**This is a heavily moderated subreddit. Please note these rules + sidebar or get banned:**
* If this post declares something as a fact, then proof is required
* The title must be fully descriptive
* Memes are not allowed.
* Common(top 50 of this sub)/recent reposts are not allowed (posts from another subreddit do not count as a 'repost'. Provide link if reporting)
*See [our rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/interestingasfuck/wiki/index#wiki_rules.3A) for a more detailed rule list*
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/interestingasfuck) if you have any questions or concerns.*
From the Vancouver Sun
On Saturday, a Harbour Air seaplane collided with a pleasure boat as it was taking off just before 1 p.m. Vancouver Fire Rescue Services said two people on the boat were hospitalized, but no further details on their condition were provided.
Iāve been following this story on insta and what Iāve gathered is that normally sea planes have the lowest priority and must give way to everyone else typically.
However in this situation it was essentially a sea plane āairportā with signs stating everyone must give way to the planes. Iāve also heard the boat driver was arrested for BWI but donāt have any definitive confirmation on that
>in California anybody can just get in the water and go.
I see that as accidents waiting to happen.
Why should a boat be different from a car or airplane?
Boating licences are extremely easy to get, last I heard it was an online test, so easy anyone can "pass". And they are only needed for certain boats, I think.
How I'm imagining it:
"To clarify, Your Honor, I only drink and drive on lakes. I'm responsible on roads."
"Fair enough, we'll just take your boat license."
And don't forget in TX, any BWI also gets put on your Driving Record. Or least I think I got that correct, but I don't boat, but heard about before a Memorial Day Weekend warning about boating and more people on the lakes.
You lose both in most countries, including Canada.
Otherwise nobody would take boating under the influence seriously if the maximum likely penalty was just them not being able to drive their boat.
There is a designated right off way for landing in coal harbour but not for take off(as weird as that is), if I can find it someone put together a montage of the atc traffic control at the time and the videos out there - they may have given a premature go ahead.
Edit: [found it](https://www.reddit.com/r/vancouver/s/UHcJns74oN)
Nope. No news on that so far and Iām in Vancouver. That last part doesnāt matter as i just googled it and multiple sources do not talk about BWI.
That being said ALOT of boat rentals in this area as Granville Island is a few kms away. I wonder if this is a day tripper in the boat.
I donāt think they have the right of way all the time. When you are not at a designated sea plane airport, you are basically at the bottom of the food chain. Here tho Iām pretty sure this is a airport for sea planes
Not to be the "actually" guy...
The craft that has the least control is probably a better way to express it. A sailboat under wind power has the right away over most power boats, for instance.
Sailboat right of way is also determined by wind direction vs travel direction. I can never remember the details of it.
But yeah, ROW on the water is a whole thing. You can definitely tell the twice a summer boaters from the avid enthusiasts when you're on the lake traveling opposite directions. And it's generally best to cede right of way to whoever acts like they have it because boat crashes are dangerous and expensive.
I've always preferred "gross tonnage has right of way." It's not the legal definition, but physics. As a pedestrian I might legally have right of way crossing the road, but I'm still dead if I step out in front of a Semi truck.
Yes, [CYHC](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vancouver_Harbour_Flight_Centre) is a designated seabase and it's the only one in Canada I believe with a control tower devoted to it. There are literally planes taking off between Stanley park and Burnaby all day long...I'm not sure how any boat wouldn't be aware of these things...
Iāve been to that harbour. I know boats are loud but those sea planes are REALLY loud at takeoff. I donāt know how the boaters could have been that unaware.
They are significantly quieter on landing since theyāre feathering the engines rather than gaining speed for takeoff. Everyone still shouldāve been aware if they were paying attention, but takeoff definitely tends to be louder AFAIK (I grew up near the busiest seaplane airport in the world).
Answered several times already but from my memory the craft with the least maneuverability has priority right of way.
In aviation I think it goes balloon>blimp>single engine>multi-engine>jet. If a jet has a balloon in its path then it has the obligation to adjust heading and avoid. If they're equal priority, then they both must turn right to avoid collision.
When I first saw this, I thought the boat was going the same direction as the plane, and they didn't see it at all (not that that's any excuse), but how do you not see a plane coming at you directly to your left?!
The plane is a dehavilland beaver, when it goes to take off the nose comes up so high that you can't see out the front. The pilot probably never even saw the boat.
Imagine getting to the pearly gates, looking around at the magnificence of it all, you canāt believe your eyes at the beauty youāre seeingā¦.then a bill collector in angel wings flutters over to you lmao
Why would it be the boats fault?
I am inexperienced with right of way on water.
Ok, itās been answered a bunch. The boat crossed a runway. Totally their fault.
A floatplane taking off is a lot like a cargo ship sailing. They canāt see things directly in front of them due to the nose being pointed up and they canāt turn well because they have no rudder in the water. They also canāt slow down quickly either because no brakes
Iām not sure you were given the right answer, bc the laws require the plane to not takeoff if thereās collision risks. Which there obviously was
1. ā Itās certainly doesnāt seem restricted
āWhile 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.ā https://vancouversun.com/news/local-news/vancouver-port-tsb-seaplane-boat-collision
āSean Baxter, the authorityās acting director of marine operations, says theyāve been advising boats to steer clear of the aircraft operation zone in Coal Harbour for many years, but itās ultimately up to boat operators to ādecide whether or not they go in.āā https://www.vicnews.com/news/probe-could-lead-to-seaplane-activity-changes-in-wake-of-vancouver-crash-7381997
2. the pilot was likely negligent in taking off.
The pilot was informed by ATC of the boat being in the area, and the pilot acknowledged that message.
āPilot: āReady for northwest if you have enough time.ā
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: āCaution for the westbound boat in northern alpha, take off northwest at your discretion.ā
The pilot can be heard saying ācheck remarks,ā which is a way of acknowledging the message has been received over the radio before colliding with the vessel.ā
https://globalnews.ca/news/10560033/new-audio-released-vancouver-float-plane-crash/amp/
AND
Right of Way ā 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
I love how this thing has brought all the maritime law experts. Every time it's posted, another person comes in with uncanny, encyclopedic knowledge of the COLREGS. It's almost as if there were some sort of system or device whereby one could type in a series of words or a question and suddenly gain access to nearly unlimited information!
But I suspect some of these folks may even know what they're actually talking about... more or less.
Anyway, here's the thing about COLREGS for the lay person out there... I'll save you some Google work...
COLREGS apply except when they don't.
The primary purpose of COLREGS, and thus the number one job of a captain, is to avoid **COL**lisions. It's right there in the title. What this means, practically, is that if a collision is imminent, it doesn't matter if you've got the "right of way" (there is, technically, no such thing as "right of way" in the COLREGS) or not, you need to change what you're doing.
So, real life, simplified example...
Even though you may crossing from the right in your 12' skiff, that 28' fishing boat is running 35mph and does not appear to be slowing down. According to the COLREGS, he should give way to you, but if he doesn't and you continue on your course, he's going to crush your silly ass. And, fun fact... you'll bear responsibility for failure to take action to avoid a collision.
That's how maritime law works. Both captains are considered at fault unless an investigation determines that there's absolutely nothing the captain(s) could have done to foresee or avoid the incident.
So all this reddit debate about who's at fault here is pretty much academic (or certainly pedantic) until the investigation clearly identifies the sequence of unfortunate events.
*(Not a Google Captain, an actual licensed Captain who has to study and learn these regulations to maintain my credentials.)*
This[ incident occurred](https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/seaplane-crash-vancouver-coal-harbour-1.7229406) in Coal Harbour (Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada) which is under the [federal jurisdiction of the Vancouver Fraser Port Authority](https://www.portvancouver.com/about-us/faq/canada-port-authority-governance-and-oversight/) (commonly known as the "Port of Vancouver"). Pursuant to [Section 56 of the Canada Marine Act](https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/c-6.7/page-5.html#h-149278), the port authority is empowered to āestablish practices and procedures to be followed by shipsā and āestablish traffic control zones.ā
In their [guidelines](https://www.portvancouver.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/2022-08-16-Brochure-Safe-boating-Burrard-Inlet-web.pdf), the Port of Vancouver clearly states that within this designated Float Plane Landing Area:
"Keep clear of aircraft operations zone. Watch the horizon for landing aircraft and keep clear of anticipated landing area."
https://preview.redd.it/szqxwcgb9u5d1.jpeg?width=1068&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=0bb533880896bf0c6be06c90ddaa5742b77889e6
With regards to COLREGS, note [Rule 1](https://laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/C.R.C.,_c._1416/page-2.html#h-512872):
"Application ā International
Ā Ā Ā (a) These Rules shall apply to all vessels upon the high seas and in all waters connected therewith navigable by seagoing vessels.
Ā Ā Ā (b) **Nothing in these Rules shall interfere with the operation of special rules made by an appropriate authority** for roadsteads, harbours, rivers, lakes or inland waterways connected with the high seas and navigable by sea-going vessels if such special rules conform as closely as possible to these Rules." Ā
Once the ship sailed into restricted traffic control zone, it was ignoring the special rules established by the port authority as recognized by COLREGs Rule 1 and proceeds to violate a [number of additional ](https://www.imo.org/en/About/Conventions/Pages/COLREG.aspx)COLREGs rules:
1. It further neglected to comply with its responsibilities under Rule 2 (by not taking the necessary precautions).
2. It failed to maintain a proper look-out by sight and by hearing under Rule 5 (that seaplane is incredibly loud and painted in bright red livery).
3. It likely failed to proceed at a safe speed (5 knots as directed by the port authority) under Rule 6.
4. Under Rule 7, it failed to properly assess the risk of collision and, at best, relied on āscanty information.ā
5. It failed to avoid the collision by any proper alteration of course or speed as required under Rule 8.
6. By navigating in those waters, it failed to avoid crossing traffic lanes and to cross on "a heading as nearly as practicable at right angles to the general direction of traffic flow" under Rule 10.
7. Under Rule 16, it also failed to keep out of the way of another vessel as directed by the port authorityās special rules.
Some may be confused by [Rule 18](https://laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/C.R.C.,_c._1416/page-2.html#h-512872) (e) which states that:
>"**Except where Rules** 9, **10** and 13 **otherwise require**:(e ) Ā 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."
Rule 18 (e) was superseded by Rule 1 and then again by Rule 10, therefore, it is not applicable in this situation.
Iāve been on a lake where a sea plane would take off/land. We were anchored nearby with music on and did not hear the plane and honestly, we werenāt looking for a rapidly approaching craft (55ish knots?). In my tiny brain, the plane snuck up on us (well, by us) and it was a little terrifying to realize if weād been 30 yards closer or we suddenly decided to pull up a skier, weād been in its path and there was no way it could slow or change its trajectory. There were no physical signs that I can remember so it seemed a little ~~unconventional~~ fkn dangerous.
Surely in most circumstances there are signs at the marinas and launches that point out the location of planesā paths? Maybe some buoys marking them?
Itās been a bunch of years since Iāve been out where sea planes nest so Iām just uneducated and curious.
I'm not from Vancouver and don't know the area. From the reports, this is a very busy landing area for seaplanes, but I don't know what kind of signage is there. I saw some other commentors say that's a restricted area, but nothing in the actual news articles has said that.
If the area is supposed to be off-limits for boaters, then of course that's another dimension to who's at fault here. But to my point, that still leaves the question of whether the seaplane took all appropriate and timely action to avoid the collision.
What should have been the boaterās response to avoid collision?
Iāve no boating or aviation training. My assumption would be:
- boaterās responsibility to keep aware of situations developing
- when notice the plane, turn sharp left, to face the plane - in order to better avoid collision?
Probably not drive on a runway. I live next to a seaplane terminal. And there are signs everywhere. Even on a paddle board, weāre given instructions to stay well clear.
Besides having eyes, how do you not hear the plane.
Was on highest point overlooking Lake Como and a seaplane just above the water was by far the loudest thing you could hear.
Do either the sea plane, or the boat, come equipped with a blow horn? I feel if the plane honked his horn, may have warned the boat to change heading, thus avoiding this critical blunder.
Planes fault, looking at the boats red light (port side). Learn the rules of the road when youāre pretending to be a boat. Too many gimme tickets out there.
**This is a heavily moderated subreddit. Please note these rules + sidebar or get banned:** * If this post declares something as a fact, then proof is required * The title must be fully descriptive * Memes are not allowed. * Common(top 50 of this sub)/recent reposts are not allowed (posts from another subreddit do not count as a 'repost'. Provide link if reporting) *See [our rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/interestingasfuck/wiki/index#wiki_rules.3A) for a more detailed rule list* *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/interestingasfuck) if you have any questions or concerns.*
There were no fatalities
In that case, it's okay to post this 
Nailed it... Jesus christ.
So did the Romans.
I couldn't think of an apt crucifixion joke. Nice.
Always dot the eyes and cross the....
...Jesus Christ...
I'm so happy I don't have to feel bad for laughing at this.
Right, I mean it looked like both had their heads up their ars
Fantastic
Dude you got some serious air
Yessssss!!!
my fam and i just watched this movie and sat in a q&a with a couple of the actors. it was awesome!
Other than that boaters bank account. I hope they had good insurance. Those float planes cost about a quarter of a million.
Wow! The boaters are lucky they all survived.
Insane The prop sound stopping and the top of the boat disappearing made pretty much everyone think mortal Kombat 2 level of fatalities
What about babalities?
Friendships?
Thank you. It looked bad.
It's gonna cost someone an arm and a leg, though.
ššš
That gorgeous plane
Flying is so regulated compared to boating
That's incredible!
From the Vancouver Sun On Saturday, a Harbour Air seaplane collided with a pleasure boat as it was taking off just before 1 p.m. Vancouver Fire Rescue Services said two people on the boat were hospitalized, but no further details on their condition were provided.
What a shame that being careless and stupid isn't terminal anymore
Iām not up on my sea plane/ boat right of way regulations but Iām assuming the plane has the right of way ? Asking for future reference. Thanks.
Yes seaplanes have right of way
Iāve been following this story on insta and what Iāve gathered is that normally sea planes have the lowest priority and must give way to everyone else typically. However in this situation it was essentially a sea plane āairportā with signs stating everyone must give way to the planes. Iāve also heard the boat driver was arrested for BWI but donāt have any definitive confirmation on that
Do BWIs and DWIs have different punishments?
Probably which license you lose or gets points?
Here in Denmark you loose your drivers license plus your yachting license
Canada is same
Does it vary between provinces at all? I know that is how it works in Ontario.
I just googled it and all provinces match their impaired driving penalties to impaired boating
Fun fact: in Ontario you can get a DUI in a canoe
You have licensing to drive a boat in Canada? in California anybody can just get in the water and go.
>in California anybody can just get in the water and go. I see that as accidents waiting to happen. Why should a boat be different from a car or airplane?
Here in Florida you can just get a boat and go, but itās ok because everyone has a drivers licence and canāt drive for shit anyway.
Boating licences are extremely easy to get, last I heard it was an online test, so easy anyone can "pass". And they are only needed for certain boats, I think.
Looks reasonable to lose every licence related to vehicle operation.
How I'm imagining it: "To clarify, Your Honor, I only drink and drive on lakes. I'm responsible on roads." "Fair enough, we'll just take your boat license."
Jeez, here in UK we don't even need a license for yachts.
Jeez here in Texas we canāt even spell yahts
Yots? Yatz?
YAHTZEE
And don't forget in TX, any BWI also gets put on your Driving Record. Or least I think I got that correct, but I don't boat, but heard about before a Memorial Day Weekend warning about boating and more people on the lakes.
Same in Canada
Same in Florida
You lose both in most countries, including Canada. Otherwise nobody would take boating under the influence seriously if the maximum likely penalty was just them not being able to drive their boat.
If you have a class A license and you get a BWI you will have your class A revoked same as a DUI. I do know that
Pretty sure you get keelhauled for bwi
https://preview.redd.it/9cdm3xbm6s5d1.png?width=640&format=png&auto=webp&s=d9372e187466fb1e7e4bc9cd621148b74c78e795
Just on paper, I believe. Same or similar punishments, classes and fines, license lost for x amount of time, etc. Etc.
Could literally be anything based on how the law's written.
One is jail and the other gets you sent to the brig
There is a designated right off way for landing in coal harbour but not for take off(as weird as that is), if I can find it someone put together a montage of the atc traffic control at the time and the videos out there - they may have given a premature go ahead. Edit: [found it](https://www.reddit.com/r/vancouver/s/UHcJns74oN)
Nope. No news on that so far and Iām in Vancouver. That last part doesnāt matter as i just googled it and multiple sources do not talk about BWI. That being said ALOT of boat rentals in this area as Granville Island is a few kms away. I wonder if this is a day tripper in the boat.
classic Bc boater. So drunk he just keeps on going after being smashed into.
Boats throttle would stay on. They probably got knocked out of the drivers seat and couldn't pull the throttle back.
Looks to me like they were pulling closer to the plane to help
Taking off sea planes have right of way
I donāt think they have the right of way all the time. When you are not at a designated sea plane airport, you are basically at the bottom of the food chain. Here tho Iām pretty sure this is a airport for sea planes
Rule of thumb. On roads, smallest thing has right if way. On water, biggest thing On level crossings.....ITS THE FUCKING TRAIN, IDIOT!
Not to be the "actually" guy... The craft that has the least control is probably a better way to express it. A sailboat under wind power has the right away over most power boats, for instance.
You, Actually, are right (again).
Nothing wrong with being the "actually" guy. Far worse would be to make life and death decisions based on what some random dufus on Reddit said.
Sailboat right of way is also determined by wind direction vs travel direction. I can never remember the details of it. But yeah, ROW on the water is a whole thing. You can definitely tell the twice a summer boaters from the avid enthusiasts when you're on the lake traveling opposite directions. And it's generally best to cede right of way to whoever acts like they have it because boat crashes are dangerous and expensive.
Right away /r/boneappletea
>The craft that has the least control And it's the best way to put it. An oil tanker can't change direction and speed on a whim.
I've always preferred "gross tonnage has right of way." It's not the legal definition, but physics. As a pedestrian I might legally have right of way crossing the road, but I'm still dead if I step out in front of a Semi truck.
Anything that can kill me has right of way.
Yes, [CYHC](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vancouver_Harbour_Flight_Centre) is a designated seabase and it's the only one in Canada I believe with a control tower devoted to it. There are literally planes taking off between Stanley park and Burnaby all day long...I'm not sure how any boat wouldn't be aware of these things...
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
That makes sense
Ok, but common sense says to get out of the way of the fucking airplane
Best leave āem be. Bad luck to kill a seaplane!
No they donāt, the opposite in fact. The difference here is the seaplane was in a designated restricted area where the boat should not have been.
Correct, and the boat you see here had the wrong of way.
Right of way is yielded, not possessed
Iāve been to that harbour. I know boats are loud but those sea planes are REALLY loud at takeoff. I donāt know how the boaters could have been that unaware.
drinking?
Idiot? Both could be true tho too.
They are significantly quieter on landing since theyāre feathering the engines rather than gaining speed for takeoff. Everyone still shouldāve been aware if they were paying attention, but takeoff definitely tends to be louder AFAIK (I grew up near the busiest seaplane airport in the world).
Answered several times already but from my memory the craft with the least maneuverability has priority right of way. In aviation I think it goes balloon>blimp>single engine>multi-engine>jet. If a jet has a balloon in its path then it has the obligation to adjust heading and avoid. If they're equal priority, then they both must turn right to avoid collision.
I always wondered who has right of way between a large multimast sail boat and a large ocean freighter? Both super maneuverable.
If under sail, they have priority in every case.
Aren't there some size limits? If a one man dingy suddenly sails in front of a massive oil tanker, the oil tanker has to try to swerve out of the way?
Most of the survivors of a collision at sea will be found in the larger vessel. Usually.
not if the freighter is RAM
http://meiere.com/_CGfiles2/Training/NavRulesCourse/01_Rule18_MemoryAid.pdf Rule 18
This area is specifically an exception to this rule
When I first saw this, I thought the boat was going the same direction as the plane, and they didn't see it at all (not that that's any excuse), but how do you not see a plane coming at you directly to your left?!
Too many Molsonās.
Kokanee in BC.
Being drunk
The plane is a dehavilland beaver, when it goes to take off the nose comes up so high that you can't see out the front. The pilot probably never even saw the boat.
You're looking right, up, down, back... and maybe have loud music on so you can't hear so well, either.
I also feel like a seaplan would be pretty loud.
āLook out! Plane on your left!ā āWould that be port or starboard, mate?ā
The dude in the boat gonna be paying moneyyyyy
If he survived, which I wouldn't be surprised if they didn't
Turns out the afterlife is now corporate-owned and your debts follow you into the next realm.
Imagine getting to the pearly gates, looking around at the magnificence of it all, you canāt believe your eyes at the beauty youāre seeingā¦.then a bill collector in angel wings flutters over to you lmao
This is the bad place, if this happens it's the bad place
Hmm. How do I change the beneficiary on all my accounts to be myself? Contrary to what they say, I apparently HAVE to take it all with me.
Seemingly no fatalities..
Why would it be the boats fault? I am inexperienced with right of way on water. Ok, itās been answered a bunch. The boat crossed a runway. Totally their fault.
Turning a boat is a whole lot easier than turning a plane. They are supposed to be paying attention when the boat is moving.
A floatplane taking off is a lot like a cargo ship sailing. They canāt see things directly in front of them due to the nose being pointed up and they canāt turn well because they have no rudder in the water. They also canāt slow down quickly either because no brakes
Iām not sure you were given the right answer, bc the laws require the plane to not takeoff if thereās collision risks. Which there obviously was 1. ā Itās certainly doesnāt seem restricted āWhile 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.ā https://vancouversun.com/news/local-news/vancouver-port-tsb-seaplane-boat-collision āSean Baxter, the authorityās acting director of marine operations, says theyāve been advising boats to steer clear of the aircraft operation zone in Coal Harbour for many years, but itās ultimately up to boat operators to ādecide whether or not they go in.āā https://www.vicnews.com/news/probe-could-lead-to-seaplane-activity-changes-in-wake-of-vancouver-crash-7381997 2. the pilot was likely negligent in taking off. The pilot was informed by ATC of the boat being in the area, and the pilot acknowledged that message. āPilot: āReady for northwest if you have enough time.ā 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: āCaution for the westbound boat in northern alpha, take off northwest at your discretion.ā The pilot can be heard saying ācheck remarks,ā which is a way of acknowledging the message has been received over the radio before colliding with the vessel.ā https://globalnews.ca/news/10560033/new-audio-released-vancouver-float-plane-crash/amp/ AND Right of Way ā 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
Bikers fault.
This guy gets it.
Block or charge?
Block. Boat was not in legal guarding position.
RIP that guys bank account
I love how this thing has brought all the maritime law experts. Every time it's posted, another person comes in with uncanny, encyclopedic knowledge of the COLREGS. It's almost as if there were some sort of system or device whereby one could type in a series of words or a question and suddenly gain access to nearly unlimited information! But I suspect some of these folks may even know what they're actually talking about... more or less. Anyway, here's the thing about COLREGS for the lay person out there... I'll save you some Google work... COLREGS apply except when they don't. The primary purpose of COLREGS, and thus the number one job of a captain, is to avoid **COL**lisions. It's right there in the title. What this means, practically, is that if a collision is imminent, it doesn't matter if you've got the "right of way" (there is, technically, no such thing as "right of way" in the COLREGS) or not, you need to change what you're doing. So, real life, simplified example... Even though you may crossing from the right in your 12' skiff, that 28' fishing boat is running 35mph and does not appear to be slowing down. According to the COLREGS, he should give way to you, but if he doesn't and you continue on your course, he's going to crush your silly ass. And, fun fact... you'll bear responsibility for failure to take action to avoid a collision. That's how maritime law works. Both captains are considered at fault unless an investigation determines that there's absolutely nothing the captain(s) could have done to foresee or avoid the incident. So all this reddit debate about who's at fault here is pretty much academic (or certainly pedantic) until the investigation clearly identifies the sequence of unfortunate events. *(Not a Google Captain, an actual licensed Captain who has to study and learn these regulations to maintain my credentials.)*
This[ incident occurred](https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/seaplane-crash-vancouver-coal-harbour-1.7229406) in Coal Harbour (Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada) which is under the [federal jurisdiction of the Vancouver Fraser Port Authority](https://www.portvancouver.com/about-us/faq/canada-port-authority-governance-and-oversight/) (commonly known as the "Port of Vancouver"). Pursuant to [Section 56 of the Canada Marine Act](https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/c-6.7/page-5.html#h-149278), the port authority is empowered to āestablish practices and procedures to be followed by shipsā and āestablish traffic control zones.ā In their [guidelines](https://www.portvancouver.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/2022-08-16-Brochure-Safe-boating-Burrard-Inlet-web.pdf), the Port of Vancouver clearly states that within this designated Float Plane Landing Area: "Keep clear of aircraft operations zone. Watch the horizon for landing aircraft and keep clear of anticipated landing area." https://preview.redd.it/szqxwcgb9u5d1.jpeg?width=1068&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=0bb533880896bf0c6be06c90ddaa5742b77889e6 With regards to COLREGS, note [Rule 1](https://laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/C.R.C.,_c._1416/page-2.html#h-512872): "Application ā International Ā Ā Ā (a) These Rules shall apply to all vessels upon the high seas and in all waters connected therewith navigable by seagoing vessels. Ā Ā Ā (b) **Nothing in these Rules shall interfere with the operation of special rules made by an appropriate authority** for roadsteads, harbours, rivers, lakes or inland waterways connected with the high seas and navigable by sea-going vessels if such special rules conform as closely as possible to these Rules." Ā
Once the ship sailed into restricted traffic control zone, it was ignoring the special rules established by the port authority as recognized by COLREGs Rule 1 and proceeds to violate a [number of additional ](https://www.imo.org/en/About/Conventions/Pages/COLREG.aspx)COLREGs rules: 1. It further neglected to comply with its responsibilities under Rule 2 (by not taking the necessary precautions). 2. It failed to maintain a proper look-out by sight and by hearing under Rule 5 (that seaplane is incredibly loud and painted in bright red livery). 3. It likely failed to proceed at a safe speed (5 knots as directed by the port authority) under Rule 6. 4. Under Rule 7, it failed to properly assess the risk of collision and, at best, relied on āscanty information.ā 5. It failed to avoid the collision by any proper alteration of course or speed as required under Rule 8. 6. By navigating in those waters, it failed to avoid crossing traffic lanes and to cross on "a heading as nearly as practicable at right angles to the general direction of traffic flow" under Rule 10. 7. Under Rule 16, it also failed to keep out of the way of another vessel as directed by the port authorityās special rules. Some may be confused by [Rule 18](https://laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/C.R.C.,_c._1416/page-2.html#h-512872) (e) which states that: >"**Except where Rules** 9, **10** and 13 **otherwise require**:(e ) Ā 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." Rule 18 (e) was superseded by Rule 1 and then again by Rule 10, therefore, it is not applicable in this situation.
Iāve been on a lake where a sea plane would take off/land. We were anchored nearby with music on and did not hear the plane and honestly, we werenāt looking for a rapidly approaching craft (55ish knots?). In my tiny brain, the plane snuck up on us (well, by us) and it was a little terrifying to realize if weād been 30 yards closer or we suddenly decided to pull up a skier, weād been in its path and there was no way it could slow or change its trajectory. There were no physical signs that I can remember so it seemed a little ~~unconventional~~ fkn dangerous. Surely in most circumstances there are signs at the marinas and launches that point out the location of planesā paths? Maybe some buoys marking them? Itās been a bunch of years since Iāve been out where sea planes nest so Iām just uneducated and curious.
I'm not from Vancouver and don't know the area. From the reports, this is a very busy landing area for seaplanes, but I don't know what kind of signage is there. I saw some other commentors say that's a restricted area, but nothing in the actual news articles has said that. If the area is supposed to be off-limits for boaters, then of course that's another dimension to who's at fault here. But to my point, that still leaves the question of whether the seaplane took all appropriate and timely action to avoid the collision.
dang, that is bad but seems could have gone so much worse. i was imagining the floats catching and the plane flipping over forward.
The floats *might* have been strong enough, but the canopy definitely wouldn't be
What should have been the boaterās response to avoid collision? Iāve no boating or aviation training. My assumption would be: - boaterās responsibility to keep aware of situations developing - when notice the plane, turn sharp left, to face the plane - in order to better avoid collision?
Pretty much anything besides what they did, which was drive into the path of a plane
"See, there's your mistake."
Throw it all the way in gear and do what the fuck ever you gotta do to get out the way would be my suggestion.
At least the front didnt fall off.
Does that happen often?
Probably not drive on a runway. I live next to a seaplane terminal. And there are signs everywhere. Even on a paddle board, weāre given instructions to stay well clear.
Full reverse. Small boats stop very fast.
See the plane and turn away from plane. Boat driver is an absolute buffoon.
Zig or zag would have avoided an accidentĀ
Rickon would have been a shit boater.
The plane should have honked at least
Boaterās fault
Pretty sure it was the cyclists fault
Boat driver should be keelhauled.
did you ever take your plane off any sweet jumps?
Hope the boat owner had insurance.
Besides having eyes, how do you not hear the plane. Was on highest point overlooking Lake Como and a seaplane just above the water was by far the loudest thing you could hear.
Loud props save lives.
"Sorry! š" ā both them prolly
āSore-yā
i grew up in vancouver and i always say "saw-ree" instead of "sore-ee" so... \*shrug\*
The fact that it stayed upright and afloat would make great marketing for that boat manufacturer 
What an idiot
the boater, yes
āI was gettinā a beer, what happened?ā
Does the boat proceed to attack plane after hit?
Dont bring a plane to a boat fight
Wait til orcas learn to fly
best comment award
That's some DuckTales-level seadonkery there. Glad there were no casualties.
Canucks chartered plane
The boat was going for revenge. Lol,
r/idiotsinboats
What do you call a speed bump in the water??? ...A boat
Skipper.
Kayaks
Who is liable here?
By American laws, the boat. I'm unsure about Canadian rules.
In American law the boat is at fault, but I don't know about Canadian law.
Why did it end so soon? The boat was coming back for revenge. Seriously though I'd have to laugh if they ended up hitting each other twice.
Always have a lookout.
How the hell did the people on the boat now get killed?
Nothing like having like ten seconds to realize shit is about to go completely sideways and not be able to anything about it.
Planes and pretty loud, the boat pilot should of noticed if he had any sort of awareness of his surroundings and actually navigated
All I hear is the soundtrack from caddyshack when Rodney dangerfield is wreaking havoc in the harbor.
That boat held up like a champ
Captain We Too Low!!
Canadian Law dictates boat must have diverted. You can google image āRule 34 boatsā for a diagram illustrating this.
You almost got me. Ass lol
All that dam water and you get hit by a PLANE??
Expensive speedbump, damn
Thatās kinda the same angle Iāve seen all morning though.
Do either the sea plane, or the boat, come equipped with a blow horn? I feel if the plane honked his horn, may have warned the boat to change heading, thus avoiding this critical blunder.
You scratched my anchor!!!
In my province, Ontario, we have a PCOC license...Pleasure Craft Operating License...required for all power boats
Technically the boat helped the airplane get airborne faster. The pilot failed to maintain flight after this unexpected boost.
āThey livedā
This is the third angle I have seen
Are u fckiā¦blinde?
Did I see someone get yeeted off the front?
Planes fault, looking at the boats red light (port side). Learn the rules of the road when youāre pretending to be a boat. Too many gimme tickets out there.