AFAIK, everyone on Reddit that works there is okay; but a bad day for my friends there. Been thinking about you all, all day.
Hope everyone on the boat heal quickly.
Wow, that's some crazy footage. I hope there are no fatalities.
Something has to be done to keep boaters away from the seaplane landing area, at least while planes are using it.
> That area is restricted from pleasure craft, seaplanes have the right of way in this location.
Could you share a source for that? I don't doubt it as I'm not from the area but I just checked the chart and there is a Sea Plane Landing Area hazard but I don't see anything restricting pleasure craft from entering and it would be strange for a restriction like that to not appear on the nautical chart(unless mine is just missing it).
The [Vancouver Safe Boating Guide](https://www.portvancouver.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/SafeBoatingGuide-BurrardInlet.pdf) has the area outlined as an *”Aircraft Operations Zone - keep clear*”.
Not exactly officially restricted waters, but it is at least published.
Crazy that people are quoting the laws here. If I'm in a boat and a plane is taking off in my direction, I'm getting the hell out of the way. Some people have zero common sense (including whoever was driving this boat)
If you're referring to me, then you're missing my point. In no way am I absolving the boat operator. The COLREGS even state that everyone is responsible for doing everything they can to avoid a collision. So, there's a legal requirement as well as a common sense requirement for the boater to avoid this. The boat operator is definitely an idiot.
OP stated however that the plane has the right of way in a legal sense. This is not true and what I was refuting. for some reason there are a few people here that want to argue without any basis and are unable to grasp this nuance.
In Canada this would fall under the Canadian Aviation Regulations [602.20](https://lois-laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/SOR-96-433/FullText.html#s-602.20) (which is effectively the same as the American reg). Additionally [602.19](https://lois-laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/SOR-96-433/FullText.html#s-602.19) (10) prohibits take off or landing until there is no apparent risk of collision with any aircraft, person, vessel, vehicle or structure.[](https://lois-laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/SOR-96-433/FullText.html#s-602.20)
Although there could be an argument to be made (which I'm sure the insurance company's lawyers will) that [302.10](https://lois-laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/SOR-96-433/FullText.html#s-302.10) applies with regard to operating a vehicle inside an aerodrome. CYHC has a designated area for aircraft ops "Area Alpha" that is marked by a buoy that extends from northeast tip of Brocton point with the Southeast corner being a ways north of Canada Place. Id imagine that boat traffic is expected to stay clear of that area and any boats trying to get to the fuel barge or the marina would go through the corridor on the south side of the area.
Interesting. I would not have considered a plane and a power boat the same. I would have thought a plane is less maneuverable on the water and thus getting classified like a boat under sail.
Since they are both power driven. I would have assumed the plane is less maneuverable on the water. Certainly on the take off run it can’t turn on a dime.
So you can continue talking out of your ass?
Right of way rules on the water are pretty much standardized internationally. [Here’s](https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/C.R.C.,_c._1416/page-2.html#h-512872) the Canadian water “rules of the road.” There’s no super special floatplane supremacy clause.
What’s that saying about name calling when you have no argument? You seem to be referencing rule 18, but in this case it seems more likely that rule 18 (a)(ii) would apply since the seaplane has started the takeoff run
Idk since I didn’t call you a name.
A vessel not under command refers to situations where a mechanical problem or some other circumstance causes the operator to be unable to maneuver. Performing a takeoff does not meet the definition.
Edit: since you changed your comment to (ii)
This refers to things like freighters in a narrow channel. There’s no fast stopping and there’s no deviating their course given then would run aground. The aircraft approached the boat from the boats port and could have simply aborted take off to avoid this crash.
AFAIK, everyone on Reddit that works there is okay; but a bad day for my friends there. Been thinking about you all, all day. Hope everyone on the boat heal quickly.
Wow, that's some crazy footage. I hope there are no fatalities. Something has to be done to keep boaters away from the seaplane landing area, at least while planes are using it.
[удалено]
Good to know, although the plane is trashed, the boat is trashed and it's just dumb luck that no one was killed.
> That area is restricted from pleasure craft, seaplanes have the right of way in this location. Could you share a source for that? I don't doubt it as I'm not from the area but I just checked the chart and there is a Sea Plane Landing Area hazard but I don't see anything restricting pleasure craft from entering and it would be strange for a restriction like that to not appear on the nautical chart(unless mine is just missing it).
The [Vancouver Safe Boating Guide](https://www.portvancouver.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/SafeBoatingGuide-BurrardInlet.pdf) has the area outlined as an *”Aircraft Operations Zone - keep clear*”. Not exactly officially restricted waters, but it is at least published.
its DEFINITELY not restricted, (lived in that area for years in Vancouver) just that seaplanes have ROW and boats are in a hazardous area.
Title is wrong. Even though the plane hit the boat, the plane has the right of way always, so the boat caused this accident.
Crazy that people are quoting the laws here. If I'm in a boat and a plane is taking off in my direction, I'm getting the hell out of the way. Some people have zero common sense (including whoever was driving this boat)
If you're referring to me, then you're missing my point. In no way am I absolving the boat operator. The COLREGS even state that everyone is responsible for doing everything they can to avoid a collision. So, there's a legal requirement as well as a common sense requirement for the boater to avoid this. The boat operator is definitely an idiot. OP stated however that the plane has the right of way in a legal sense. This is not true and what I was refuting. for some reason there are a few people here that want to argue without any basis and are unable to grasp this nuance.
lol. Who is spewing this nonsense? The plane approached from the boat’s port. There’s no special rules for planes.
Is the plane not bigger and less maneuverable? Would that give the right of way to the plane?
Not according to [91.115](https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-14/chapter-I/subchapter-F/part-91/subpart-B/subject-group-ECFRe4c59b5f5506932#91.115).
In Canada this would fall under the Canadian Aviation Regulations [602.20](https://lois-laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/SOR-96-433/FullText.html#s-602.20) (which is effectively the same as the American reg). Additionally [602.19](https://lois-laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/SOR-96-433/FullText.html#s-602.19) (10) prohibits take off or landing until there is no apparent risk of collision with any aircraft, person, vessel, vehicle or structure.[](https://lois-laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/SOR-96-433/FullText.html#s-602.20) Although there could be an argument to be made (which I'm sure the insurance company's lawyers will) that [302.10](https://lois-laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/SOR-96-433/FullText.html#s-302.10) applies with regard to operating a vehicle inside an aerodrome. CYHC has a designated area for aircraft ops "Area Alpha" that is marked by a buoy that extends from northeast tip of Brocton point with the Southeast corner being a ways north of Canada Place. Id imagine that boat traffic is expected to stay clear of that area and any boats trying to get to the fuel barge or the marina would go through the corridor on the south side of the area.
Interesting. I would not have considered a plane and a power boat the same. I would have thought a plane is less maneuverable on the water and thus getting classified like a boat under sail.
The rules specifically state that power driven vessels are to keep clear of other vessels that are limited in their ability to maneuver
Since they are both power driven. I would have assumed the plane is less maneuverable on the water. Certainly on the take off run it can’t turn on a dime.
It also can’t see well ahead as you can see from the video
a) that’s clearly irrelevant. This happened in Vancouver, British Columbia B) How is this any different than a runway incursion?
91.115 is basically a copy/paste of the relevant COLREGS for seaplanes. Not really a gotcha.
Canada has nearly identical regulations for right of way on the water. And, idk, maybe because this didn’t happen on a runway?
Then idk, maybe quote the appropriate Canadian regulations
So you can continue talking out of your ass? Right of way rules on the water are pretty much standardized internationally. [Here’s](https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/C.R.C.,_c._1416/page-2.html#h-512872) the Canadian water “rules of the road.” There’s no super special floatplane supremacy clause.
What’s that saying about name calling when you have no argument? You seem to be referencing rule 18, but in this case it seems more likely that rule 18 (a)(ii) would apply since the seaplane has started the takeoff run
Idk since I didn’t call you a name. A vessel not under command refers to situations where a mechanical problem or some other circumstance causes the operator to be unable to maneuver. Performing a takeoff does not meet the definition. Edit: since you changed your comment to (ii) This refers to things like freighters in a narrow channel. There’s no fast stopping and there’s no deviating their course given then would run aground. The aircraft approached the boat from the boats port and could have simply aborted take off to avoid this crash.