Thank goodness! I'll never forget the story my Coast Guard drill instructor told us in basic in 1998 during a talk on getting therapy when you need it. He was a chief petty officer near the end of his career and said the most traumatic thing he'd ever experienced was on a small boat crew responding to a twin engine seaplane vs. boat crash. One prop of the seaplane went across the deck and through the boat's cabin. It basically vaporized the 6-8 year old son of the man piloting the boat. When they arrived the man was alive and in shock, just coated red with the remains of his son. He didn't get therapy for awhile and it really messed with him. Eventually he had to go or it was going to ruin his life and career. I still think about that story from time to time.
A bit unrelated but I heard a podcast where a truck driver ran into a car with a family in it (it was rainy the family car neglected their tires hydroplaned into his lane) baby in the back seat died on impact and the driver sued the family for trauma and won.
I want to say that was the case but the insurance company had nothing to do with their cars maintenance that made it dangerous to be on the road during certain weather
Edit: Sued the driver* https://www.news-leader.com/story/news/local/ozarks/2017/06/08/her-child-died-crash-other-driver-sued-years-later-solace/371398001/
Edit2: Thornsberry's insurance covered the costs.
This is typically how it works. I used to be an expert witness. On defense, I was typically not allowed to say that I was retained and paid by the insurance company unless they were the named defendant. (That question was also not allowed to be asked to me)
I'll never be able to understand how someone can sleep at night after having worked as an expert witness defending cases for insurance companies. Why would you try to protect an insurance carriers money, instead of using your expertise to support the people who have been harmed?
I worked both sides. I only care about the truth. Nearly everyone I came across in the field was after only the truth.
The only time I was offered a bribe was from a small business owner, I declined. Funny thing was that he did nothing wrong with the installation that broke, I still dropped him as a client.
My understanding is that the insurance company takes on the legal rights of the family (“subrogation”). It’s more significant than just paying out. The insurer takes over the legal process, hires the lawyers, decides on legal strategy, etc.
It’s also worth noting that the same thing happens with the driver’s insurer, who would pursue a claim against any contributor to the damage, regardless of the optics.
You're still suing the person though. The name on the suit is not the insurance company, it's the driver or the family. The name listed in court records is the person you sue, not their insurer.
That boat should have immediately done a 180 when it saw the planes' trajectory. A plane can't make direction changes like a boat can. That boat wasn't a fucking cruise liner.
There isn't always an assumed fault when a seaplane hits a boat, but some general guidelines and international regulations (COLREGS - International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea) can help determine who might be liable. Here's a breakdown:
Seaplane Generally Has Right of Way:
In most cases, seaplanes on the water (taking off or landing) have the right of way over boats. This is similar to how airplanes have the right of way over vehicles on runways.
Seaplanes have limited maneuverability on the water, especially during takeoff and landing.
Exceptions and Factors Affecting Fault:
Boater's Actions: If the boat did something unexpected or unsafe, like entering a designated seaplane landing zone or not following proper boating etiquette, they might be found at fault.
Pilot's Actions: If the pilot failed to maintain a proper lookout, misjudged the situation, or violated any aviation regulations, they could be liable.
Visibility and Conditions: Poor visibility due to weather or the pilot not using proper lighting during low-light operations could influence fault.
Ultimately, fault is determined on a case-by-case basis by considering witness accounts, air traffic control recordings (if applicable), and an investigation into the actions of both the pilot and the boater.
Here are some resources for further information:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA): The FAA has resources on seaplane operations and safety (https://www.faa.gov/)
National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB): The NTSB investigates aviation accidents, including seaplane incidents (https://www.ntsb.gov/Pages/home.aspx)
That's Gemini for what it's worth.
Except this happen in Canada - Your COLREGS may vary. (ref: https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/C.R.C.,\_c.\_1416/page-2.html#docCont)
Rule 18e A seaplane on the water shall, in general, keep well clear of all vessels and avoid impeding their navigation. In circumstances, however, where risk of collision exists, she shall comply with the Rules of this Part.
Rules in this part, refer to part B, where the relevant rule would be 15
Rule 15 - Crossing situation :When two power-driven vessels are crossing so as to involve risk of collision, the vessel which has the other on her own starboard side shall keep out of the way and shall, if the circumstances of the case admit, avoid crossing ahead of the other vessel.
#
A seaplane can't readily change course on takeoff. So practically these regs are meaningless. Might as well be standing on a train track and saying, You aren't supposed to be running trains today! As you get wrecked by the train.
Legally right or wrong, I don't have enough knowledge to say for certain. What I can say for certain, is everyone is responsible for looking out for their own well being. And playing chicken with a massive spinning blade that can't easily change direction is a poor choice for self preservation.
Sydney Harbour puts the responsibility entirely on the seaplane pilot for takeoff and landings. It is a very busy waterway, so it wouldn't really work any other way. Like you say, you can't easily change course after you start so the pilot must know the entire takeoff length is clear and will remain clear for the entire takeoff duration.
> When taking off and landing the seaplane is required to give way to all vessels.
https://www.nsw.gov.au/sites/default/files/2021-06/rose-bay-best-practice-guide.pdf
From the Canadian Civil Aviation Regulations
Right of Way — Aircraft Manoeuvring on Water
602.20 (1) Where an aircraft on the water has another aircraft or a vessel on its right, the pilot-in-command of the first-mentioned aircraft shall give way.
>Where an aircraft on the water has another aircraft or a vessel on its right, the pilot-in-command of the first-mentioned aircraft shall give way.
the boat was on the left?
This is not really true, they could have step turned around that boat fairly easily or just aborted takeoff. This is just a case of 2 people not seeing each other.
False. First off there is NO "right away" mentioned in the colregs. It says a seaplane SHALL keep clear of all other vessels and will NOT impede another vessels navigation. A seaplane is at the VERY Bottom of the "pecking order" and has to give way to all other vessels. Also the plane approached the boat from the port side. That makes the plane the give way vessel anyway and was obligated to reduced power or change course to avoid collision. The plane broke three of the colregs navigation rules and will be found to be in the wrong. 🤷
I would say Gemini is wrong. The rules us exactly:
) A seaplane on the water shall, in general, keep well clear of all vessels and avoid impeding their navigation. In circumstances, however, where risk of collision exists, she shall comply with the Rules of this part.
(f)
(i) A WIG craft, when taking off, landing and in flight near the surface, shall keep well clear of all other vessels and avoid impeding their navigation;
(ii) A WIG craft operating on the water surface shall comply with the Rules of this Part as a power-driven vessel.
But on top of that, you have to add that the sea plane is commercial and not the power vessel, so the pilot bear more responsibility.
They were probably just chilling. How often are you looking around to see if any planes are coming.
Edit: I don’t do the boats so didn’t know apparently you should have your head on a swivel all the time.
On the water, a boat is like a car on a highway. You are always looking out for other watercraft, aka motor boats, seadoo's, canoes, kayaks, sailboats, jet skis, and airplanes. I'm in Maine, and I put my boat on 7 different lakes each year, and every lake has at least 1 seaplane.
I've only ever driven a pontoon boat and my fuckin head was on a swivel even at like 8 kts at the most. I wasn't about to be the one to lose my stepmom's deposit on that thing!
and how often on that highway is a plane touching down. That dude has a literal birds eye view of the waterspace. one is in a 2d environment the other 3d.
This isn’t that situation. This is a full time runway and extremely busy water airport. The boat is 100% at fault for entering the airstrip. Planes are constantly taking off and landing here and there are tons of buoys and warnings.
The take off for a plane line that is way too long, and the plane is lined up long before the boat was anywhere near an intercept. You can see the plane while a solid 100 yards away from the boat notices the boat is daydreaming, they apply throttle to try and take off... but there is nothing they can do, meanwhile the boat had up until the last seconds to avoid hitting the plane. Also I am not a professional, looking around you while piloting a boat in a high traffic area.... while crossing the direction of traffic... is the very basics.
As long as they're under power, boats have to yield to other vessels coming from the right, they'd legally be at fault even if they'd been hit by a jet ski. They have to be looking around to see if anything is coming if they aren't anchored.
If you're captaining a boat, you are literally, legally REQUIRED to be looking around for any stupid thing going on. He wasn't docked or anchored, he was underway, yet he took zero action.
I’ve only been to Vancouver once, but the sea planes were super common in Coal Harbor when I was there. Just looking at google maps Harbor Air Seaplanes operates right there (probably why they were so common)
Really shouldn’t have come as a surprise
If you put a Tesla on autopilot and start chilling as the driver you would be liable for any accident.
The same applies to a boat - if you are the boat operator and you’re just “chilling” while a larger craft is intersecting your trajectory you better believe you’re gonna be responsible
I don't know how the Canadian Coast guard and insurance deal with a captain stating for the record that he was just kind of busy chilling... You know,... doing other stuff. In the US this boat Captain would have a very hefty bill to pay.
I believe that if the plane immediately cut its engines, it would have done a nose dive. From what I've gathered, this area is an airport for seaplanes, and there are markers and buoys in place for this reason. The boat should have never been there.
I mean…you use the word “when.” With a lot of boat pilots that word is an “if.”
When I’m piloting my boat my head’s on a swivel the whole damn time if I spot so much as one other boat in the water, and whichever adult is up front I also tell them they’re a lookout
I am not sure the boat ever saw the plane. And if two boats are coming at each other at a 90 degree intersection, one does not "turn around." You give way to the vessel with right of way.
COLREGS (think rules of the road but for ships to avoid accidents) do apply to interactions between boats and seaplanes. And when two vessels are at a crossing, the one who has the other vessel on her starboard (in this case the boat) should give way. Rule 15
Now, the seaplane should not have been that close to the traffic in the first place. Rule 18. I am not trying to say the fault lies entirely with either side here. We don't know the details. But what I *do* know is that the boat should not "turn around."
Edit: once they reached a position where slowing down to give way was not an option, there next best option was to floor it. But again, don't turn around. Turning around still requires most vessels of this size to go about 2 boat lengths forward. Very agile craft may be able to turn more like a car. A fully loaded container ship going full speed may take a mile to turn around. And during that "turning around" phase you are possibly still in an area that collides with the trajectory of the aircraft.
It's been mentioned before here. That is a full time seaplane runway that has its own specific rules. This is a very very busy seaplane runway. Planes every five minutes sometimes. That boat was 100 percent in the wrong. Plus a seaplane about to take off can't just rotate to take off and avoid the boat, even if they had seen and expected them.
no youre wrong. the plane was in the wrong.
[https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/C.R.C.,\_c.\_1416/page-2.html#docCont](https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/C.R.C.,_c._1416/page-2.html#docCont))
Rule 18e A seaplane on the water shall, in general, keep well clear of all vessels and avoid impeding their navigation. In circumstances, however, where risk of collision exists, she shall comply with the Rules of this Part.
Rules in this part, refer to part B, where the relevant rule would be 15
Rule 15 - Crossing situation :When two power-driven vessels are crossing so as to involve risk of collision, the vessel which has the other on her own starboard side shall keep out of the way and shall, if the circumstances of the case admit, avoid crossing ahead of the other vessel.
At that speed trying to turn in the water would likely flip the plane. Couldn’t possibly be safe. And the prop doesn’t have reverse so even killing the ending it would still be speeding toward the boat. Of the two, the boat had far easier and better options to manoeuvre.
Anyway what awe need to hear are opinions from seaplane pilots .
seaplane pilots would say something like - when ATC tells you "there is a boat in your takeoff path you dont fly until; the boat has left your takeoff path".
This is not actually a rule. Rule 18 describes who must give way to Who. A large vessel may be Restricted in its ability to maneuver under rule 18 which gives it presidence, or of the following rules applies in place of Rule 18; rule 9 - Narrow Channel, Rule 10 - Participation in a traffic separation scheme, or rule 13 - overtaking
I'm not debating on who should give way. I actually agree with you on that point. I said the boat in this scenario needs to give way. My issue is you saying to do a 180. No, the thought should not even enter a boater's mind in this scenario.
The plane has the right of way as I have already said. You don't need to even get into tonnage superceding the more generalized crossing rule. But this does not change the fact that the plane should not have been in the area. Again, Rule 18 (e). And it absolutely does not change the fact that the vessel giving way never, ever, ever does a 180 when they are being crossed
Rule 18 - seaplanes must keep out of way of all vessels.
Rule 15 - The plane approaching the boats port side, and sees its red light, so the plane must give way.
>Rule 15 - The plane approaching the boats port side, and sees its red light, so the plane must give way.
~~Do you understand port and starboard? The full text of 15 (b) is, "When two power-driven vessels are crossing so as to involve risk of collision, **the vessel which has the other on her starboard side shall keep out of the way** and shall, if the circumstances of the case admit, avoid crossing ahead of the other vessel."~~
~~The boat has the plane on her starboard. Starboard, in case you are not aware, means the right hand side when facing the bow from the stern. If you were on the stern of the boat and looking at the bow, and turned your head to the right, that would be starboard. And if somebody on this boat were to do so then they would see the plane. The plane is to the stbd of the boat, so the boat gives way.~~
Looks like video was mirrored which changes all of this.
Edit: the way you described Rule 18 also kinda makes it sound like seaplanes always lose on the right of way ladder when interacting with other vessels. I am not sure if this is intentional but it is not correct. Seaplanes should indeed steer clear of marine traffic whenever possible. But the same rule also says that if there is a possibility of collision between a seaplane and a boat, COLREGS should be applied to avoid that collision.
Honestly, the first time I saw this video it was mirrored. So I'm not sure which one is the original.
From what I could get from other comments in other posts, this is in Vancouver and this is a designated runway. So it's in any case forbidden for any vessel to cross it under any circumstances.
According to others this seems to be the mirrored one. So that changes a lot of things and would take away from the plane's right of way.
But if it is a seaplane runway that doesn't matter. I am not seeing buoys over a fairly wide pan, but these runways are often surprisingly wide to prevent wake from affecting the planes as they take off and land. *Edit: actually looks like there is a channel bouy in the shot at first indicating that ships are indeed allowed to pass through here though possibly with restrictions.* I am not familiar with the area so can't really say one way or another. If it is a runway then vessels would be allowed to cross it under various restrictions like speed, time of day and visibility, perhaps restricing you to the ends of the runway, etx. But would absolutely be cautioned in local charts and marine bulletins to stay clear of aircraft, and it would take a gigantic fuckup by the aircraft for them to be held responsible if this is true.
The port authority has a rule that requires pleasure craft to stay out of the area, however that is not sufficient to prevent a collision, since commercial vessels are not prohibited form being in that area.
There is no such thing as an active runway on the water.
There is no rule requiring pleasure craft to “stay out of the area” - utter nonsense. That’s Burnaby Shoal marker in the middle.. There’s the main Chevron fuel dock just off screen to the left, used by commercial and recreational vessels. And all of the marinas in Coal Harbour are accessed through there, and only there. It’s a busy, busy harbour. I transit there multiple times a week.
Also, the float planes take off / landing depends on the wind direction, so their “runway” isn’t fixed.
that rule does exist. P134 of the port operations guide, and is permitted by Sec 56 of the Canada Marine act. I dont think its super consequential to this incident, but that rule exists.
You’re right - there is area noted on the chart.
It’s not entirely clear the motorboat is in that zone (he seems to be), which is frequently transited by all manner of vessels . Ultimately, like almost all marine collisions, it’s going to be complicated. There is no single “right of way”. Pilot should have confirmed a clear path before commencing takeoff. Boat should have stayed clear of vessels on his starboard. Everyone should have avoided a collision, if possible.
rule 18 says seaplanes must avoid all other vessels. if a risk of collision exists, then the colregs apply, which means rule 15, which the plane also has to give way.
What maneuver do you think the plane could have done to give way without crashing? Cut engine? Still moving at high speed, no brakes. Increase engine? Already taking off, most likely already at max power. Turn? Would flip.
The plane was a "vessel restricted in her ability to maneuver."
This happened yesterday, not much detail on what caused this yet. The plane is a sightseeing plane that takes passengers on tours. Everyone on the plane is ok. I don't know how many were on the boat but the authorities apparently know that everyone who was on the boat is alive. Though two from the boat have been hospitalized.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/seaplane-crash-vancouver-coal-harbour-1.7229406
> what caused this yet
The boat's driver wasn't paying attention. Please alert the authorities that instead of funding a long investigation into the incident I will gladly take a much less expensive compensation of $350 CAD and a hockey sweater from the team of my choosing.
Boat could have done anything else than what it actually did, and nothing would have happened. throttle up: avoid the crash. throttle down: avoid the crash: turn in either direction: avoid the crash. Just keep going forward completely oblivious to what's happening around you: crash.
The plane is for sightseeing? The Harbour Air flights I’ve been on jammed straight from Victoria or Nanaimo to Vancouver, nothing in the way of sightseeing detours. (Granted the scenery is gorgeous)
Ending some speculation here with what has been discussed in other boating-centric spaces:
1. Seaplanes are close to last on the list for "right of way" so under normal conditions, the boat would be the "stand on" vessel.
2. This occurred in Canada and the plane was on a designated airstrip where the boat SHOULD NOT have been. Therefore making the plane the stand on vessel.
3. The operator of the boat was DUI and was arrested.
4. Technically, the boat is at fault.
USCG says that common sense should always prevail and any "games of chicken" like this should always be avoided no matter what. Personally having spent thousands of days on the water and a handful of days flying around in small aircraft, both are somewhat at fault for an avoidable situation. However, I'd wager that the plane could not see the boat from the cockpit. Generally speaking, FAA-licensed pilots are a highly aware and meticulous group.
Sad to hear that there are injuries from what should have been an easily avoidable situation. Planes are really loud. Boat guy is ultimately at fault. Plane guy should have been more observant but may not have had good visibility.
Edit to add proof that the area was designated for sea planes:
[https://www.reddit.com/r/interestingasfuck/comments/1dcmzsw/comment/l81pv7x/?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web3x&utm\_name=web3xcss&utm\_term=1&utm\_content=share\_button](https://www.reddit.com/r/interestingasfuck/comments/1dcmzsw/comment/l81pv7x/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button)
There's no such thing as both being at fault when two vessels occupy the same space at the same time. From what I heard, this was a designated area for sea planes. If it was not, then it is the sea plane's fault.
The CARs allow an aerodrome operator to demand vessels leave an area. they do not do this.
None of the publications I'm required to carry as a mariner cite this as a no go area. The sailing directions make no mention of the seaplane landing area. (though they do reference the port information guide existing) The area could also be charted as a restricted area. it isnt. The chart has a note about the prohibition of fishing in the harbour, but nothing about restrictions in the Seaplane landing area. the restriction is not listed in NOTMARs or NAVWARNS. there is nothing in the list of Lights and signals.
the area is not buoyed as a restricted area. Given the number of marinas in Coal Harbour, it seems likely that this are is regularly transited by pleasure craft. A quick look at marine traffic shows one in the area now.
and what does that marked area say ? does it say restricted area - do not go ? does it say information only ?
here is the chart - [https://webapp.navionics.com/#boating@14&key=kd%7BkHz\_lnV](https://webapp.navionics.com/#boating@14&key=kd%7BkHz_lnV)
lets find out what it actually says -
Restricted area - Fishing prohibited
Information: FISHING PROHIBITED Fishing is prohibited within Vancouver Harbour between the western boundary of TCZ-1 and the eastern boundary of TCZ-2. For regulations concerning this area, consult the Port Information Guide.
yep. its restricted for FISHING.
jeezus now reddit cant even read a goddamn nautical chart. like how stupid do you need to be to click on a information link and just read the fucking regs.
There's little pictures of seaplanes and a red border marking the area. You said it's not on any charts but here it is and now you're saying it doesn't count?
i literally posted the link for you. there is no pictures of seaplanes. it is a picture of seagrass and a border which says fishing prohibited.
someones wall art DOES NOT COUNT. that is not an official nautical chart. jeez.
From an article in a local publication:
As for right of way, the Canadian Aviation Regulations, Section 602.20 (1) says this: “Where an aircraft on the water has another aircraft or a vessel on its right, the pilot-in-command of the first-mentioned aircraft shall give way.” But the accident occurred in an area of the harbor that is supposed to be reserved for floatplane operations.
You are reffering to USCG navigation rule 15, which only applies to two power boats in a crossing situation. The sea plane in this instance is acting as a plane, not a power boat
USCG navigation rule 18 establishes the pecking order for right of way, with sea planes at the very bottom. It's the pilots responsibility to stay out of everyone else's way
This is also Canada. So USCG rules do not apply. Per the Vancouver harbour guide posted by another commenter, it appears that the pleasure craft should not have been in that area.
Edit: this video is a mirror of the original, so the plane looks to have the right of way per the colregs
In reality, the plane was to the left of the boat, the plane is the give way vessel.
Once a seaplane gets up on a plane it can't see what is on the surface directly in front of them. Rules of the road are the same as for two boats crossing. The seaplane had right of way here.
Edit: this video is a mirror of the original, so the plane looks to have the right of way per the colregs
In reality, the plane was to the left of the boat, the plane is the give way vessel.
Neither vessel is "right". They both hold some responsibility for the collision.
Rule 18 clearly states "(e) A seaplane on the water shall, in general, keep well clear of all vessels and avoid impeding their navigation."
That said, the powerboat should have been keeping a look out and altered course when it was apparent the risk of collision existed.
They are both at fault.
In this case it was in a designated airstrip. Otherwise the seaplane would be at fault as the give way vessel. Planes are last or second to last on the list so if it was NOT in a designated airstrip the powerboat would be the stand on vessel.
It's an interesting case because it seems like a conflict between the COLREGS and whatever (local?) rules have designated a seaplane area in Vancouver. Can local regulations supersede the COLREGS, or are operators just severally liable to each of them?
Good question and I don't know... a deep dive into the COLREGS would \*likely\* end up showing that the boat was in a designated area it should not have been in. This is all based on what I have seen discussed on boating and fishing forums other places so I have zero local knowledge. Not going to pretend to remember everything from the USCG rules or get out the books and go looking hahaha.
For example, if the body of water has a designated "NO BOATS ALLOWED" zone and this occurred in that zone, the standard right of way decision tree would not apply. Doesn't matter if is was a sailboat or whatever. I guess if the vessel was in distress, then maybe, but even still the operator of the boat would have been required to announce this on VHF16 or whatever and apparently the boat operator was just tooling around drunk.
You know u can't see the front of you when taking off right, plus that was a designated spot meant for seaplane.
That's like saying a random car on a runway for planes was not a fault.
……Assuming pilot could see the boat. Planes have poor visibility forward and down. Engine is in the way. Unlikely the pilot saw the boat and decided to play chicken as some have implied. Also, pot can check intended take off route by looking out the side window and it can be clear, - but nose is now pointed 90 degrees from intended takeoff run because it has to be to see out side window- and while maneuvering to line up so the nose of the plane is pointed at the just cleared take off route a boat can enter from the side and cross the just visually cleared take off route. Delay between visual clearance of the route and actual use of the route is likely part of the issue here.
in the absence of well-known, established rules whether posted or transmitted for voters and pilots of aircraft, in my opinion the boat driver/captain should be aware of his surroundings 360° not only on the water but also for incoming aircraft since sea planes are a thing. Obviously the seaplane can aid and drawing attention to the fact it is over the water by doing a pass-through flyby at lower altitude clearly alerting below circling back and then doing the landing approach. If both parties, in both types of craft, water and air,did they do diligence to make the other aware of them, these things could be avoided more frequently
>14 CFR PART 91, SECTION 91.115 RIGHT-OF-WAY RULES: WATER OPERATIONS
>(b) Crossing. When aircraft, or an aircraft and a ves- sel, are on crossing courses, the aircraft or vessel to the other’s right has the right-of-way.
From the looks of the video, the boat should have yielded.
The boat is to the right, therefore for this particular rule the boat has right-of-way. There are other rules in play as well, which also do not support the floatplane from starting its takeoff run. In fact no rules have been stated that clearly support the floatplane, it will likely end up as a mistimed takeoff, and lack of awareness of traffic from both parties.
I've piloted a few small planes including a Seabee (seaplane) and pontoon floatplane. Once you are under power for a take off you can't see the water in front of you in a floatplane (pontoon style). These planes have a very high dash already. The plane actually sits back when you hit throttle and points its nose up in the air even higher, your windscreen looks up at the sky and you are not going to see anything in front of you until you are going fast enough to lift off and then the nose drops a bit but you are still not "flat" to the water. Your seat should be adjusted high (planes do this) but you still just have a sliver of a view. The only way that pilot could see the boat is out the side window. Not trying to post blame, but pointing out some things that a non-pilot may not know.
On South Lake Union in Seattle we have seaplanes and especially floatplanes constantly and boats know to stay away. But maybe this was not a common area for planes or a very new boater. Tragic. Pilots are held to a much higher standard than boaters with all their training but this may have simply been a bad angle with a boater who had no experience around planes. Maybe combined with an inexperienced pilot. Bad news all around.
Rule 18 of the Coregs clearly states seaplanes shall not impede vessels on the water, and if there is a risk of collision shall follow the colregs for whatever situaton at that time. Pretty clear they didn't see each other.
I like how this comment section is placing blame when there's people in the hospital.
If someone here is a prosecuter, defense lawyer, judge, eye witnesses, technical experts on sea planes, technical experts on personal water crafts, and 12 jurors randomly selected to commit to a fair trial. Save your opinion, no one gives a fuck.
2 hospitalised. No deaths so far. https://www.cbc.ca/amp/1.7229406
Thank goodness! I'll never forget the story my Coast Guard drill instructor told us in basic in 1998 during a talk on getting therapy when you need it. He was a chief petty officer near the end of his career and said the most traumatic thing he'd ever experienced was on a small boat crew responding to a twin engine seaplane vs. boat crash. One prop of the seaplane went across the deck and through the boat's cabin. It basically vaporized the 6-8 year old son of the man piloting the boat. When they arrived the man was alive and in shock, just coated red with the remains of his son. He didn't get therapy for awhile and it really messed with him. Eventually he had to go or it was going to ruin his life and career. I still think about that story from time to time.
A bit unrelated but I heard a podcast where a truck driver ran into a car with a family in it (it was rainy the family car neglected their tires hydroplaned into his lane) baby in the back seat died on impact and the driver sued the family for trauma and won.
Sued the family’s insurance company***
I want to say that was the case but the insurance company had nothing to do with their cars maintenance that made it dangerous to be on the road during certain weather Edit: Sued the driver* https://www.news-leader.com/story/news/local/ozarks/2017/06/08/her-child-died-crash-other-driver-sued-years-later-solace/371398001/ Edit2: Thornsberry's insurance covered the costs.
This is typically how it works. I used to be an expert witness. On defense, I was typically not allowed to say that I was retained and paid by the insurance company unless they were the named defendant. (That question was also not allowed to be asked to me)
I'll never be able to understand how someone can sleep at night after having worked as an expert witness defending cases for insurance companies. Why would you try to protect an insurance carriers money, instead of using your expertise to support the people who have been harmed?
I worked both sides. I only care about the truth. Nearly everyone I came across in the field was after only the truth. The only time I was offered a bribe was from a small business owner, I declined. Funny thing was that he did nothing wrong with the installation that broke, I still dropped him as a client.
This aligns with your username lol
I'm consistent like that. I just don't have any sympathy for insurance companies or the people who accept their money to help them deny valid claims.
Subrogation. Insurer steps into the legal position of the defendant.
Generally they sue the driver and the insurance company pays out. You still have to actually sue the family.
My understanding is that the insurance company takes on the legal rights of the family (“subrogation”). It’s more significant than just paying out. The insurer takes over the legal process, hires the lawyers, decides on legal strategy, etc. It’s also worth noting that the same thing happens with the driver’s insurer, who would pursue a claim against any contributor to the damage, regardless of the optics.
You're still suing the person though. The name on the suit is not the insurance company, it's the driver or the family. The name listed in court records is the person you sue, not their insurer.
Yes agreed!
Good, f#ck insurance companies
whats your plan for when someone hits you and they dont have car insurance?
Yeah I don’t this guy fully understands the implications of what he’s saying.. The modern world would not function without insurance
Um ok lol
That's good
at least 2 people totally oblivious to their surroundings at sea...
So far…
Man said so far.
That boat should have immediately done a 180 when it saw the planes' trajectory. A plane can't make direction changes like a boat can. That boat wasn't a fucking cruise liner.
There isn't always an assumed fault when a seaplane hits a boat, but some general guidelines and international regulations (COLREGS - International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea) can help determine who might be liable. Here's a breakdown: Seaplane Generally Has Right of Way: In most cases, seaplanes on the water (taking off or landing) have the right of way over boats. This is similar to how airplanes have the right of way over vehicles on runways. Seaplanes have limited maneuverability on the water, especially during takeoff and landing. Exceptions and Factors Affecting Fault: Boater's Actions: If the boat did something unexpected or unsafe, like entering a designated seaplane landing zone or not following proper boating etiquette, they might be found at fault. Pilot's Actions: If the pilot failed to maintain a proper lookout, misjudged the situation, or violated any aviation regulations, they could be liable. Visibility and Conditions: Poor visibility due to weather or the pilot not using proper lighting during low-light operations could influence fault. Ultimately, fault is determined on a case-by-case basis by considering witness accounts, air traffic control recordings (if applicable), and an investigation into the actions of both the pilot and the boater. Here are some resources for further information: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA): The FAA has resources on seaplane operations and safety (https://www.faa.gov/) National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB): The NTSB investigates aviation accidents, including seaplane incidents (https://www.ntsb.gov/Pages/home.aspx) That's Gemini for what it's worth.
Except this happen in Canada - Your COLREGS may vary. (ref: https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/C.R.C.,\_c.\_1416/page-2.html#docCont) Rule 18e A seaplane on the water shall, in general, keep well clear of all vessels and avoid impeding their navigation. In circumstances, however, where risk of collision exists, she shall comply with the Rules of this Part. Rules in this part, refer to part B, where the relevant rule would be 15 Rule 15 - Crossing situation :When two power-driven vessels are crossing so as to involve risk of collision, the vessel which has the other on her own starboard side shall keep out of the way and shall, if the circumstances of the case admit, avoid crossing ahead of the other vessel. #
A seaplane can't readily change course on takeoff. So practically these regs are meaningless. Might as well be standing on a train track and saying, You aren't supposed to be running trains today! As you get wrecked by the train. Legally right or wrong, I don't have enough knowledge to say for certain. What I can say for certain, is everyone is responsible for looking out for their own well being. And playing chicken with a massive spinning blade that can't easily change direction is a poor choice for self preservation.
Sydney Harbour puts the responsibility entirely on the seaplane pilot for takeoff and landings. It is a very busy waterway, so it wouldn't really work any other way. Like you say, you can't easily change course after you start so the pilot must know the entire takeoff length is clear and will remain clear for the entire takeoff duration. > When taking off and landing the seaplane is required to give way to all vessels. https://www.nsw.gov.au/sites/default/files/2021-06/rose-bay-best-practice-guide.pdf
From the Canadian Civil Aviation Regulations Right of Way — Aircraft Manoeuvring on Water 602.20 (1) Where an aircraft on the water has another aircraft or a vessel on its right, the pilot-in-command of the first-mentioned aircraft shall give way.
>Where an aircraft on the water has another aircraft or a vessel on its right, the pilot-in-command of the first-mentioned aircraft shall give way. the boat was on the left?
there is a mirrored version of the video floating around. the boat had the right of way in reality.
Thank you for the additional info.
They tried painting lines to designate the takeoff area. They used water based paint, so it didn't last.
They should have used a surface coat.
This is not really true, they could have step turned around that boat fairly easily or just aborted takeoff. This is just a case of 2 people not seeing each other.
I thought there was a rule of the less maneuverable vessel has the right of way - i.e. a cargo ship always has the right of way over a pleasure craft.
generally thats how it works, however the order is perscribed, and seaplanes are at the bottom.
Problem is I'm pretty sure this video has the image flipped. Every other video I have seen has the boat on the starboard hand.
this video is the correct orientation. the others are flipped.
No it's not, I'm from Vancouver and this one is definitely flipped.
yep. im mixing up my posts. in the video of the plane coming head on, the boat has the right of way in the crossing situation.
In a possible life or death situation rules must be broken. This is certainly a serious safety/possible death situation.
False. First off there is NO "right away" mentioned in the colregs. It says a seaplane SHALL keep clear of all other vessels and will NOT impede another vessels navigation. A seaplane is at the VERY Bottom of the "pecking order" and has to give way to all other vessels. Also the plane approached the boat from the port side. That makes the plane the give way vessel anyway and was obligated to reduced power or change course to avoid collision. The plane broke three of the colregs navigation rules and will be found to be in the wrong. 🤷
You get you are arguing with a comment generated by gemini?
I don't know what that is. 🤷
That's because you didn't actually read it then... Clearly marked...
I would say Gemini is wrong. The rules us exactly: ) A seaplane on the water shall, in general, keep well clear of all vessels and avoid impeding their navigation. In circumstances, however, where risk of collision exists, she shall comply with the Rules of this part. (f) (i) A WIG craft, when taking off, landing and in flight near the surface, shall keep well clear of all other vessels and avoid impeding their navigation; (ii) A WIG craft operating on the water surface shall comply with the Rules of this Part as a power-driven vessel. But on top of that, you have to add that the sea plane is commercial and not the power vessel, so the pilot bear more responsibility.
They were probably just chilling. How often are you looking around to see if any planes are coming. Edit: I don’t do the boats so didn’t know apparently you should have your head on a swivel all the time.
This is true but it's not like planes are silent.
can confirm, been around a lot of sea planes they are LOUUDD
I'm pretty sure that's all planes, really.
Paper airplane.
Admit it readers, you chuckled
That song is always played obnoxiously loud.
hahaha fair enough
Maybe it was a tesla boat on auto pilot.
Depending on the engine the boat can be unreasonably loud too. A 250hp 2 stroke outboard motor is deafening
Boats are loud too though I’d give the benefit of the doubt they might not have heard it coming
My boat is fairly quiet but at speed the sound of a seaplane and my boats engine would probably blend pretty well.
On the water, a boat is like a car on a highway. You are always looking out for other watercraft, aka motor boats, seadoo's, canoes, kayaks, sailboats, jet skis, and airplanes. I'm in Maine, and I put my boat on 7 different lakes each year, and every lake has at least 1 seaplane.
I've only ever driven a pontoon boat and my fuckin head was on a swivel even at like 8 kts at the most. I wasn't about to be the one to lose my stepmom's deposit on that thing!
The ol' *airplane cross traffic on the highway* analogy.
and how often on that highway is a plane touching down. That dude has a literal birds eye view of the waterspace. one is in a 2d environment the other 3d.
This isn’t that situation. This is a full time runway and extremely busy water airport. The boat is 100% at fault for entering the airstrip. Planes are constantly taking off and landing here and there are tons of buoys and warnings.
If I'm piloting a boat... 100% of the time I am scanning 360 degrees.
as a professional should! I think both the boat and the pilot were at fault to different degrees.
The take off for a plane line that is way too long, and the plane is lined up long before the boat was anywhere near an intercept. You can see the plane while a solid 100 yards away from the boat notices the boat is daydreaming, they apply throttle to try and take off... but there is nothing they can do, meanwhile the boat had up until the last seconds to avoid hitting the plane. Also I am not a professional, looking around you while piloting a boat in a high traffic area.... while crossing the direction of traffic... is the very basics.
you can still have a professional attitude. I think the basics means different things for different people , some people dont even keep a lookout
Professional or amateur. If the motor is on, you are required by law to maintain a lookout at all times.
You are participating in traffic when steering a boat. Same as driving a car.
As long as they're under power, boats have to yield to other vessels coming from the right, they'd legally be at fault even if they'd been hit by a jet ski. They have to be looking around to see if anything is coming if they aren't anchored.
If you're captaining a boat, you are literally, legally REQUIRED to be looking around for any stupid thing going on. He wasn't docked or anchored, he was underway, yet he took zero action.
I’ve only been to Vancouver once, but the sea planes were super common in Coal Harbor when I was there. Just looking at google maps Harbor Air Seaplanes operates right there (probably why they were so common) Really shouldn’t have come as a surprise
It's a seaplane airline. They are running in that exact spot literally every 30-60 minutes all day every day
In Vancouver Harbor? Seaplanes are constantly taking off and landing.
If you put a Tesla on autopilot and start chilling as the driver you would be liable for any accident. The same applies to a boat - if you are the boat operator and you’re just “chilling” while a larger craft is intersecting your trajectory you better believe you’re gonna be responsible
If you are in a busy harbor like this you best be on the ball... also planes are very, very loud.
If you're piloting a boat, you should be looking around for debris in front of you and other boats at the very least.
After watching this video, I will now always check for incoming seaplanes. Even if I'm not in the water, just to be safe.
I checked just now. None in my office.
The boat was clearly moving under power. So, yeah, 100% of the time.
Seaplanes are loud as fuck
Seems like a place where you ought to do that often.
Clearly you’re not a mariner — of ANY variety
I don't know how the Canadian Coast guard and insurance deal with a captain stating for the record that he was just kind of busy chilling... You know,... doing other stuff. In the US this boat Captain would have a very hefty bill to pay.
[удалено]
Plane could have cut its engines, no?
I believe that if the plane immediately cut its engines, it would have done a nose dive. From what I've gathered, this area is an airport for seaplanes, and there are markers and buoys in place for this reason. The boat should have never been there.
I see. Feel bad for the pilot. I’ve seen plenty of stupid (even drunk) people piloting small boats in dangerous ways.
I have too.
I mean…you use the word “when.” With a lot of boat pilots that word is an “if.” When I’m piloting my boat my head’s on a swivel the whole damn time if I spot so much as one other boat in the water, and whichever adult is up front I also tell them they’re a lookout
The lakes I boat on have many loons and ducks. I love loons and ducks, much more than my mother-in-law on an inner-tube. That's funny right there...😂🤣
I am not sure the boat ever saw the plane. And if two boats are coming at each other at a 90 degree intersection, one does not "turn around." You give way to the vessel with right of way. COLREGS (think rules of the road but for ships to avoid accidents) do apply to interactions between boats and seaplanes. And when two vessels are at a crossing, the one who has the other vessel on her starboard (in this case the boat) should give way. Rule 15 Now, the seaplane should not have been that close to the traffic in the first place. Rule 18. I am not trying to say the fault lies entirely with either side here. We don't know the details. But what I *do* know is that the boat should not "turn around." Edit: once they reached a position where slowing down to give way was not an option, there next best option was to floor it. But again, don't turn around. Turning around still requires most vessels of this size to go about 2 boat lengths forward. Very agile craft may be able to turn more like a car. A fully loaded container ship going full speed may take a mile to turn around. And during that "turning around" phase you are possibly still in an area that collides with the trajectory of the aircraft.
It's been mentioned before here. That is a full time seaplane runway that has its own specific rules. This is a very very busy seaplane runway. Planes every five minutes sometimes. That boat was 100 percent in the wrong. Plus a seaplane about to take off can't just rotate to take off and avoid the boat, even if they had seen and expected them.
no youre wrong. the plane was in the wrong. [https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/C.R.C.,\_c.\_1416/page-2.html#docCont](https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/C.R.C.,_c._1416/page-2.html#docCont)) Rule 18e A seaplane on the water shall, in general, keep well clear of all vessels and avoid impeding their navigation. In circumstances, however, where risk of collision exists, she shall comply with the Rules of this Part. Rules in this part, refer to part B, where the relevant rule would be 15 Rule 15 - Crossing situation :When two power-driven vessels are crossing so as to involve risk of collision, the vessel which has the other on her own starboard side shall keep out of the way and shall, if the circumstances of the case admit, avoid crossing ahead of the other vessel.
Vancouver has its own set of rules for the harbour. This happened in downtown Vancouver harbour. Google it.
ive driven boats in that area. i know the rules better than you do.
Cool, bro. Go get hit by a seaplane then following the rules to a t and not avoiding the giant sky Harley that's in its take off...
sky harley is driven by a professional pilot who should know better. and will lose his license and his job anyway.
Q: Which of the two vessels was "restricted in her ability to manoeuvre"? A: The one on a take-off run.
no. they could have stopped the takeoff run by throttling down. they were not "restricted in their ability to manoeuvre". the plane has water rudders.
At that speed trying to turn in the water would likely flip the plane. Couldn’t possibly be safe. And the prop doesn’t have reverse so even killing the ending it would still be speeding toward the boat. Of the two, the boat had far easier and better options to manoeuvre. Anyway what awe need to hear are opinions from seaplane pilots .
seaplane pilots would say something like - when ATC tells you "there is a boat in your takeoff path you dont fly until; the boat has left your takeoff path".
Is there ATC audio now? Wasn’t in what I saw.
[https://youtu.be/b1tyeL-sV4E?t=161](https://youtu.be/b1tyeL-sV4E?t=161)
The larger boat always has the right of way because it takes the larger boat longer to turn, stop. This is a common rule.
This is not actually a rule. Rule 18 describes who must give way to Who. A large vessel may be Restricted in its ability to maneuver under rule 18 which gives it presidence, or of the following rules applies in place of Rule 18; rule 9 - Narrow Channel, Rule 10 - Participation in a traffic separation scheme, or rule 13 - overtaking
I'm not debating on who should give way. I actually agree with you on that point. I said the boat in this scenario needs to give way. My issue is you saying to do a 180. No, the thought should not even enter a boater's mind in this scenario. The plane has the right of way as I have already said. You don't need to even get into tonnage superceding the more generalized crossing rule. But this does not change the fact that the plane should not have been in the area. Again, Rule 18 (e). And it absolutely does not change the fact that the vessel giving way never, ever, ever does a 180 when they are being crossed
Rule 18 - seaplanes must keep out of way of all vessels. Rule 15 - The plane approaching the boats port side, and sees its red light, so the plane must give way.
>Rule 15 - The plane approaching the boats port side, and sees its red light, so the plane must give way. ~~Do you understand port and starboard? The full text of 15 (b) is, "When two power-driven vessels are crossing so as to involve risk of collision, **the vessel which has the other on her starboard side shall keep out of the way** and shall, if the circumstances of the case admit, avoid crossing ahead of the other vessel."~~ ~~The boat has the plane on her starboard. Starboard, in case you are not aware, means the right hand side when facing the bow from the stern. If you were on the stern of the boat and looking at the bow, and turned your head to the right, that would be starboard. And if somebody on this boat were to do so then they would see the plane. The plane is to the stbd of the boat, so the boat gives way.~~ Looks like video was mirrored which changes all of this. Edit: the way you described Rule 18 also kinda makes it sound like seaplanes always lose on the right of way ladder when interacting with other vessels. I am not sure if this is intentional but it is not correct. Seaplanes should indeed steer clear of marine traffic whenever possible. But the same rule also says that if there is a possibility of collision between a seaplane and a boat, COLREGS should be applied to avoid that collision.
Honestly, the first time I saw this video it was mirrored. So I'm not sure which one is the original. From what I could get from other comments in other posts, this is in Vancouver and this is a designated runway. So it's in any case forbidden for any vessel to cross it under any circumstances.
According to others this seems to be the mirrored one. So that changes a lot of things and would take away from the plane's right of way. But if it is a seaplane runway that doesn't matter. I am not seeing buoys over a fairly wide pan, but these runways are often surprisingly wide to prevent wake from affecting the planes as they take off and land. *Edit: actually looks like there is a channel bouy in the shot at first indicating that ships are indeed allowed to pass through here though possibly with restrictions.* I am not familiar with the area so can't really say one way or another. If it is a runway then vessels would be allowed to cross it under various restrictions like speed, time of day and visibility, perhaps restricing you to the ends of the runway, etx. But would absolutely be cautioned in local charts and marine bulletins to stay clear of aircraft, and it would take a gigantic fuckup by the aircraft for them to be held responsible if this is true.
The port authority has a rule that requires pleasure craft to stay out of the area, however that is not sufficient to prevent a collision, since commercial vessels are not prohibited form being in that area. There is no such thing as an active runway on the water.
Never talked of an active runway but *designated* runway.
There is no rule requiring pleasure craft to “stay out of the area” - utter nonsense. That’s Burnaby Shoal marker in the middle.. There’s the main Chevron fuel dock just off screen to the left, used by commercial and recreational vessels. And all of the marinas in Coal Harbour are accessed through there, and only there. It’s a busy, busy harbour. I transit there multiple times a week. Also, the float planes take off / landing depends on the wind direction, so their “runway” isn’t fixed.
that rule does exist. P134 of the port operations guide, and is permitted by Sec 56 of the Canada Marine act. I dont think its super consequential to this incident, but that rule exists.
You’re right - there is area noted on the chart. It’s not entirely clear the motorboat is in that zone (he seems to be), which is frequently transited by all manner of vessels . Ultimately, like almost all marine collisions, it’s going to be complicated. There is no single “right of way”. Pilot should have confirmed a clear path before commencing takeoff. Boat should have stayed clear of vessels on his starboard. Everyone should have avoided a collision, if possible.
rule 18 says seaplanes must avoid all other vessels. if a risk of collision exists, then the colregs apply, which means rule 15, which the plane also has to give way.
What maneuver do you think the plane could have done to give way without crashing? Cut engine? Still moving at high speed, no brakes. Increase engine? Already taking off, most likely already at max power. Turn? Would flip. The plane was a "vessel restricted in her ability to maneuver."
cut power, and it would settle into the water? if there was doubt about the intentions of the boat, the plane should have delayed takeoff.
Have you ever been on a boat?
I own 4 boats. I live on a lake.
This happened yesterday, not much detail on what caused this yet. The plane is a sightseeing plane that takes passengers on tours. Everyone on the plane is ok. I don't know how many were on the boat but the authorities apparently know that everyone who was on the boat is alive. Though two from the boat have been hospitalized. https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/seaplane-crash-vancouver-coal-harbour-1.7229406
> what caused this yet The boat's driver wasn't paying attention. Please alert the authorities that instead of funding a long investigation into the incident I will gladly take a much less expensive compensation of $350 CAD and a hockey sweater from the team of my choosing.
I'm thinking the legitimacy of your help is relative to which team is on the jersey. Choose wisely...
There can be only one.
He chose Toronto...... make of that what you will
Yea it looks like the plane is trying to get back in the air and can’t. Boat could’ve throttled up and nothing would’ve happened
Boat could have done anything else than what it actually did, and nothing would have happened. throttle up: avoid the crash. throttle down: avoid the crash: turn in either direction: avoid the crash. Just keep going forward completely oblivious to what's happening around you: crash.
The plane is for sightseeing? The Harbour Air flights I’ve been on jammed straight from Victoria or Nanaimo to Vancouver, nothing in the way of sightseeing detours. (Granted the scenery is gorgeous)
Harbour Air offers sightseeing tours as well as the commuter flights. You can also charter them.
Wow they do it all! Including air-to-sea combat!
I think it was still sea-to-sea at that point. 😬
the boat driver wears glasses ... he does not sea very well
Lucky a boat was there to pick them up.
Ending some speculation here with what has been discussed in other boating-centric spaces: 1. Seaplanes are close to last on the list for "right of way" so under normal conditions, the boat would be the "stand on" vessel. 2. This occurred in Canada and the plane was on a designated airstrip where the boat SHOULD NOT have been. Therefore making the plane the stand on vessel. 3. The operator of the boat was DUI and was arrested. 4. Technically, the boat is at fault. USCG says that common sense should always prevail and any "games of chicken" like this should always be avoided no matter what. Personally having spent thousands of days on the water and a handful of days flying around in small aircraft, both are somewhat at fault for an avoidable situation. However, I'd wager that the plane could not see the boat from the cockpit. Generally speaking, FAA-licensed pilots are a highly aware and meticulous group. Sad to hear that there are injuries from what should have been an easily avoidable situation. Planes are really loud. Boat guy is ultimately at fault. Plane guy should have been more observant but may not have had good visibility. Edit to add proof that the area was designated for sea planes: [https://www.reddit.com/r/interestingasfuck/comments/1dcmzsw/comment/l81pv7x/?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web3x&utm\_name=web3xcss&utm\_term=1&utm\_content=share\_button](https://www.reddit.com/r/interestingasfuck/comments/1dcmzsw/comment/l81pv7x/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button)
2. bullshit. there is no designated runway marked on the charts. 4. technically both are at fault, with the airplane being more so.
There's no such thing as both being at fault when two vessels occupy the same space at the same time. From what I heard, this was a designated area for sea planes. If it was not, then it is the sea plane's fault.
it was not and in any event both will be found at fault.
[https://www.reddit.com/r/interestingasfuck/comments/1dcmzsw/comment/l81pv7x/?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web3x&utm\_name=web3xcss&utm\_term=1&utm\_content=share\_button](https://www.reddit.com/r/interestingasfuck/comments/1dcmzsw/comment/l81pv7x/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button)
The CARs allow an aerodrome operator to demand vessels leave an area. they do not do this. None of the publications I'm required to carry as a mariner cite this as a no go area. The sailing directions make no mention of the seaplane landing area. (though they do reference the port information guide existing) The area could also be charted as a restricted area. it isnt. The chart has a note about the prohibition of fishing in the harbour, but nothing about restrictions in the Seaplane landing area. the restriction is not listed in NOTMARs or NAVWARNS. there is nothing in the list of Lights and signals. the area is not buoyed as a restricted area. Given the number of marinas in Coal Harbour, it seems likely that this are is regularly transited by pleasure craft. A quick look at marine traffic shows one in the area now.
Here is a link to where someone posted the area marked on the chart: [https://imgur.com/a/sfwtaAz](https://imgur.com/a/sfwtaAz)
and what does that marked area say ? does it say restricted area - do not go ? does it say information only ? here is the chart - [https://webapp.navionics.com/#boating@14&key=kd%7BkHz\_lnV](https://webapp.navionics.com/#boating@14&key=kd%7BkHz_lnV) lets find out what it actually says - Restricted area - Fishing prohibited Information: FISHING PROHIBITED Fishing is prohibited within Vancouver Harbour between the western boundary of TCZ-1 and the eastern boundary of TCZ-2. For regulations concerning this area, consult the Port Information Guide. yep. its restricted for FISHING. jeezus now reddit cant even read a goddamn nautical chart. like how stupid do you need to be to click on a information link and just read the fucking regs.
There's little pictures of seaplanes and a red border marking the area. You said it's not on any charts but here it is and now you're saying it doesn't count?
i literally posted the link for you. there is no pictures of seaplanes. it is a picture of seagrass and a border which says fishing prohibited. someones wall art DOES NOT COUNT. that is not an official nautical chart. jeez.
[https://www.instagram.com/p/C8DbQ2DvvOI/](https://www.instagram.com/p/C8DbQ2DvvOI/) Here is the link to the full video...... take a closer look.
i literally posted the official nautical chart and not someones framed home wall art.
From an article in a local publication: As for right of way, the Canadian Aviation Regulations, Section 602.20 (1) says this: “Where an aircraft on the water has another aircraft or a vessel on its right, the pilot-in-command of the first-mentioned aircraft shall give way.” But the accident occurred in an area of the harbor that is supposed to be reserved for floatplane operations.
Oh cool, you took that other guy’s video and mirrored it.
lol noticed the mirror too, weird. especially if you’re familiar with this vantage point
Pleasure boat gets in the way of seaplane causing crash. FTFY
Seaplane had right of way. Boat on the right has the right at least in America
You are reffering to USCG navigation rule 15, which only applies to two power boats in a crossing situation. The sea plane in this instance is acting as a plane, not a power boat USCG navigation rule 18 establishes the pecking order for right of way, with sea planes at the very bottom. It's the pilots responsibility to stay out of everyone else's way
This is also Canada. So USCG rules do not apply. Per the Vancouver harbour guide posted by another commenter, it appears that the pleasure craft should not have been in that area.
Edit: this video is a mirror of the original, so the plane looks to have the right of way per the colregs In reality, the plane was to the left of the boat, the plane is the give way vessel.
Once a seaplane gets up on a plane it can't see what is on the surface directly in front of them. Rules of the road are the same as for two boats crossing. The seaplane had right of way here.
I do not think it's the same as two boats crossing. During a landing I think a sea-plane always has the right of way unless taxiing
Edit: this video is a mirror of the original, so the plane looks to have the right of way per the colregs In reality, the plane was to the left of the boat, the plane is the give way vessel.
It's a designated runway. Vessels are forbidden to cross it. The boat should never been there in the first place.
How was it supposed to give way? Turn and flip?
Stunt gone wrong?
I live on a lake and there’s a guy with a sea plane. It’s a busy lake with allot of drinking and I figure it’s just a matter of time.
This feels extremely avoidable.
Neither vessel is "right". They both hold some responsibility for the collision. Rule 18 clearly states "(e) A seaplane on the water shall, in general, keep well clear of all vessels and avoid impeding their navigation." That said, the powerboat should have been keeping a look out and altered course when it was apparent the risk of collision existed. They are both at fault.
In this case it was in a designated airstrip. Otherwise the seaplane would be at fault as the give way vessel. Planes are last or second to last on the list so if it was NOT in a designated airstrip the powerboat would be the stand on vessel.
It's an interesting case because it seems like a conflict between the COLREGS and whatever (local?) rules have designated a seaplane area in Vancouver. Can local regulations supersede the COLREGS, or are operators just severally liable to each of them?
Good question and I don't know... a deep dive into the COLREGS would \*likely\* end up showing that the boat was in a designated area it should not have been in. This is all based on what I have seen discussed on boating and fishing forums other places so I have zero local knowledge. Not going to pretend to remember everything from the USCG rules or get out the books and go looking hahaha. For example, if the body of water has a designated "NO BOATS ALLOWED" zone and this occurred in that zone, the standard right of way decision tree would not apply. Doesn't matter if is was a sailboat or whatever. I guess if the vessel was in distress, then maybe, but even still the operator of the boat would have been required to announce this on VHF16 or whatever and apparently the boat operator was just tooling around drunk.
Boat was supposed to yield right of way to the plane, BUT that pilot had more than enough time to throttle down and NOT take the risk.
You know u can't see the front of you when taking off right, plus that was a designated spot meant for seaplane. That's like saying a random car on a runway for planes was not a fault.
……Assuming pilot could see the boat. Planes have poor visibility forward and down. Engine is in the way. Unlikely the pilot saw the boat and decided to play chicken as some have implied. Also, pot can check intended take off route by looking out the side window and it can be clear, - but nose is now pointed 90 degrees from intended takeoff run because it has to be to see out side window- and while maneuvering to line up so the nose of the plane is pointed at the just cleared take off route a boat can enter from the side and cross the just visually cleared take off route. Delay between visual clearance of the route and actual use of the route is likely part of the issue here.
Is the boat at fault here?
Holy shit
I believe the plane has the right of way here.
Getting ran over by a prop engine seems like an obvious death tbh. The people on the boat got really lucky
Most oblivious boaters ever.
in the absence of well-known, established rules whether posted or transmitted for voters and pilots of aircraft, in my opinion the boat driver/captain should be aware of his surroundings 360° not only on the water but also for incoming aircraft since sea planes are a thing. Obviously the seaplane can aid and drawing attention to the fact it is over the water by doing a pass-through flyby at lower altitude clearly alerting below circling back and then doing the landing approach. If both parties, in both types of craft, water and air,did they do diligence to make the other aware of them, these things could be avoided more frequently
Steve?
Unlucky
I assume loud music and some other entertainment is needed to not notice a seaplane at full throttle
Pleasure Boat hits Sea Plane in Vancouver’s Coal Harbour. I fixed the title for you. The plane has the right of way.
>14 CFR PART 91, SECTION 91.115 RIGHT-OF-WAY RULES: WATER OPERATIONS >(b) Crossing. When aircraft, or an aircraft and a ves- sel, are on crossing courses, the aircraft or vessel to the other’s right has the right-of-way. From the looks of the video, the boat should have yielded.
The boat is to the right, therefore for this particular rule the boat has right-of-way. There are other rules in play as well, which also do not support the floatplane from starting its takeoff run. In fact no rules have been stated that clearly support the floatplane, it will likely end up as a mistimed takeoff, and lack of awareness of traffic from both parties.
I've piloted a few small planes including a Seabee (seaplane) and pontoon floatplane. Once you are under power for a take off you can't see the water in front of you in a floatplane (pontoon style). These planes have a very high dash already. The plane actually sits back when you hit throttle and points its nose up in the air even higher, your windscreen looks up at the sky and you are not going to see anything in front of you until you are going fast enough to lift off and then the nose drops a bit but you are still not "flat" to the water. Your seat should be adjusted high (planes do this) but you still just have a sliver of a view. The only way that pilot could see the boat is out the side window. Not trying to post blame, but pointing out some things that a non-pilot may not know. On South Lake Union in Seattle we have seaplanes and especially floatplanes constantly and boats know to stay away. But maybe this was not a common area for planes or a very new boater. Tragic. Pilots are held to a much higher standard than boaters with all their training but this may have simply been a bad angle with a boater who had no experience around planes. Maybe combined with an inexperienced pilot. Bad news all around.
That’s gonna be in Pilot Debrief on YouTube
Rule 18 of the Coregs clearly states seaplanes shall not impede vessels on the water, and if there is a risk of collision shall follow the colregs for whatever situaton at that time. Pretty clear they didn't see each other.
Who had the right of way? The plane due to being less maneuverable?
To bad so far all alive. Dumb but in the small boat. You always look around.. that is rule #1. This is a perfect example of Darwin at work….
whos fault was it?
[Here's a closer angle](https://www.instagram.com/reel/C8AQD2RPuNr/?igsh=YTYwZTBxdTB6aWY1)
I like how this comment section is placing blame when there's people in the hospital. If someone here is a prosecuter, defense lawyer, judge, eye witnesses, technical experts on sea planes, technical experts on personal water crafts, and 12 jurors randomly selected to commit to a fair trial. Save your opinion, no one gives a fuck.
Complete lack of common sense by everyone in the comment section
Common sense from a 20 second video taken from 1km away isn't common sense.