invitations to participate in the focus groups were shared on numerous social media platforms and directly via email with regional seaplane pilot interest groups. Advance registration was required to participate. Each of the focus groups were scheduled to accommodate local time zone participants (later in the day). However, if a pilot could not participate in their logical regional focus group, they were able to participate in a different regional focus group to meet that need. The focus groups were conducted over a period of 8 weeks beginning in September 2024 and concluding in November 2024. Each focus group was scheduled for 3 hours of time. However, on average most focus groups were 2.5 hours long. It was not unusual for at least one field representative from the Seaplane Pilot Association to participate in every focus group. All the participants were engaged and contributory to each event.

Geographic representation: Alaska, Florida, Idaho, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Texas, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, and Washington.
Gender representation: Primarily male, however multiple focus groups included participation from female pilots.
Pilot Certification Experience representation: the pilots ranged from those with recent rating acquisition to multiple decades of experience. Participants were amateurs, agency enforcement, agency, commercial, and instructor pilots.

All participants were FAA-rated seaplane pilots with various levels of experience and background, including numerous participants that were seaplane pilot instructors. All participants were encouraged to use their camera to create a sense of sharing and community among participants and the facilitators. Participants were given a brief overview of the seaplane-AIS project, introduced themselves, and were asked a series of questions, including follow-up questions and discussion. Facilitators recorded each session, facilitated the conversation, and took detailed notes using screen sharing.

Exploration Areas

During the introductory phase of the focus group discussion, all pilots shared information about experience level, types of aircraft flown, memorable experiences and their inspiration to become a seaplane pilot. This was intended to foster an environment of open communication and sharing prior to addressing focal areas of discussion.

Pilot activities and flight preparation relative to AIS - to understand typical preparation methods used and typical flight behavior.
Tools and methods of information most suitable for pilots - to understand typical processes or tools used to plan flights, willingness to incorporate other information into planning processes, tools that could potentially mitigate AIS issues, and methods by which pilots learn and are exposed to training information.
Best practices and participation - to understand general awareness of best practices to minimize invasive species spread, such as inspection and cleaning and obtain feedback on recently produced regional seaplane-AIS case studies.
Perceptions of seaplane design contributing to AIS spread - to obtain perspectives on aircraft or equipment that enhances vulnerability to AIS. In addition, suggestions were sought on ways to mitigate the possibility of these design features potentially spreading AIS.

Insights Gained

Icebreaker

Introductory icebreaker questions gave attendees an opportunity to share their perspectives about why they chose to earn a seaplane rating, and what they found unique and memorable about seaplane flying. Several pilots described the freedom associated with seaplane flying when compared to restrictions associated with public airport use. The diversity of seaplane pilots participating in the focus groups was broad, from self-professed weekend warriors, to people that fly seaplanes as an only means of transportation, to those that use seaplanes primarily for work purposes (e.g., wildlife surveys). Pilots shared stories about their most memorable flights, from flying with their grandchildren, to landing on and taking off from waterbodies under difficult conditions, to meeting new friends and people that share their passion for flying seaplanes. Experience ranged from pilots that earned their seaplane ratings in the past 12 months to pilots that have been flying for 40–50 years.

Flight Preparation

The following themes emerged when discussing factors pilots consider when selecting destination water bodies:

Selecting destination waterbodies is based primarily on purpose or mission (e.g., destination restaurant, guiding hunters or anglers, surveying wildlife, training new pilots, camping, traveling to stores for supplies and groceries), and subsequently determining safe locations to land. Pilots that do not own their own seaplanes generally are restricted in the distance they can fly from the rental plane base.
Prior knowledge of AIS does not prevent pilots from going to a particular waterbody. The priority factor that was considered when deciding to fly to a specific waterbody was, “Can I land there, and is it safe?” One Alaskan pilot mentioned he flies into a general area and then determines which specific waterbody to land on depending on conditions, such as the size of the waterbody, weather conditions, wind direction, etc.
Pilot to pilot, or pilot to local waterbody manager, communication is an important aspect of gaining information about waterbodies and conditions when pilots are preparing for a flight.

Tools and Methods

The following themes emerged when pilots were asked about what planning tools they use to help inform pre-flight planning:

Pilots described using a variety of tools to plan flights, including National Weather Service forecast, FAA weather cameras, OnX, CalTopo, Google Earth, Boater’s guides, windy.com, Foreflight, WingX, Garmin Pilot, recreation.gov, AquaMap, and SPA Landing Directory.
Pilots welcome and appreciate concise information on AIS and basic information on species distribution. Pilots indicated that details and information about AIS occurrence in waterbodies is important but that too much detail could overwhelm their decisions and potential use of the tool. Pilots want to know where AIS are but want limited “resolution” of that information. Several pilots expressed concern about being shown data that indicates a water body is free from AIS simply because there hasn’t been a reported sighting of AIS to a major AIS database. As an example, pilots in the Alaska focus group shared a .kmz file of Elodea spp. distribution in Alaska.
Pilots are interested in up-to-date, real-time information on AIS that can be accessed through their current flight planning platforms.
Most of the pilots were aware of the SPA Landing Directory, but noted that there were incomplete records, and updates are needed but in general, the SPA app has the type of information they seek. Several suggested integration of the current SPA Landing Directory with real-time data would improve its utility.

Best Practices

These themes emerged when pilots asked to review the draft best practices to prevent AIS spread:

Pilots do not know where to report suspect AIS and are not certain how to identify individual species.
Suggestions to raise or lower gear to remove vegetation while taxiing through vegetation can pose safety issues as pilots may forget gear location. Raising and lowering rudders is considered introducing risk, as it is not a “normal” protocol. Pilots would not raise and lower rudders unless they could see from the cabin that vegetation was attached.
Some pilots mentioned they follow protocols and not checklists whereas other pilots recommended a short pre-flight inspection checklist be developed for AIS. Many flight schools develop their own checklists – several pilots proposed adding a few bullet points to those checklists for AIS inspection.
Check, recheck, and check again. All pilots stressed the sequence of determining readiness and safety, and how AIS could be integrated.
Pilots want to understand when they should consider dropping the landing gear.
A short process/acronym/steps that would help reinforce best practices would assist in adherence/compliance with BPs. Create a mnemonic for cycling the water rudders or focus on “one simple step”.
Clean Drain Dry, a procedure commonly used by the boating community, is not as relevant to seaplane pilots, particularly those in Alaska that keep their boats in water throughout the short summer season.
Depending on the geographic region or particular location, capacity to clean or remove a seaplane from water is not as feasible compared to locations that have more seaplane base infrastructure.
Incorporate QR codes into the best practices to allow pilots to quickly access AIS information, such as reporting invasive species.
Ensure pilots inspect their paddle and their personal gear and equipment for AIS in addition to the parts of a seaplane.
Work with industry to identify a product that can be added to floats to kill AIS while not affecting the integrity of the float material.
Ask float manufacturers to add information about AIS to their operations manuals.
Incorporate an AIS content pack into Foreflight.
Keep mooring lines out of the water as much as possible.

Seaplane Design and Areas of Focus

These themes emerged when pilots were posed questions regarding seaplane design and areas of the seaplane that may be more vulnerable to AIS:

The use of a float pump with an invasive species filter (e.g., Turbo Pump) to remove excess water was the most popular idea to address the potential for floats that may contain water with AIS, although several pilots commented the overall cost of the product would prevent them and other pilots from purchasing.
Consider modifying the space between the cabling and the rudder with a rubber boot, or hood, that could prevent entanglement with AIS.
The rudder shape could be redesigned to minimize catching vegetation while not affecting flight safety.
Use anti-fouling paint to prevent AIS from attaching.
Add UV light to electrically energize the inside of the floats (with the caution that there may not be adequate information on how UV light interacts with sealants and adhesives – more science is needed on copper-based paints and coatings).

Sharing Best Practices

The following themes emerged when pilots were posed questions regarding ways to share information about AIS with seaplane pilots:

Initial certification is the most effective time to expose pilots to any AIS checklists or protocols to incorporate into their flight planning.
Signage about AIS prevention or Clean, Drain, Dry at seaplane bases is lacking.
Not all pilots are aware of the nexus between seaplanes and AIS. For example, a pilot that recently received a seaplane rating had never heard of the issue. Some pilots commented that limited AIS information was related to regions coincident with few watercraft inspection programs.
Pilots are used to following rules and regulations. Disseminate the information broadly and pilots will follow the rules.
Mandate AIS training as part of a requirement to receive a seaplane rating. Add AIS inspection and decontamination information to the FAA Handbook FAA-H-8083-23.
Hands-on and simulations for AIS prevention practices during training are key to instilling positive pilot behaviors associated with AIS inspection and decontamination.
FAA training materials, FAA Advisory Circulars, and high output seaplane training companies were all suggested as primary methods for reaching a high volume of pilots with AIS prevention information.
Distribute AIS educational materials to seaplane base points of contact.
Suggested examples of outreach examples to pilots included data layers, stories about a local waterbody, laminated pocket guides, monthly publications from local seaplane organizations (e.g., Alaska Airmen’s Association), case studies, email communication, flight schools, YouTube videos, mandatory as part of seaplane pilot training, direct mailers to seaplane pilots, stickers, webinars, podcasts, social media, water shows, boat shows, and brochures.

Helping Pilots Address Challenges

The following themes emerged when pilots were asked what might help them address the challenges they face implementing best practices:

Decontamination units – create a list of the most critical areas to place these units and then fund their placement.
Educate seaplane pilots.
Develop a spray or product that can pre-empt the attachment or transport of AIS by seaplanes.

Summary

The convenings of small focus groups was instrumental in exploring seaplane pilot perspectives and recommendations relative to reducing the spread of AIS by seaplanes. The small size of the groups allowed for detailed interaction and discussion with individual pilots and achieved the goal of supplementing the information garnered from the broader pilot survey conducted months earlier. Recommendations to modify the best practices were reviewed and incorporated into the case studies and best practices one-pager after all of the focus groups convened. Other recommendations will be considered, compared to the results of the pilot survey, and incorporated into the overall list of recommendations to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service at the conclusion of the project.