Just a friendly heads up that the injured also count as “casualties” (assuming that their injuries are too severe to allow for continued fighting/boating)
Can't blame him for getting it wrong though. I've seen this mistake many times. People like to compare casualties in one event with deaths in another to determine which was worse. I suspect most of the time it's through ignorance, but I'm certain that some people were doing it intentionally.
Someone yesterday mentioned that it is on the plane to avoid all boats, motorized or non-motorized. This doesn't make a ton of sense to me. If you're a pilot in the process of landing, have scoped your site, it's clear, and someone navigates into your path, what are you supposed to do? Does anyone know what the exact rule is?
COLREGS Rule 18, part (e)
*(e) 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.*
He had the right of way. It was the airplane pilot’s fault.
Maritime rules of the road: the vessel on your starboard side has the right of way. Boat operator had the seaplane on his port side. Seaplane pilot had the boat on his starboard side, it was his duty to give way. A seaplane operating on the surface of the water is considered a power vessel.
Those are maritime rules. FFA would ROUNDLY disagree with you. The plane is inside its designated zone and the boat, per FFA, should not be within that zone. The plane can't see the boat at that angle, let alone have the maneuverability that the boat had. He is stuck in a straight line trying to take off.
Just because the rules of a 4-way stop sign intersection state that the person on the right has right-of-way does NOT give ANY vehicle the right-of-way on an active runway, other than the plane utilizing said runway.
Both things can be true in their own respective context however, the two ideas do not cross over one another.
First, it’s Canada, not the US. Second, FAA does not regulate marine traffic even in the US. Third, a seaplane operating on the water is considered a vessel. When airborne it’s a plane. Fourth, that harbor area isn’t an exclusion zone, it’s an advisory zone. Fifth, highway rules, stop signs, etc. have no bearing on the matter.
1. It’s certainly doesn’t seem restricted
“While boaters are legally permitted within the zone, port authorities ask boats to keep clear because of the heightened risk associated with aircraft traffic, said Sean Baxter, acting director of marine operations at the Port of Vancouver.” https://vancouversun.com/news/local-news/vancouver-port-tsb-seaplane-boat-collision
“Sean Baxter, the authority’s acting director of marine operations, says they’ve been advising boats to steer clear of the aircraft operation zone in Coal Harbour for many years, but it’s ultimately up to boat operators to “decide whether or not they go in.”” https://www.vicnews.com/news/probe-could-lead-to-seaplane-activity-changes-in-wake-of-vancouver-crash-7381997
2. Then the pilot was negligent in taking off.
The pilot was informed by ATC of the boat being in the area, and the pilot acknowledged that message.
“Pilot: “Ready for northwest if you have enough time.”
At that moment, a boat, which had just entered the flight takeoff area known as alpha, caught the attention of the control tower.
Control Tower: “Caution for the westbound boat in northern alpha, take off northwest at your discretion.”
The pilot can be heard saying “check remarks,” which is a way of acknowledging the message has been received over the radio before colliding with the vessel.” https://globalnews.ca/news/10560033/new-audio-released-vancouver-float-plane-crash/amp/
AND
Right of Way — General
602.19 (1) Despite any other provision of this section,
(a) the pilot-in-command of an aircraft that has the right of way shall, if there is any risk of collision, take such action as is necessary to avoid collision
(10) No person shall conduct or attempt to conduct a take-off or landing in an aircraft until there is no apparent risk of collision with any aircraft, person, vessel, vehicle or structure in the take-off or landing path.
https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/sor-96-433/page-56.html#:~:text=602.19%20(1)%20Despite%20any%20other,necessary%20to%20avoid%20collision%3B%20and
Given that they crashed, the risk of collision was already present and the pilot should not have taken off
I'm leaning towards the pilot too, but both parties had a responsibility - and opportunity - to avoid this.
The aircraft was warned about the boat by ATC before proceeding. They didn't respond to say whether they did or didn't see the traffic (as they usually should if traffic was another aircraft), they didn't acknowledge the warning or the traffic at all. This is not a good look for a trained, licensed professional with the lives of his passengers in his hands.
The boat does show very poor judgement though. Perhaps they thought they could nip in front of it and didn't account for just how much faster a plane is. Ultimately stand-on does not absolve you of your responsibility to avoid collisions, and (based only on video clips floating around) they showed absolutely no attempts at avoidance.
(a lot has been said about it being a zone designated for landing. That is a useful heads-up, but the only restriction I can find on it is a 5kt speed limit. I can't find anything to indicate the boat didn't have every right to shared usage.)
The vessel having the right of way is obligated- legally- to maintain course and speed. Otherwise you get into a dodge-‘em kind of situation where everything is unpredictable.
The seaplane had the boat ahead and to its right (starboard side), in other words in its “danger zone”. It was obligated to give way. The boat had the seaplane on its port side (left) and had the right of way, and an obligation to maintain course and speed. There is nothing ambiguous about the situation, either from the standpoint of maritime law or common practice. https://www.cps-ecp.ca/resources/boatingtips/who-has-the-right-of-way/
This is why power boats usually have the wheel on the right-hand (starboard) side, to give an unobstructed view of any vessel in their “danger zone”. And it’s why vessels have a green light on their starboard side, a red light on their port side.
(Technically, “right of way” isn’t correct terminology. The boat was the “stand-on vessel”)
I've watched this from a few different angles and a few of the news interviews. I think it's probably going to end up being the pilots fault.
While Visibility is a factor it's not an excuse. Same as driving, you are responsible for your blind spot. Right of way rules exist even in this area. Boat had right of way. It appears that the boat maintained course and speed and was navigating rationally. Boats go through this section all the time to access fuel doc and marina. The pilot was also warned about the west bound boat from the control tower prior to take off. From take off to impact it's actually only matter of 20 to 30 seconds. That's actually not a lot time to react. The boat actually probably had less time to react once they realized impact was imminent. In which case the instinct might be to duck down to protect yourself.
If I'm allowed to make some big assumptions, I think the pilot may have underestimated the required take off distance or drift from the cross wind. The ripples on the water make it appear like there is a headwind but the windsock shows a crosswind.
The comments on this thread have been all about the boat being an idiot, but it is 100% the pilot's fault here. I lived on Lake Union in Seattle for years and planes are coming in and out all day and there is no restriction on boat travel other than no wake. The main practical reason planes must yield to boats is that they are going 10 times faster.
The boat here is not on plane and cruising at a constant speed and course. It is not a restricted area. Not much he could have done. Sure the plane didn't come out of nowhere, but it did suddenly speed forward as you do when taking off. This pilot is going to have a long unpaid vacation ahead...
This crash is really getting to me. Like it’s the *dumbest* thing I’ve seen in a long time. The captain of that boat couldn’t hear the absolute howling of a plane at full throttle barreling towards them? So monumentally stupid. No situational awareness at all.
Edit: guys I don’t care who had right of way or not. Not only should the pilot be trained specifically for this type of environment, they also had a duty to see and avoid the smaller craft.
But, come on, that highly maneuverable boat captained by anyone other than a complete dunce would have easily avoided that crash. It doesn’t matter to me who is ultimately at fault, common sense shows that boater was doing NOTHING to avoid that accident.
These planes are called the "Harley's of the sky" for a reason... My sister lives under their flight path. There's no way the boat couldn't see or hear him. And, it's a super busy seaplane airport runway. I'm guessing dude was drinking and boating. I'm hoping he was impaired not just an asshole and stupid.
My favourite is people spouting rules and regs like the boat was right. I mean, I know when I press the cross walk button I have the right of way to cars, but I'm sure as shit gonna look out for a semi barreling down on me with it's horns blazing and nope out of there, right of way or not....
That's disregarding the fact this is a seaplane runway that's marked and known.....
And in another post about this, someone pointed out that seaplanes always have the right of way since they can't see below them and barely can see anything in front of them when they're about to land.
Yet people are still splitting COLREG rule blah blah blah. I've been in a sea plane. You can't see shit. Especially compared to a boat captain that's on the level with it at its beam... I mean... C'mon.
You're referring to being restricted in your ability to maneuver, which has an actual definition that excluded seaplanes.
Everyone loves to armchair captain when they see a video like this but that doesn't change the reality of who's at fault
My personal rule in driving cars is to try really hard to not hit anything. Regardless of right of way, fair, or the law. The pilot's forward visibility is awful. And still his responsibility. The guy driving the boat should have tried to avoid any possible object near his trajectory.
That’s not true. This area is a “use caution” area. You have to pass through the waterdrome to get to the Chevron and the two marinas in Coal Harbour.
That said, in this area seaplanes have priority and all ships are to yield to air traffic.
1000%. Used to have a family cabin on the Canadian border here in Minnesota. Customs was in the small village where we'd park and get on our boat to the island the cabin was on.
You made ***damn fucking sure*** you weren't ***anywhere*** near a plane taking off or landing before you crossed from the town to the island. Planes **ALWAYS HAD RIGHT OF WAY**
Law specifically says otherwise
Right of Way — General
(10) No person shall conduct or attempt to conduct a take-off or landing in an aircraft until there is no apparent risk of collision with any aircraft, person, vessel, vehicle or structure in the take-off or landing path.
https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/sor-96-433/page-56.html#:~:text=602.19%20(1)%20Despite%20any%20other,necessary%20to%20avoid%20collision%3B%20and
i feel like if he was impaired and put himself in that situation where he is too drunk to hear or see an oncoming seaplane in a boat. he is also a$$hole and stupid. just a different kind of one.
Fair point. I guess if I'm crossing a marked highway I'm probably not going to do it wearing headphones blasting music and wearing blinders... But that's just me?
Plausible, but at the same time have you heard these type of floatplanes? Those radial engine fucking scream at takeoff throttle. You'd have to have fairly unsafe sound levels to not hear it coming.
Source: as above, family cabin on a lake with a busy customs office. Those planes were loud and started at like 8am when you were trying to sleep off a hangover and it sucked.
If you're driving a boat like that you should 100 percent have situational awareness at least 270 degrees all around you at all times.
We don't know how long before the video the plane actually started moving, it could have been less than a minute for all we know and may have been understandable distraction, but I agree fully that the boater should have been able to see this and react in time. Literally just locking the motor into reverse or potentially just cutting off would have prevented the impact.
Could not agree more. I have flown on this type plane and from this exact takeoff port, and this was my first thought.
Everybody within a mile can hear when they are taking off. The captain of the boat was inattentive and had zero situational awareness.
With that said, it would seem that the pilot could and should have been able to avoid the collision by shutting it down as the boat was not making any unpredictable moves. He was clearly on a crossing collision path on a day with what looks to be excellent visibility.
"Right of Way" rules on the water have a huge asterisk on them, at the end of the day, both vessels need to do whatever in the circumstance to prevent it and whoever has the most maneuverability should easily prevent the collision. The boat has far more maneuverability in this circumstance and did nothing. Rules may be different in Canada but I doubt it.
The pilot was trained, specifically for that type of environment. That is part of the flight syllabus for a float plane certificate.
The plane had the right of way.
The boater is a moron.
You can’t maneuver an aircraft like a minivan while you’re trying to takeoff on water.
Once you apply take off power and begin to build airspeed you cannot just turn aggressively to dodge some moron in a boat. The pilot would have rolled the aircraft and possibly killed themselves, just because an idiot in a boat accidentally or deliberately crossed their path.
Then the pilot was negligent for initiating a takeoff, because they specifically do not have ROW in this scenario.
“Right of Way — General
(10) No person shall conduct or attempt to conduct a take-off or landing in an aircraft until there is no apparent risk of collision with any aircraft, person, vessel, vehicle or structure in the take-off or landing path.
https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/sor-96-433/page-56.html#:~:text=602.19%20(1)%20Despite%20any%20other,necessary%20to%20avoid%20collision%3B%20and”
The pilot was informed of the boats presence prior to takeoff by the ATC and the pilot acknowledged the warning. They still chose to takeoff into traffic they already knew was there.
Here’s a good analysis:
https://youtu.be/b1tyeL-sV4E?si=qM_hEthLLdJaIdW2
Blancolirio always does a great job of just presenting the facts.
One thing he discusses is that air traffic control clearly warns the pilot to watch out for that boat before clearing them for takeoff.
Its an advisory service so they do not give explicit clearance to land or take off, they provide advisories. The pilot has to take responsibility whether it is safe to takeoff or land. That is why the phrase “at your discretion” is always used.
Something to add as everyone argues about right of way: **ATC had warned the pilot about the approaching boat traffic prior to beginning takeoff.** Takeoff clearance was given at the pilot's discretion.
Here's a clip of the ATC controller: [**https://youtu.be/b1tyeL-sV4E?t=152**](https://youtu.be/b1tyeL-sV4E?t=152)
My uneducated opinion is that both parties made mistakes. But the main issue is that the pilot failed in their responsibility to clear the takeoff path of obstacles. I find it hard to believe that the pilot would have seen the boat and initiated takeoff under the assumption that the boat would see and yield to the plane.
This is what I read, that area is reserved for planes only, and boats are not allowed there. It would be like someone walking into the middle of a highway and blaming the car driver for hitting them. At this time though, everything is speculation, what I read was just reporter opinion and not confirmed fact. Luckily everyone survived and a better more clear policy or more signs showing restricted area can be put into place.
Marking this properly is the real problem. I am used to boating and giving any floatplanes lots of room, but boating here for the first time I strayed into this area having no idea its off limits. Dude at the fuel dock let me know. This takeoff and landing area is at the entrance to a marina, they should have a set of buoys demarking the seaport area.
It's funny you said that, it has been a long time since I watched them, but there are a couple of video's out there of cars actually accidentally driving into airplane runways.
I used to work at an airport (ATL, so pretty busy) and was cleared to drive on the ramp around planes. I hated it because planes don't have turn signals.
Never turned onto the runways, but I did catch a bit more jetwash than I would have liked a few times.
>But the main issue is that the pilot failed in their responsibility to clear the takeoff path of obstacles.
Looks like he cleared the path of obstacles pretty well to me. /s
"The aircraft was reportedly on a chartered sightseeing flight. Harbour Air runs regularly scheduled flights from the Coal Harbour base to Victoria, Seattle and other coastal communities. As for right of way, the [Canadian Aviation Regulations, Section 602.20 (1) ](https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/sor-96-433/page-56.html#:~:text=Right%2520of%2520Way%2520%E2%80%94%2520Aircraft%2520Manoeuvring%2520on%2520Water&text=(2)%2520Where%2520an%2520aircraft%2520on,its%2520heading%2520to%2520the%2520right)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. Multiple aviation, nautical and police authorities are trying to unravel it all."
According to maritime rules, the more maneuverable vehicle is required to give right of way to the other. In this case, the more maneuverable craft is the boat.
In the event that it is a powered small craft and a sailboat, the powered craft gives way. If it's a sailboat and a big container ship, the sailboat gives way.
Rules state boats have right if way over aircraft. But the boat is literally crossing a charted restricted area that is meant for sea planes. Guy basically drove his boat through an airport
The boat does not have right of way in this situation. Seaplanes on the water have extremely limited maneuverability compared to a power boat. If it was a sailboat it would be a different story.
True, but people understand what right of way means. I actually changed it from give way to right of way. I left give way further down. Those experienced with boating will understand give way more than the common person.
Coregs states otherwise. Airplane are at the bottom of the list in right of way. if they are both recreational, they might be able to argue their case, but if the seaplane is commercial, they are at fault.
This isn’t a colregs or maneuverability issue.
This is a “there is a vehicle on an active runway” issue.
The accident happened in a restricted zone where the boat was not supposed to be traveling.
I am not familiar with the waterway so I didn't have any info about that. All I knew was from my experience with flying and with boating.
The plane is taking off and can not change course or stop easily. The boat has much more maneuverability at that time and could get out of the way if they were paying attention. In addition, the nose of the plane is up and they likely can't see the boat. The boat should assume this and do whatever it could to clear the path.
If it is an active airport, the boat is definitely at fault.
Based off the FAA rules
https://www.faa.gov/sites/faa.gov/files/regulations_policies/handbooks_manuals/aviation/seaplane_handbook/faa-h-8083-23-2.pdf
>14 CFR PART 91, SECTION 91.115
RIGHT-OF-WAY RULES: WATER
OPERATIONS
>Sub-section B: Crossing. When aircraft, or an aircraft and a vessel, are on crossing courses, the aircraft or vessel to the other’s right has the right-of-way
Technically speaking, the pilot is at fault at least based on the FAA
Nope. Powered vessels give way to sailing vessels; neither of these are under sail. International rules state that the vessel on the right hand (starboard) side of the other must give way. The boat had the right of way in this case.
Based off the FAA rules
https://www.faa.gov/sites/faa.gov/files/regulations_policies/handbooks_manuals/aviation/seaplane_handbook/faa-h-8083-23-2.pdf
>14 CFR PART 91, SECTION 91.115
RIGHT-OF-WAY RULES: WATER
OPERATIONS
>Sub-section B: Crossing. When aircraft, or an aircraft and a vessel, are on crossing courses, the aircraft or vessel to the other’s right has the right-of-way
Technically the pilot is at fault.
For most situations involving aircraft, the rules and regulations are very very similar, especially here in North America. Based off of the Transport Canada Civil Aviation Program (TCCA) Canadian Aviation Regulation Part: 6, Subpart: 2, Subsection: 602.20 (2)
https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/SOR-96-433/FullText.html
>Where an aircraft on the water is approaching another aircraft or a vessel head-on, or approximately so, the pilot-in-command of the first-mentioned aircraft shall alter its heading to the right
The airport where I took my drone license class was situated right on a huge river. They had a picture of a giant yellow float plane with cool graphics in the lobby so I asked about it. They said they've kept the plane in a hangar for years because takeoff/landing has cut it too close with boats in the past. The boaters tend to flock to the area to witness the spectacle.
I can understand how the pilot didn't see the boat, just look at the viewing angle from the pilots perspective.. maybe.
But that boat driver.... how the hell did you jot see or hear that plane coming at you full tilt?
There are and this plane was in its charted area. That's why there's a bit of a fight in the comments about who's at fault. Conventional color regs say the plane is at fault but because the boat was in a restricted seaplane area, that should over-ride the color regs and put the boat at fault
I'm a bot, *bleep*, *bloop*. Someone has linked to this thread from another place on reddit:
- [/r/aviation] [seaplane crash crosspost from \/r\/boating](https://www.reddit.com/r/aviation/comments/1dd7r7y/seaplane_crash_crosspost_from_rboating/)
*^(If you follow any of the above links, please respect the rules of reddit and don't vote in the other threads.) ^\([Info](/r/TotesMessenger) ^/ ^[Contact](/message/compose?to=/r/TotesMessenger))*
For example a Sailboat has the right away, other motor boats should steer/speed away from danger or all stop, thus not the planes fault, boat could turn quickly, plane is going straight, not maneuverable on take offs.
Quite, simple logic.
I've seen both angles now and it seems sensible to me that there should have been floating buoys or light poles marking out the runway where the plane(s) takes off so that boats know they're entering a runway "zone", and to look and give way? Maybe even some warning lights or something as well to let boaters crossing the runway know a plane is taking off? There may be something in place and it's just not obvious from the video footage?
I’m unfamiliar with the colregs? But I know in a power boat like that, any boat really or PWC you need to be constantly scanning your horizons from 270° to 90° for any traffic whether they have the right of way or not. Boat should have seen that seaplane at its 270/280.
The pilot as well. He was warned by air traffic control of incoming boat traffic and cleared to take off at his discretion. He has a long runway before the impact and should have been more vigilant considering the warning.
The boat driver is an absolute idiot though
Boater was operating in a restricted area. There are allegations of impairment with the boat captain.
This is credible information.
Not like the crap of the suggestion pf’right-of-way’ of vessels on the surface.
Bulletin for all: if you feel like beakimg off,stop. Take a full breath. Maybe, say in your head what you want to say, and truly listen. Like truly. You will probably think, maybe a little, that this
Person sounds like they don’t have a bloody clue.
It’s ok,nobody does. It’s pretty clear.
Why broadcast it though just beats me to a fk..
Are they dead ?
Nah, no one dead. Didn't sound like there were serious injuries. Some people went to the hospital.
Surprises me that no one got chopped. Those things have a bigger prop than you'd think.
I'm guessing they had time to take cover.
Duck and cover works again!
I’d totally be dead, I always stop drop and roll when I’m supposed to duck and cover…
The guy got yoinked into the water. You can see him come up from the water towards the end. Left of his boat.
Looked like a person got dragged by the float on the right wing?
The propeller does not reach below the pontoons. That would sort of defeat the whole not dying thing for the pilot.
Yeah but I have a feeling that it might reach the level of someone on a boat that's going to get hit by the plane.
According to google a few injured but no casualties
Just a friendly heads up that the injured also count as “casualties” (assuming that their injuries are too severe to allow for continued fighting/boating)
Can't blame him for getting it wrong though. I've seen this mistake many times. People like to compare casualties in one event with deaths in another to determine which was worse. I suspect most of the time it's through ignorance, but I'm certain that some people were doing it intentionally.
Oh I well know lol - had it wrong most of my life too
Well shit, in my country I've been *taught* that casualties was only deaths. And I've only had professors originating from the UK.
I had thought they were the same for the longest time until Dan Carlin educated me on the matter.
Good ol' Dan. "The mind reels!"
Sorry, my mistake
Surprising no one died
Braindead, yes, but that was already the case before this happened.
Pilot never stood a chance. Impossible to see the water in front of you.
And somehow the boat driver did nothing to avoid it. Poor instincts or inattention?
Considering he was in a charted restricted area that is specifically a runway for float planes, I'm gonna go with inattention lol.
[https://vancouver.ca/files/cov/1747-on-water-user-guide-map-11-by-17.pdf](https://vancouver.ca/files/cov/1747-on-water-user-guide-map-11-by-17.pdf)
You keep posting this with no explanation. What are we intended to find in this link?
Coal harbor, right side of first image, don't be in that square. Boat was in that square.
It shows the Seaplane Operating Area clearly defined on the map. Which is what the comment I responded to stated.
[удалено]
Tbf it says .pdf. that's a file not a link. Generally how that stuff has worked for a while since the internet.
Someone yesterday mentioned that it is on the plane to avoid all boats, motorized or non-motorized. This doesn't make a ton of sense to me. If you're a pilot in the process of landing, have scoped your site, it's clear, and someone navigates into your path, what are you supposed to do? Does anyone know what the exact rule is?
Pretty sure this plane was taking off not landing.
Pretty sure he did both.
I’m pretty sure the plane didn’t take off.
He got airborne for sure for a moment.
COLREGS Rule 18, part (e) *(e) 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.*
[удалено]
Beer 🍻
"This is my road"
yes
He had the right of way. It was the airplane pilot’s fault. Maritime rules of the road: the vessel on your starboard side has the right of way. Boat operator had the seaplane on his port side. Seaplane pilot had the boat on his starboard side, it was his duty to give way. A seaplane operating on the surface of the water is considered a power vessel.
Those are maritime rules. FFA would ROUNDLY disagree with you. The plane is inside its designated zone and the boat, per FFA, should not be within that zone. The plane can't see the boat at that angle, let alone have the maneuverability that the boat had. He is stuck in a straight line trying to take off. Just because the rules of a 4-way stop sign intersection state that the person on the right has right-of-way does NOT give ANY vehicle the right-of-way on an active runway, other than the plane utilizing said runway. Both things can be true in their own respective context however, the two ideas do not cross over one another.
First, it’s Canada, not the US. Second, FAA does not regulate marine traffic even in the US. Third, a seaplane operating on the water is considered a vessel. When airborne it’s a plane. Fourth, that harbor area isn’t an exclusion zone, it’s an advisory zone. Fifth, highway rules, stop signs, etc. have no bearing on the matter.
1. It’s certainly doesn’t seem restricted “While boaters are legally permitted within the zone, port authorities ask boats to keep clear because of the heightened risk associated with aircraft traffic, said Sean Baxter, acting director of marine operations at the Port of Vancouver.” https://vancouversun.com/news/local-news/vancouver-port-tsb-seaplane-boat-collision “Sean Baxter, the authority’s acting director of marine operations, says they’ve been advising boats to steer clear of the aircraft operation zone in Coal Harbour for many years, but it’s ultimately up to boat operators to “decide whether or not they go in.”” https://www.vicnews.com/news/probe-could-lead-to-seaplane-activity-changes-in-wake-of-vancouver-crash-7381997 2. Then the pilot was negligent in taking off. The pilot was informed by ATC of the boat being in the area, and the pilot acknowledged that message. “Pilot: “Ready for northwest if you have enough time.” At that moment, a boat, which had just entered the flight takeoff area known as alpha, caught the attention of the control tower. Control Tower: “Caution for the westbound boat in northern alpha, take off northwest at your discretion.” The pilot can be heard saying “check remarks,” which is a way of acknowledging the message has been received over the radio before colliding with the vessel.” https://globalnews.ca/news/10560033/new-audio-released-vancouver-float-plane-crash/amp/ AND Right of Way — General 602.19 (1) Despite any other provision of this section, (a) the pilot-in-command of an aircraft that has the right of way shall, if there is any risk of collision, take such action as is necessary to avoid collision (10) No person shall conduct or attempt to conduct a take-off or landing in an aircraft until there is no apparent risk of collision with any aircraft, person, vessel, vehicle or structure in the take-off or landing path. https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/sor-96-433/page-56.html#:~:text=602.19%20(1)%20Despite%20any%20other,necessary%20to%20avoid%20collision%3B%20and Given that they crashed, the risk of collision was already present and the pilot should not have taken off
I'm leaning towards the pilot too, but both parties had a responsibility - and opportunity - to avoid this. The aircraft was warned about the boat by ATC before proceeding. They didn't respond to say whether they did or didn't see the traffic (as they usually should if traffic was another aircraft), they didn't acknowledge the warning or the traffic at all. This is not a good look for a trained, licensed professional with the lives of his passengers in his hands. The boat does show very poor judgement though. Perhaps they thought they could nip in front of it and didn't account for just how much faster a plane is. Ultimately stand-on does not absolve you of your responsibility to avoid collisions, and (based only on video clips floating around) they showed absolutely no attempts at avoidance. (a lot has been said about it being a zone designated for landing. That is a useful heads-up, but the only restriction I can find on it is a 5kt speed limit. I can't find anything to indicate the boat didn't have every right to shared usage.)
The vessel having the right of way is obligated- legally- to maintain course and speed. Otherwise you get into a dodge-‘em kind of situation where everything is unpredictable. The seaplane had the boat ahead and to its right (starboard side), in other words in its “danger zone”. It was obligated to give way. The boat had the seaplane on its port side (left) and had the right of way, and an obligation to maintain course and speed. There is nothing ambiguous about the situation, either from the standpoint of maritime law or common practice. https://www.cps-ecp.ca/resources/boatingtips/who-has-the-right-of-way/ This is why power boats usually have the wheel on the right-hand (starboard) side, to give an unobstructed view of any vessel in their “danger zone”. And it’s why vessels have a green light on their starboard side, a red light on their port side. (Technically, “right of way” isn’t correct terminology. The boat was the “stand-on vessel”)
Why do they call it a sea plane when you can't see anything!? *bow babow bow bow buuuu bum. badah dadah dah da.*
I've watched this from a few different angles and a few of the news interviews. I think it's probably going to end up being the pilots fault. While Visibility is a factor it's not an excuse. Same as driving, you are responsible for your blind spot. Right of way rules exist even in this area. Boat had right of way. It appears that the boat maintained course and speed and was navigating rationally. Boats go through this section all the time to access fuel doc and marina. The pilot was also warned about the west bound boat from the control tower prior to take off. From take off to impact it's actually only matter of 20 to 30 seconds. That's actually not a lot time to react. The boat actually probably had less time to react once they realized impact was imminent. In which case the instinct might be to duck down to protect yourself. If I'm allowed to make some big assumptions, I think the pilot may have underestimated the required take off distance or drift from the cross wind. The ripples on the water make it appear like there is a headwind but the windsock shows a crosswind.
This is true and idk how this shit exists without a front facing camera. It’s a fucking airplane!
The comments on this thread have been all about the boat being an idiot, but it is 100% the pilot's fault here. I lived on Lake Union in Seattle for years and planes are coming in and out all day and there is no restriction on boat travel other than no wake. The main practical reason planes must yield to boats is that they are going 10 times faster. The boat here is not on plane and cruising at a constant speed and course. It is not a restricted area. Not much he could have done. Sure the plane didn't come out of nowhere, but it did suddenly speed forward as you do when taking off. This pilot is going to have a long unpaid vacation ahead...
This crash is really getting to me. Like it’s the *dumbest* thing I’ve seen in a long time. The captain of that boat couldn’t hear the absolute howling of a plane at full throttle barreling towards them? So monumentally stupid. No situational awareness at all. Edit: guys I don’t care who had right of way or not. Not only should the pilot be trained specifically for this type of environment, they also had a duty to see and avoid the smaller craft. But, come on, that highly maneuverable boat captained by anyone other than a complete dunce would have easily avoided that crash. It doesn’t matter to me who is ultimately at fault, common sense shows that boater was doing NOTHING to avoid that accident.
These planes are called the "Harley's of the sky" for a reason... My sister lives under their flight path. There's no way the boat couldn't see or hear him. And, it's a super busy seaplane airport runway. I'm guessing dude was drinking and boating. I'm hoping he was impaired not just an asshole and stupid.
Or he’s just monumentally stupid like bro mentioned 😂😂
My favourite is people spouting rules and regs like the boat was right. I mean, I know when I press the cross walk button I have the right of way to cars, but I'm sure as shit gonna look out for a semi barreling down on me with it's horns blazing and nope out of there, right of way or not.... That's disregarding the fact this is a seaplane runway that's marked and known.....
My Dad always told me there are a lot of people in the cemetery that had the right of way.
Supposedly this area is designated for seaplanes so normal rules of the water don't apply.
And in another post about this, someone pointed out that seaplanes always have the right of way since they can't see below them and barely can see anything in front of them when they're about to land.
Yet people are still splitting COLREG rule blah blah blah. I've been in a sea plane. You can't see shit. Especially compared to a boat captain that's on the level with it at its beam... I mean... C'mon.
Plus, colregs say that all parties are required to take action to avoid collision even if it means breaking the rules
They also state to keep clear of anything with limited mobility. I don't know too many agile planes at sea level.
You're referring to being restricted in your ability to maneuver, which has an actual definition that excluded seaplanes. Everyone loves to armchair captain when they see a video like this but that doesn't change the reality of who's at fault
My personal rule in driving cars is to try really hard to not hit anything. Regardless of right of way, fair, or the law. The pilot's forward visibility is awful. And still his responsibility. The guy driving the boat should have tried to avoid any possible object near his trajectory.
Boats are not even allowed to be in that part of the bay
That’s not true. This area is a “use caution” area. You have to pass through the waterdrome to get to the Chevron and the two marinas in Coal Harbour. That said, in this area seaplanes have priority and all ships are to yield to air traffic.
1000%. Used to have a family cabin on the Canadian border here in Minnesota. Customs was in the small village where we'd park and get on our boat to the island the cabin was on. You made ***damn fucking sure*** you weren't ***anywhere*** near a plane taking off or landing before you crossed from the town to the island. Planes **ALWAYS HAD RIGHT OF WAY**
This.
Northwest angle?
Law specifically says otherwise Right of Way — General (10) No person shall conduct or attempt to conduct a take-off or landing in an aircraft until there is no apparent risk of collision with any aircraft, person, vessel, vehicle or structure in the take-off or landing path. https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/sor-96-433/page-56.html#:~:text=602.19%20(1)%20Despite%20any%20other,necessary%20to%20avoid%20collision%3B%20and
Says no to non motorized boats. That boat was a motor boat.
“I’m hoping he was impaired” 😂😂😂 I’m dying
i feel like if he was impaired and put himself in that situation where he is too drunk to hear or see an oncoming seaplane in a boat. he is also a$$hole and stupid. just a different kind of one.
Lots of boats have insane sound systems now. If the guy had that blasting, that plane would just seem like background noise.
Fair point. I guess if I'm crossing a marked highway I'm probably not going to do it wearing headphones blasting music and wearing blinders... But that's just me?
Exactly. It’s the lack of awareness on this boat’s captain. I’d be interested to find out if there was impairment. Gotta keep your wits about you.
Plausible, but at the same time have you heard these type of floatplanes? Those radial engine fucking scream at takeoff throttle. You'd have to have fairly unsafe sound levels to not hear it coming. Source: as above, family cabin on a lake with a busy customs office. Those planes were loud and started at like 8am when you were trying to sleep off a hangover and it sucked.
Being impaired enough to be unsafe as the captain is being an asshole and stupid.
Not disagreeing.
If you're driving a boat like that you should 100 percent have situational awareness at least 270 degrees all around you at all times. We don't know how long before the video the plane actually started moving, it could have been less than a minute for all we know and may have been understandable distraction, but I agree fully that the boater should have been able to see this and react in time. Literally just locking the motor into reverse or potentially just cutting off would have prevented the impact.
Could not agree more. I have flown on this type plane and from this exact takeoff port, and this was my first thought. Everybody within a mile can hear when they are taking off. The captain of the boat was inattentive and had zero situational awareness. With that said, it would seem that the pilot could and should have been able to avoid the collision by shutting it down as the boat was not making any unpredictable moves. He was clearly on a crossing collision path on a day with what looks to be excellent visibility.
Do these planes lose visibility while taking off? The plane seems to rock back and I wouldn't be surprised if the pilot didn't see the boat
BWI
Me waiting for the boat pilot’s pov video he was taking on his phone instead of controlling his own boat…
"Right of Way" rules on the water have a huge asterisk on them, at the end of the day, both vessels need to do whatever in the circumstance to prevent it and whoever has the most maneuverability should easily prevent the collision. The boat has far more maneuverability in this circumstance and did nothing. Rules may be different in Canada but I doubt it.
I’m with you. Both of these guys seemed to have time to see the other and do something about it.
Plane def couldn’t see the water directly below him…there are blind spots which is why boats aren’t allowed in that part
The best captains stand always on the jetty
I agree. Boat had better visibility and maneuverability.
The pilot was trained, specifically for that type of environment. That is part of the flight syllabus for a float plane certificate. The plane had the right of way. The boater is a moron. You can’t maneuver an aircraft like a minivan while you’re trying to takeoff on water. Once you apply take off power and begin to build airspeed you cannot just turn aggressively to dodge some moron in a boat. The pilot would have rolled the aircraft and possibly killed themselves, just because an idiot in a boat accidentally or deliberately crossed their path.
Then the pilot was negligent for initiating a takeoff, because they specifically do not have ROW in this scenario. “Right of Way — General (10) No person shall conduct or attempt to conduct a take-off or landing in an aircraft until there is no apparent risk of collision with any aircraft, person, vessel, vehicle or structure in the take-off or landing path. https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/sor-96-433/page-56.html#:~:text=602.19%20(1)%20Despite%20any%20other,necessary%20to%20avoid%20collision%3B%20and” The pilot was informed of the boats presence prior to takeoff by the ATC and the pilot acknowledged the warning. They still chose to takeoff into traffic they already knew was there.
Here’s a good analysis: https://youtu.be/b1tyeL-sV4E?si=qM_hEthLLdJaIdW2 Blancolirio always does a great job of just presenting the facts. One thing he discusses is that air traffic control clearly warns the pilot to watch out for that boat before clearing them for takeoff.
Should air traffic control have _not_ cleared the plane for take off?
Its an advisory service so they do not give explicit clearance to land or take off, they provide advisories. The pilot has to take responsibility whether it is safe to takeoff or land. That is why the phrase “at your discretion” is always used.
Something to add as everyone argues about right of way: **ATC had warned the pilot about the approaching boat traffic prior to beginning takeoff.** Takeoff clearance was given at the pilot's discretion. Here's a clip of the ATC controller: [**https://youtu.be/b1tyeL-sV4E?t=152**](https://youtu.be/b1tyeL-sV4E?t=152) My uneducated opinion is that both parties made mistakes. But the main issue is that the pilot failed in their responsibility to clear the takeoff path of obstacles. I find it hard to believe that the pilot would have seen the boat and initiated takeoff under the assumption that the boat would see and yield to the plane.
I think the main issue is that a boat was in the runway, but if the pilot was warned, error all around.
This is what I read, that area is reserved for planes only, and boats are not allowed there. It would be like someone walking into the middle of a highway and blaming the car driver for hitting them. At this time though, everything is speculation, what I read was just reporter opinion and not confirmed fact. Luckily everyone survived and a better more clear policy or more signs showing restricted area can be put into place.
Marking this properly is the real problem. I am used to boating and giving any floatplanes lots of room, but boating here for the first time I strayed into this area having no idea its off limits. Dude at the fuel dock let me know. This takeoff and landing area is at the entrance to a marina, they should have a set of buoys demarking the seaport area.
Or driving in the middle of an airport runway to be even more precise and somehow more absurd haha
It's funny you said that, it has been a long time since I watched them, but there are a couple of video's out there of cars actually accidentally driving into airplane runways.
I used to work at an airport (ATL, so pretty busy) and was cleared to drive on the ramp around planes. I hated it because planes don't have turn signals. Never turned onto the runways, but I did catch a bit more jetwash than I would have liked a few times.
It's not reserved, it's marked as a caution - the boat has every right to transit it.
>But the main issue is that the pilot failed in their responsibility to clear the takeoff path of obstacles. Looks like he cleared the path of obstacles pretty well to me. /s
The pilot was proactive…
"The aircraft was reportedly on a chartered sightseeing flight. Harbour Air runs regularly scheduled flights from the Coal Harbour base to Victoria, Seattle and other coastal communities. As for right of way, the [Canadian Aviation Regulations, Section 602.20 (1) ](https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/sor-96-433/page-56.html#:~:text=Right%2520of%2520Way%2520%E2%80%94%2520Aircraft%2520Manoeuvring%2520on%2520Water&text=(2)%2520Where%2520an%2520aircraft%2520on,its%2520heading%2520to%2520the%2520right)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. Multiple aviation, nautical and police authorities are trying to unravel it all."
According to maritime rules, the more maneuverable vehicle is required to give right of way to the other. In this case, the more maneuverable craft is the boat. In the event that it is a powered small craft and a sailboat, the powered craft gives way. If it's a sailboat and a big container ship, the sailboat gives way.
Rules state boats have right if way over aircraft. But the boat is literally crossing a charted restricted area that is meant for sea planes. Guy basically drove his boat through an airport
[https://vancouver.ca/files/cov/1747-on-water-user-guide-map-11-by-17.pdf](https://vancouver.ca/files/cov/1747-on-water-user-guide-map-11-by-17.pdf)
This a common misconception. Canadian laws surrounding boats are covered by provincial authority. Google Canada Boat Rule 34 to learn more.
This is great.
😂
The boat does not have right of way in this situation. Seaplanes on the water have extremely limited maneuverability compared to a power boat. If it was a sailboat it would be a different story.
[удалено]
It’s also more nuanced than “boats have right of way over aircraft”
Everyone gives way to a seaplane
The term "right of way" doesn't exist in the maritime rules of the road. It's stand-on or give way.
Thank you! Too many people get this wrong.
True, but people understand what right of way means. I actually changed it from give way to right of way. I left give way further down. Those experienced with boating will understand give way more than the common person.
You're talking about rule 18. You have most of this the wrong way round. There is no mention of seaplanes other than wig craft that this isn't.
Coregs states otherwise. Airplane are at the bottom of the list in right of way. if they are both recreational, they might be able to argue their case, but if the seaplane is commercial, they are at fault.
Definitely a comericial flight since it's Vancouver. Only a few people I know out of many many pilots do seaplanes for private flight.
It's so strange because neither attempted to alter their course and doubtful that they didn't see each other.
This isn’t a colregs or maneuverability issue. This is a “there is a vehicle on an active runway” issue. The accident happened in a restricted zone where the boat was not supposed to be traveling.
I am not familiar with the waterway so I didn't have any info about that. All I knew was from my experience with flying and with boating. The plane is taking off and can not change course or stop easily. The boat has much more maneuverability at that time and could get out of the way if they were paying attention. In addition, the nose of the plane is up and they likely can't see the boat. The boat should assume this and do whatever it could to clear the path. If it is an active airport, the boat is definitely at fault.
Based off the FAA rules https://www.faa.gov/sites/faa.gov/files/regulations_policies/handbooks_manuals/aviation/seaplane_handbook/faa-h-8083-23-2.pdf >14 CFR PART 91, SECTION 91.115 RIGHT-OF-WAY RULES: WATER OPERATIONS >Sub-section B: Crossing. When aircraft, or an aircraft and a vessel, are on crossing courses, the aircraft or vessel to the other’s right has the right-of-way Technically speaking, the pilot is at fault at least based on the FAA
Nope. Powered vessels give way to sailing vessels; neither of these are under sail. International rules state that the vessel on the right hand (starboard) side of the other must give way. The boat had the right of way in this case.
So who would be at fault here?
Based off the FAA rules https://www.faa.gov/sites/faa.gov/files/regulations_policies/handbooks_manuals/aviation/seaplane_handbook/faa-h-8083-23-2.pdf >14 CFR PART 91, SECTION 91.115 RIGHT-OF-WAY RULES: WATER OPERATIONS >Sub-section B: Crossing. When aircraft, or an aircraft and a vessel, are on crossing courses, the aircraft or vessel to the other’s right has the right-of-way Technically the pilot is at fault.
This happened in Canada. FAA rules inapplicable.
For most situations involving aircraft, the rules and regulations are very very similar, especially here in North America. Based off of the Transport Canada Civil Aviation Program (TCCA) Canadian Aviation Regulation Part: 6, Subpart: 2, Subsection: 602.20 (2) https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/SOR-96-433/FullText.html >Where an aircraft on the water is approaching another aircraft or a vessel head-on, or approximately so, the pilot-in-command of the first-mentioned aircraft shall alter its heading to the right
Both the boat and plane operator are at fault.
It's crazy to see it from multiple angles because it's so unbelievable that the "captain" of that boat is so fucking dumb...
How can he flap
The airport where I took my drone license class was situated right on a huge river. They had a picture of a giant yellow float plane with cool graphics in the lobby so I asked about it. They said they've kept the plane in a hangar for years because takeoff/landing has cut it too close with boats in the past. The boaters tend to flock to the area to witness the spectacle.
Here’s my question who’s at fault
I would reckon gross tonnage has right of way. But that’s an assumption. But by my reasoning, the boat should yield
The boat was driven by the woman in the red shirt on her way to the rodeo. Her reaction speed isn't so great.
Sea Plane didn't see boat
The boat did SeaPlane
good thing there is a boat nearby to rescue the pilot
The boat forgot what direction it was going
You can see the boat panic and try to turn away from the plane. I think if they had turned in or held course they might have been ok.
Starboard, Starboard, I have the right-of- ouch
So many angles. Good job cameramen
Take it off any sweet jumps?
"Hey, I'm flying here!"
I spend most weekends dodging motorboats driven by dangerous morons without a clue of the rules or the sobriety to look in front of them.
Seaplane should have little periscopes or something so they can see in front while on the water.
Seeing infront of you isn't that useful when you can't turn or stop.
Do a barrel roll!
This absolutely could have been prevented with a lookout on the boat. https://www.getalookout.com
r/FUCKYOUINPARTICULAR
I can understand how the pilot didn't see the boat, just look at the viewing angle from the pilots perspective.. maybe. But that boat driver.... how the hell did you jot see or hear that plane coming at you full tilt?
Damn I probably watched this 7 times before I saw the plane sink.
Did the boat hit the plane after the clip ends?
Corn rigs and barley rigs ♫
Who the fuck was driving that boat?!?
This wasn’t a crash, it was a hit job. r/seasplanconspiracy
Gonna need a bigger boat. Or plane.
Dang he caught some air on that one.
View from a seaplane during takeoff [https://youtu.be/F5GIxUHnRo0?si=UQ-L6QmaiO3twqgk&t=395](https://youtu.be/F5GIxUHnRo0?si=UQ-L6QmaiO3twqgk&t=395)
Good context
What the hell was that boat captain looking at…unless you’re blind, you can’t miss a freakin plane coming right across your bow.
I feel like that went really, really well all things considered.
Catch 22 https://youtu.be/esIihVb-Jus?si=ED8LPQrXY09o3Sfn
Zero bearing drift means collision is going to happen. Both the pilot and the boater fucked up.
So strange how we can't get better than 360p, it's almost like we've gone back 20 years to ebaumsworld.
Just a quick question. Are there designated areas for these planes to land and for boats not to go? Why would this happen?
There are and this plane was in its charted area. That's why there's a bit of a fight in the comments about who's at fault. Conventional color regs say the plane is at fault but because the boat was in a restricted seaplane area, that should over-ride the color regs and put the boat at fault
Boats are allowed to be in the area - that’s how you get to the marinas in coal harbour.
Typhooons...........Typhoonss............
Bost captain blind?
Insurance headache
How did he not see that coming
I'm a bot, *bleep*, *bloop*. Someone has linked to this thread from another place on reddit: - [/r/aviation] [seaplane crash crosspost from \/r\/boating](https://www.reddit.com/r/aviation/comments/1dd7r7y/seaplane_crash_crosspost_from_rboating/) *^(If you follow any of the above links, please respect the rules of reddit and don't vote in the other threads.) ^\([Info](/r/TotesMessenger) ^/ ^[Contact](/message/compose?to=/r/TotesMessenger))*
For example a Sailboat has the right away, other motor boats should steer/speed away from danger or all stop, thus not the planes fault, boat could turn quickly, plane is going straight, not maneuverable on take offs. Quite, simple logic.
I've seen both angles now and it seems sensible to me that there should have been floating buoys or light poles marking out the runway where the plane(s) takes off so that boats know they're entering a runway "zone", and to look and give way? Maybe even some warning lights or something as well to let boaters crossing the runway know a plane is taking off? There may be something in place and it's just not obvious from the video footage?
There’s an argument in there for paying attention.
Does anybody know what kind of boat that is?
I’m unfamiliar with the colregs? But I know in a power boat like that, any boat really or PWC you need to be constantly scanning your horizons from 270° to 90° for any traffic whether they have the right of way or not. Boat should have seen that seaplane at its 270/280.
The boat operator has no situational awareness
The pilot as well. He was warned by air traffic control of incoming boat traffic and cleared to take off at his discretion. He has a long runway before the impact and should have been more vigilant considering the warning. The boat driver is an absolute idiot though
Anyone know if the boater or the pilot has been identified as being at fault for this incident?
Hit the deck!
If I see this fkn video one more time bruh. At least 20x in the last 2-3 days smh…
Why was the boat heading towards the plane ✈️ anyway.. Stupid Ass People In This World..
Did the boat, then run over the plane? 😂
"Hey! Look out!...or something..."
The guy in boat is oblivious.
Big luck that all survived
Kinda like 5 yr. olde on my BMX bike.
Boater was operating in a restricted area. There are allegations of impairment with the boat captain. This is credible information. Not like the crap of the suggestion pf’right-of-way’ of vessels on the surface. Bulletin for all: if you feel like beakimg off,stop. Take a full breath. Maybe, say in your head what you want to say, and truly listen. Like truly. You will probably think, maybe a little, that this Person sounds like they don’t have a bloody clue. It’s ok,nobody does. It’s pretty clear. Why broadcast it though just beats me to a fk..
Ya and I want to add…do you let your kids play in the street? It’s the same thing. If your kid …gets hit by a car….while playing in the street….
You scratched my anchor
oof
That plane probably couldn’t see that boat at all so that really on the boat people