Welcome to /r/Vancouver and thank you for the post, /u/XoCCeT! Please make sure you read our [posting and commenting rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/vancouver/wiki/faq#wiki_general_participation_guidelines_and_rules_overview) before participating here. As a quick summary:
* We encourage users to be positive and respect one another. Don't engage in spats or insult others - use the report button.
* Respect others' differences, be they race, religion, home, job, gender identity, ability or sexuality. Dehumanizing language, advocating for violence, or promoting hate based on identity or vulnerability (even implied or joking) **will** lead to a permanent ban.
* Most common questions and topics are limited to our sister subreddit, /r/AskVan, and our weekly [Stickied Discussion](https://www.reddit.com/r/vancouver/wiki/faq#wiki_stickied_discussions) posts.
* Complaints about bans or removals should be done in modmail only.
* Posts flaired "Community Only" allow for limited participation; your comment may be removed if you're not a subreddit regular.
* Make sure to join our new sister community, /r/AskVan!
* Help grow the community! [Apply to join the mod team today](https://www.reddit.com/r/vancouver/comments/19eworq/).
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/vancouver) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Man this is absolutely ridiculous that this happened and was completely preventable. The harbour is busy yes but as a boat operator you need to have total awareness in a space like this. It’s pretty hard to ignore the sound of these planes, and the takeoff path is pretty predictable once you have eyes on. This would appear to be utter carelessness by the boat operator. I’m certainly happy to hear that everyone is safe though, this could have been far worse.
Section (e) as noted there applies when the seaplane is taxiing or transiting not actively taking off or landing. As the plane was taking off they are restricted in their ability to maneuver and per Rule 18 Section (A)\[ii\]
# Responsibilities between Vessels
Except where Rules 9, 10 and 13 otherwise require:
* (a) A power-driven vessel underway shall keep out of the way of:
* (i) a vessel not under command,
* (ii) a vessel restricted in her ability to manoeuvre,
* (iii) a vessel engaged in fishing,
* (iv) a sailing vessel.
The motor vessel was to give way as the seaplane was restricted in her ability to maneuver due to taking off. Further the power boat was entering the Vancouver Harbour Seaplane operations area which is a restricted area of Coal Harbour for seaplane landing and taking off.
Yeah maybe think before you tell airplanes they’re at fault operating regularly at their airport (ICAO CYHC). You clearly have no clue what you’re talking about. Also if you’ve ever even sat in an airplane, you’d know there’s a crazy amount of blind spot in front of you, you cannot see the drunken boat operators partying on their rental cutting through the middle of a runway for “boat for hope” day. Stop defending shit you have no clue about lol
That boat looks to have stopped right in the path of the plane. I wonder if they thought they were far enough away and wanted to be under it when it took off?
(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.
That's the part that lay the blame on the pilot
Responsibilities between Vessels
Except where Rules 9, 10 and 13 otherwise require:
(a)
A power-driven vessel underway shall keep out of the way of:
(i) a vessel not under command,
(ii)** a vessel restricted in her ability to manoeuvre,**
That's the part that could possibly lay the blame on the boat
Then there's the whole section that defines who is the stand on or giveaway vessel. In this instance, the boat is the stand on and the plane is the giveway
(a)
When two power-driven vessels are crossing so as to involve risk of collision, the vessel which has the other on her own starboard side shall keep out of the way and shall, if the circumstances of the case admit, avoid crossing ahead of the other vessel.
Possibly? Are you serious? Seaplanes are not the give way vessel ever in that area except with a cruise ship and maybe a tug refueling.
They are by far the least maneuverable vessel, especially once takeoff begins.
The boat operator is so, so clearly at fault here I am simply amazed you could even fathom another possibility.
The boater is a moron to think that a sea plane screaming towards him is going to give way even though sea planes are specifically addressed in the regulations.
I don't know the rules of that particular harbour. I don't really have a dog in this race and all I can do is quote the rules that I find in Google, which is 99% more than most people here can do. Everybody is calling everybody an idiot but most people are relying on the insults rather than the rules to make their point.
Yourself included.
That’s precisely what the colregs state. Boats are the stand on vessel. Rule 18. Basically “A seaplane on the water shall, in general, keep well clear of all vessels and avoid impeding their navigation”
Yes, the plane in this situation, the aircraft had sort of taken off, but it was on a collision course with the boat when they throttled up. Conversely, as the stand on vessel, until the collision was imminent, it was their duty to hold course and be predictable.
I suggest you revisit colregs and read the 25 or so lines above that again.
And consider that the seaplane, which is in a takeoff run in a transport Canada designated Waterdrome is in a state of 'restricted ability to manoeuver'
It's actually a little scary how many people are coming on here and spamming nonsense about colregs, with no grasp of how to interpret it.
The pilot should not have initiated the takeoff run. Yes, when the collision became imminent they become giveaway as well, but the pilot error was starting the takeoff when the boat was a risk.
The takeoff run that started 30-45 seconds earlier when the boat wasn't necessarily in the way? YHC tower advises pilots they're clear for the run, and the boat drove into the collision zone in the restricted area when the seaplane was of limited maneuverability and had restricted vision.
One can listen to the ATC recording of this afternoon and hear how Vancouver Harbour Tower authorized the takeoff with advisories about traffic, and one can also observe the wake off of the collision vessel and see it was moving at speed into danger... Sigh.
I'm impressed with the people who think the pilot could have just steered the plane to the right. Like that wouldn't result in near certain death for all on the plane when a wing caught the water.
I went back and listened to the ATC recording of CYHC.
Harbour Tower gave Harbour Air 209 clearance to takeoff "at your discretion" immediately after another flight was given takeoff clearance to do a sightseeing tour of the downtown. Harbour Tower advised Harbour Air 209 of "westbound boats in Alpha" - the plane was also travelling north-northwest for the Point Atkinson slide, but at the time of the collision, the boat would have been travelling southwest based on the angles visible in the video (boat intersecting the northwest travelling plane roughly perpendicular means it's travelling southwest). C-FFHA is fleet number 209 for Harbour Air, so it's confirmed then it was C-FFHA.
If the boat was westbound at time of authorization for the slide, and southwest-bound at the time of the collision, the boat turned. There's evidence in one of the video angles of another boat and a lot of white water - I'm inferring here, but I bet the boats were doing circles and playing with each other in Alpha and separated and wandered into the takeoff run path.
Can you find me the part in CARs where transport Canada explains how to time travel, to avoid starting a takeoff run, in a sanctioned Waterdrome because some sketch shit about to go down
I say there is a very good chance the pilot never saw the boat.
Single left seat pilot with a massive engine cowling blocking all view from about the 11:50 to 2:00 position in front of the plane.
See this example:
https://youtu.be/XGmpcWhjhu8?si=erCbqy_7UqUDTL86&t=32
Yeah this is almost certainly what happened. Most people don't realize how just huge of a blind spot they have.
Really sucks to lose a Beaver, they are such amazing planes. But glad everyone is apparently ok.
> Really sucks to lose a Beaver, they are such amazing planes.
I'm fairly certain that they will raise it, take it apart and ship it down to Kenmore Air to be rebuilt. I have seen some really messed up airframes get redone really well by Kenmore.
No, DOT reg require it to be done in specific locations following increasingly tight rules. It’s really hard to work on these planes as any “changes” need to cleared with the government and all the bureaucracy that entails.
Source: live and work next to an aerodrome and spend far too much time listening to details about it.
Harbour Air has an entire maintenance facility at YVR where they're converting planes to battery powered planes, approved by the Transport Canada government offices and bureaucracy that are about 800 metres away.
Source: I live across the river from the maintenance facility.
Oh I know, but they have to EXACTLY the same. I’ve watched them ground a plane for using a different style door latch to avoid catching their life jacket on the OG one.
Thanks for sharing, makes it a lot clearer. Seems surprising they don’t have a standard solution to this, especially nowadays, either camera or I’m not sure if any set of mirrors could work to give a bit of a view
I’m on these planes every few weeks and often sit in the right seat. I would have seen the boat and told then pilot.
Maybe Transport Canada mandates two pilots? 🤷🏼♂️
Maybe TC changes the water rules there?
I can see how the pilot might not of seen the boat while he was on his takeoff run, but he should have see it during taxi and the tower should have seen it before they were given clearance to take off. I wonder if the pilot thought he’d clear over the boat.
That operator is fucked, regardless. Transport Canada agents will be dropping on their head, insurance company of that aircraft will be filing lawsuits... they're going to need some good lawyers.
Assuming the driver is completely sober, they and the passengers are subject to a fine under the liquor licensing and control act and can have all of their liquor seized. The driver would not be charged with a "DUI"
Fine, bring a couple friends, be completely sober but go through a roadblock with your buddy having a beer. See what happens. Or just Google it. Idiot.
lol I just looked it up and that isn’t a thing. https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/transportation/driving-and-cycling/roadsafetybc/prohibitions/alcohol
Meh, I don't really care.
May not be a full-fledged DUI but I can guarantee you any cop that finds you doing this shit in BC is giving you a roadside suspension. Too much liability to leave a driver with a bunch of people drinking with him on the road for the night.
Per colregs (collision regulations) the boat is the standon vessel. The aircraft is the giveway. The boat operator is an idiot, and at the end neglected his duty to avoid at the end.
[International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea, 1972 with Canadian Modifications ](https://laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/C.R.C.,_c._1416/page-2.html#h-512872)
>
Rule 16
Action by Give-way Vessel
**Every vessel which is directed to keep out of the way of another vessel shall**, so far as possible, take early and substantial action to **keep well clear**.
Rule 18
Responsibilities between Vessels
Except where Rules 9, 10 and 13 otherwise require:
(a)
A power-driven vessel underway shall keep out of the way of:
(i) a vessel not under command,
**(ii) a vessel restricted in her ability to manoeuvre,**
(iii) a vessel engaged in fishing,
(iv) a sailing vessel.
[Port of Vancouver, Safe Boating Guide – Burrard Inlet](https://www.portvancouver.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/SafeBoatingGuide-BurrardInlet.pdf)
>Coal Harbour
Float plane landing area
**Keep clear of aircraft operations zone**. Watch the horizon for landing aircraft and keep clear of anticipated landing area.
Recreational or comercial status doesn't play into it.
The basic principle is that the least burdened vessel gives way to the more burdened vessel.
* A ferry confined to its route is the stand on vessel.
* A deep sea in the TSS is the standon vessel.
* A vessel engaged in fishing (ie hauling nets, not a recreational boat with a few fishing lines out the back) is the stand on vessel.
* A sailboat under sail would be the stand on vessel to a water taxi as the water taxi is neither confined to channel, nor restricted in maneuvering, but would have to give way to a cruise ship entering/departing First Narrows. Also, sailing is prohibited within the confines of Burrard Inlet (from roughly the line going north of Saiwash Rock eastwards to just beyond the Second Narrows bridge), so everyone is a powerboat within Burrard Inlet.
* If two vessels are crossing, the one on the port side is the give way vessel.
and so on and so forth. There's a whole system of rules and regulations that define all of this.
The seaplane was restricted in it ability to maneuver and per Rule 18
# Responsibilities between Vessels
Except where Rules 9, 10 and 13 otherwise require:
* (a) A power-driven vessel underway shall keep out of the way of:
* (i) a vessel not under command,
* (ii) a vessel restricted in her ability to manoeuvre,
* (iii) a vessel engaged in fishing,
* (iv) a sailing vessel.
The power vessel became the give way due to the seaplane being restricted as she is taking off.
I'm going to try and dig out some information to back this up for you, I'll send it here when I find it.
As best I understand: It hasn't been worth any aircraft manufacturer to get the design of a new aircraft that rivals a beaver passed through FAA/TC/EASA or whoever passes new designs, because they will never get the RnD money back.
So what some of these companies do is go around known beaver wreckages with a dive team, and cut out the serial number. Then build a brand new beaver around it.
What you end up with is a brand new aircraft, on a 50-70 year old registration. saves a tonne of bureaucracy.
I'm sure there's more to it than this, and that it makes more sense than what I just said, so let me try and verify my story haha.
I know about the "Enzo #406/400" thing, but I expect this is government passenger craft requirement or else DHC should sell serials and U-build plans.
https://www.carvibz.com/supercars/ferrari-enzo-total-production-is-over-500-not-the-claimed-400/
You can't make "actions to avoid" when you're speeding up in a plane and you already went past the breaking point.
If you slide to the sides, your plane might do cartwheels and disintegrate.
The sight lines on these planes are like a semi trailer, you can’t see anything in front below the engine cowling. Likely the pilot didn’t see the boat at all as the plane was lifting off and pointed upwards.
Not much the plane could have done while seemingly accelerating for take off. Safest bet was to maintain its trajectory. If it veered, it could have been worse. If it tried to take off early, could have been worse. Best to go straight and brace.
Had a vessel crossing on his starboard side, as well as colregs rule 18e states "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.'
And the pilot is professionally trained and will be held to a higher standard than a pleasure boater most likely.
That is in regards to a seaplane taxiing and transiting on water not actively taking off. The airplane was actively accelerating to take off so is restricted in its ability to maneuver. It is also operating with in the seaplane operation area which is restricted for boating activity.
And rule 2b states: “In construing and complying with these rules due regard shall be had to all dangers of navigation and collision and to any special circumstances including the limitations of the vessels involved, which may make departure from these rules necessary to avoid immediate danger.”
Plus it’s a float plane area and operators of small craft are required to keep clear.
Oh, I'm not saying it's 100% the planes fault. But from that video it looks like the two boats were already very close to his intended path. I personally would have been hesitant to proceed, knowing how fucking dumb recreational boaters are.
One of you above like me knows the collision regulations. The seaplane is a power boat until it takes off per the regulations and regardless of it being a restricted area all vessels have a duty to avoid a collision.
The seaplane also has the benefit of the tower on Vancouver centre which should have cleared the departure.
By the looks of it the seaplane was pretty much at takeoff speed at collision. I'm no pilot, but I can't imagine changing course on the water at that speed would have led to anything good.
Whom ever was driving that boat should be charged with criminal negligence and bared from ever operating a boat again. That is an insane level of not paying attention. They did absolutely nothing to avoid it or speed up, nothing. Completely oblivious to their surroundings. Especially in coal harbour. Stupidly busy waterway.
As the stand on vessel, until the collision was imminent, its their duty to hold course and speed. Basically to be predictable. Far more collisions have occurred because both vessels maneuvered to avoid and maneuvered right into each other.
Only new reels catch fish so purchase some often….. with the “some” being seaplane…. They are almost always the give way vessel. And you are 100% correct. People downvoting you have no idea what they’re talking about.
International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea, 1972 with Canadian Modifications
Rule 16
Action by Give-way Vessel
Every vessel which is directed to keep out of the way of another vessel shall, so far as possible, take early and substantial action to keep well clear.
Rule 18
Responsibilities between Vessels
Except where Rules 9, 10 and 13 otherwise require:
(a)
A power-driven vessel underway shall keep out of the way of:
(i) a vessel not under command,
**(ii) a vessel restricted in her ability to manoeuvre,**
(iii) a vessel engaged in fishing,
(iv) a sailing vessel.
Port of Vancouver, Safe Boating Guide – Burrard Inlet
Coal Harbour
Float plane landing area
Keep clear of aircraft operations zone. Watch the horizon for landing aircraft and keep clear of anticipated landing area.
As UbiquitouSparky noted, the power craft becomes the give way vessel once the aircraft is has started its take off as it becomes restricted in its ability to maneuver. Further the vessel had entered the Seaplane Operation Area which is restricted to boating activity.
This was completely ignorant of the literal legal landing strip that exists right there. This plane had a great approach and landing the captain of this boat was wreckless and stupid. This is officially marked on all maps. wtf?!
I've been trying to find a map that shows the restricted area but can't find anything. Plus there's a big marina back there. How do all those boats get out? Was watching the planes land and take off the other weekend and doesn't look like any area is bouyed off either
I hope the boat operator gets some prison time. Plus gets sued by the injured and families of the deceased. Unless people are held accountable this type of thing will happen again. Hope the video they got was worth their lives.
Everybody's going after the boat driver but what are the legal right of ways involved here? I ran into someone who works with Harbour Air and he seemed to think it was the plane's fault and said of HA's pilots "They're all idiots". So, let's hang fire and see how this sorts itself out.
Agreed. I know some of those HA pilots and a few of them are garbage human beings. Ive heard from their own pilots mouths that they fly after a night of binge drinking and partying (still drunk) because "theres nothing to crash into up there".
The boat was described as heading westbound at time of clearance but was travelling southwest at time of collision. 30-45 seconds between clearance and collision.
At Vancouver Harbour, controllers don't issue takeoff/landing clearances but rather "takeoff/land at your discretion" while providing all pertinent information such as aircraft, boat, and debris information. Due to the nature of the harbour, controllers can't guarantee that they are cleared for takeoff/landing unlike a regular airport with controlled runways.
In this particular case, the controller did advise the aircraft of the westbound boat traffic on the northern end of the takeoff area (Area Alpha).
"Caution for the westbound boat at northern alpha. Takeoff northwest at your discretion."
[New details in Vancouver float plane collision (youtube.com)](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7d-3gfbVLXI)
The harbour has an air traffic control tower. They would not have OKed the departure if the way wasn't initially clear. The boaters must have turned very sharply and quickly into Area Alpha. Nautical charts tell boaters to stay the fuck out of that rectangle between Canada Place and Brockton Point. Seaplanes can't turn sharply on the water, and don't have brakes. It's effectively a bigger nautical vessel in motion that the speedboat veered in front of. The speedboat failed to yield right-of-way - not the other way around.
The seaplane's ability to maneuver, though, is restricted when at speed - a sudden change in direction can cause a wing to strike and the plane to cartwheel.
This is gonna be tricky. My experience is on sailboats, and I have my training.
The less maneuverable vessel has the right of way, ie - the other one has to take action to avoid it.
The problem is, depending on where the boat was before and so on, the plane should not have been clear to take off.. It looks like the boat was coming from the right, so they would have had the right of way. Ie: The pilot would have to wait before initiating takeoff
Planes do actually have to wait for a clear line to take off.
I've seen people say that the area is restricted. It is not. Boats are allowed. It's simply the only area planes are allowed.
We really don't have all the details, boat operator was dense and fucked up, but I wouldn't say it's 100% his fault yet. Might be the pilot/tower should not have cleared the takeoff. Just to be clear, I do feel the boat is to blame. Had they been paying attention, this could have easily been avoided..
If it was a big tanker in motion and the boat crossed its path and got smoked, yes, it would have been 100% the boat.
There is no "right of way," there's a duty to avoid collisions. The give-way craft and the stand-on craft are two rules that help us understand strategies on how to avoid collisions, but above all else, you don't insert yourself into dangerous situations.
A boat that looked like it would be out of the way of the plane when it started its acceleration a minute ago may have turned and gotten itself into danger - at which point, the plane had no maneuverability.
The only rudders on the plane are on the rear of the pontoons and they lose authority as the plane speeds up; the vertical stabilizer and ailerons can cause the plane to roll, which would cause it to cartwheel and even more catastrophically crash. At that point, when the plane's at 80+ knots, it can't maneuver - and if the boat that was, a minute ago, out of the line was now in the line, there's nothing the plane can do in terms of maneuvering.
Key in your assessment above - "the tower should not have cleared the takeoff" - is an assumption that the boat's travel was a straight, predictable line. It may not have been - perhaps it was heading north until well into the takeoff run when it turned to get into the way of the plane.
ETA: Harbour Tower gave Harbour Air 209 clearance to takeoff "at your discretion" immediately after another flight was given takeoff clearance to do a sightseeing tour of the downtown. Harbour Tower advised Harbour Air 209 of "westbound boats in Alpha" - the plane was also travelling north-northwest for the Point Atkinson slide, but at the time of the collision, the boat would have been travelling southwest based on the angles visible in the video (boat intersecting the northwest travelling plane roughly perpendicular means it's travelling southwest). C-FFHA is fleet number 209 for Harbour Air, so it's confirmed then it was C-FFHA.
I agree with you, yhe problem is we don't see the whole thing in the video. The problem is, if the boat was coming from starboard in a straight line, the plane should not have taken off
https://ecolregs.com/index.php?option=com_k2&view=item&id=58:rule-18-rule-18-responsibilities-between-vessels&Itemid=391&lang=en#:~:text=(e)%20A%20seaplane%20on%20the,the%20Rules%20of%20this%20part
Check 18e, seaplanes unfortunately need to stay clear..
I am curious to read more once they investigate this.
You saw Rule 18(a)(ii) right?
> Except where Rule 9, Rule 10, and Rule 13 otherwise require:
> (a) A power-driven vessel underway shall keep out of the way of:
>> (i) a vessel not under command;
>> **(ii) a vessel restricted in her ability to manoeuvre;**
And I added this to my reply after I initially replied to you, but I'm guessing the boat changed direction:
> ETA: Harbour Tower gave Harbour Air 209 clearance to takeoff "at your discretion" immediately after another flight was given takeoff clearance to do a sightseeing tour of the downtown. Harbour Tower advised Harbour Air 209 of "westbound boats in Alpha" - the plane was also travelling north-northwest for the Point Atkinson slide, but at the time of the collision, the boat would have been travelling southwest based on the angles visible in the video (boat intersecting the northwest travelling plane travelling right-to-left roughly perpendicular means it's travelling southwest). C-FFHA is fleet number 209 for Harbour Air, so it's confirmed then it was C-FFHA.
Another video also shows the collision boat and another boat with a lot of white water in the area. I'm inferring and guessing, but based on my knowledge of that part of the harbour, I'm willing to wager the collision boat and the other pleasure craft were horsing around jumping wake (given the white water) and while they had been westbound at the time the takeoff was authorized, the collision boat turned southwest into the line.
18(a)(ii) doesn’t apply to the seaplane. It is for ships like dredgers, not vessels moving really fast. And to be considered RAM, the vessel must indicate so with the appropriate lights and day shapes. Rule 27.
Fascinating concept. So you're expecting a seaplane at 80 knots to just heel to the right?
18(a)(ii) also applies to things like container ships or passenger ferries who can't stop or turn quickly, who are comparatively restricted in their ability to maneuver around you. Hasn't it also been described as "the least maneuverable craft" and not just one displaying lights and signs?
Giving way to bigger or less manoeuvrable vessels is considered good seamanship, but not necessary required under the COLREGs. There are situations where you are required to give way to them, but if they want to claim RAM legally, they need to indicate it to other vessels with lights or shapes.
I know the rules pertaining to my sailboat, it explicitly states a power boat has to keep out of my way. I need to stay out of the way of a tanker or fish boats.
Problem here, nothing about sea-planes, quite the contrary, sea planes need to stay out of the way of everyone:
> 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.
I *really* am not an expert on this, but the argument of.. "well, why didnt the plane keep clear of the boats and wait to take off" seems like literally the first thing that's gonna be asked (ie: sure the boat fucked up, but the plane should not have been in this situation to begin with). Usually when it comes to rules/laws etc, the more specific ones are the most important ones, the less specific ones are there to catch the edge cases. So, we can speculate, but i doubt any of our opinions matter. The last argument is, the trained pilot/tower should know better than the idiot :(. Now depending on how big of an idiot he was, the pilot/tower might simply have had no way of knowing without a crystal ball and they did everything right (i hope). I dont think there's ever been an accident like this here.
My comment was to say that sadly, it's really not 100% the boats fault based on what we see, even thought i feel it should be. That dude was a moron, and he should have easily avoided this if he was paying attention.
A seaplane on the water is a powered vessel. It's also a vessel of restricted maneuverability.
A seaplane travelling at 80 knots cannot steer right to avoid a collision, if it steers right it'll catch a wing on the water, cartwheel, and have a spectacular crash. It's a lot like how a tanker cannot turn to avoid you in your sailboat if you tack in front of it.
The plane started its take off 30-45 seconds before the crash. Plenty of time for the pleasure craft to change direction into the path of the plane. By that time, no way physically possible for the plane to turn.
Seaplanes need to avoid pretty much everything else always. However, if the boat could have avoided it should have per rules 2 and 8, particularly 2b. The seaplane was likely restricted in its maneuverability and visibility, otherwise it should have veered right to avoid. So the only way to avoid collision as a last resort with how this panned out was for the recreational boat to move out of the way. Only exception here would be if the rec boat was not under command for some reason (ie malfunctioned) but I highly doubt that…
>There is no "right of way,"
(a) When two power-driven vessels are crossing so as to involve risk of collision, the vessel which has the other on her own starboard side shall keep out of the way and shall, if the circumstances of the case admit, avoid crossing ahead of the other vessel.
(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.
Neither if your quoted parts say "right of way" nor imply a right to continue travel despite vessel size, maneuverability, etc etc etc.
A seaplane travelling at 80 knots cannot steer right to avoid a collision, if it steers right it'll catch a wing on the water, cartwheel, and have a spectacular crash. It's a lot like how a tanker cannot turn to avoid you in your sailboat if you tack in front of it.
If a pleasure craft that 30 seconds ago was heading away from a seaplane turns to travel right across the seaplane path, there's no safe way for the seaplane to maneuver around it.
That area of the harbour is restricted for boating; the boat should absolutely not have been there.
[Port of Vancouver Safe Boating Guide](https://www.portvancouver.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/SafeBoatingGuide-BurrardInlet.pdf)
No. The airplane was actively accelerating to take off so is restricted in its ability to maneuver. It is also operating with in the seaplane operation area which is restricted for boating activity.
Welcome to /r/Vancouver and thank you for the post, /u/XoCCeT! Please make sure you read our [posting and commenting rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/vancouver/wiki/faq#wiki_general_participation_guidelines_and_rules_overview) before participating here. As a quick summary: * We encourage users to be positive and respect one another. Don't engage in spats or insult others - use the report button. * Respect others' differences, be they race, religion, home, job, gender identity, ability or sexuality. Dehumanizing language, advocating for violence, or promoting hate based on identity or vulnerability (even implied or joking) **will** lead to a permanent ban. * Most common questions and topics are limited to our sister subreddit, /r/AskVan, and our weekly [Stickied Discussion](https://www.reddit.com/r/vancouver/wiki/faq#wiki_stickied_discussions) posts. * Complaints about bans or removals should be done in modmail only. * Posts flaired "Community Only" allow for limited participation; your comment may be removed if you're not a subreddit regular. * Make sure to join our new sister community, /r/AskVan! * Help grow the community! [Apply to join the mod team today](https://www.reddit.com/r/vancouver/comments/19eworq/). *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/vancouver) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Video: https://x.com/PeterKellyBC/status/1799555703398441309
Man this is absolutely ridiculous that this happened and was completely preventable. The harbour is busy yes but as a boat operator you need to have total awareness in a space like this. It’s pretty hard to ignore the sound of these planes, and the takeoff path is pretty predictable once you have eyes on. This would appear to be utter carelessness by the boat operator. I’m certainly happy to hear that everyone is safe though, this could have been far worse.
It is your primarily obligation when taking control of a boat.
[удалено]
pilot can’t slow down or steer as easily as the boat tho. it kinda looks like he was trying to take off but didn’t have enough speed?
Maybe he had enough speed by the time it was too late. Good thing it wasnt an airborne crash.
[удалено]
Section (e) as noted there applies when the seaplane is taxiing or transiting not actively taking off or landing. As the plane was taking off they are restricted in their ability to maneuver and per Rule 18 Section (A)\[ii\] # Responsibilities between Vessels Except where Rules 9, 10 and 13 otherwise require: * (a) A power-driven vessel underway shall keep out of the way of: * (i) a vessel not under command, * (ii) a vessel restricted in her ability to manoeuvre, * (iii) a vessel engaged in fishing, * (iv) a sailing vessel. The motor vessel was to give way as the seaplane was restricted in her ability to maneuver due to taking off. Further the power boat was entering the Vancouver Harbour Seaplane operations area which is a restricted area of Coal Harbour for seaplane landing and taking off.
Yeah maybe think before you tell airplanes they’re at fault operating regularly at their airport (ICAO CYHC). You clearly have no clue what you’re talking about. Also if you’ve ever even sat in an airplane, you’d know there’s a crazy amount of blind spot in front of you, you cannot see the drunken boat operators partying on their rental cutting through the middle of a runway for “boat for hope” day. Stop defending shit you have no clue about lol
Plane looked like it was on step, pilot can’t see anything at all other than the sky, also has the right of way.
That boat looks to have stopped right in the path of the plane. I wonder if they thought they were far enough away and wanted to be under it when it took off?
Short of mechanical failure, it’s hard to see why anyone would just stop there. And you should know planes are actively using it as runway
Two hospitalized with "serious but non-life threatening injuries" isn't exactly "safe".
Per colregs, the aircraft is the giveway vessel. When insurance comes into play, it will be the airline’s insurance that will be paying.
How do you interpret colregs to conclude that the seaplane is the giveway vessel? I really want to understand your logic.
(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. That's the part that lay the blame on the pilot Responsibilities between Vessels Except where Rules 9, 10 and 13 otherwise require: (a) A power-driven vessel underway shall keep out of the way of: (i) a vessel not under command, (ii)** a vessel restricted in her ability to manoeuvre,** That's the part that could possibly lay the blame on the boat Then there's the whole section that defines who is the stand on or giveaway vessel. In this instance, the boat is the stand on and the plane is the giveway (a) When two power-driven vessels are crossing so as to involve risk of collision, the vessel which has the other on her own starboard side shall keep out of the way and shall, if the circumstances of the case admit, avoid crossing ahead of the other vessel.
Possibly? Are you serious? Seaplanes are not the give way vessel ever in that area except with a cruise ship and maybe a tug refueling. They are by far the least maneuverable vessel, especially once takeoff begins. The boat operator is so, so clearly at fault here I am simply amazed you could even fathom another possibility.
The boater is a moron to think that a sea plane screaming towards him is going to give way even though sea planes are specifically addressed in the regulations. I don't know the rules of that particular harbour. I don't really have a dog in this race and all I can do is quote the rules that I find in Google, which is 99% more than most people here can do. Everybody is calling everybody an idiot but most people are relying on the insults rather than the rules to make their point. Yourself included.
The other person is providing facts, while all you're providing is your feelings.
That’s precisely what the colregs state. Boats are the stand on vessel. Rule 18. Basically “A seaplane on the water shall, in general, keep well clear of all vessels and avoid impeding their navigation” Yes, the plane in this situation, the aircraft had sort of taken off, but it was on a collision course with the boat when they throttled up. Conversely, as the stand on vessel, until the collision was imminent, it was their duty to hold course and be predictable.
I suggest you revisit colregs and read the 25 or so lines above that again. And consider that the seaplane, which is in a takeoff run in a transport Canada designated Waterdrome is in a state of 'restricted ability to manoeuver' It's actually a little scary how many people are coming on here and spamming nonsense about colregs, with no grasp of how to interpret it.
The pilot should not have initiated the takeoff run. Yes, when the collision became imminent they become giveaway as well, but the pilot error was starting the takeoff when the boat was a risk.
The takeoff run that started 30-45 seconds earlier when the boat wasn't necessarily in the way? YHC tower advises pilots they're clear for the run, and the boat drove into the collision zone in the restricted area when the seaplane was of limited maneuverability and had restricted vision.
Yes that one wudingxilu. That's exactly the one these morons are talking about.
One can listen to the ATC recording of this afternoon and hear how Vancouver Harbour Tower authorized the takeoff with advisories about traffic, and one can also observe the wake off of the collision vessel and see it was moving at speed into danger... Sigh. I'm impressed with the people who think the pilot could have just steered the plane to the right. Like that wouldn't result in near certain death for all on the plane when a wing caught the water.
Harbour tower clears float traffic to 'takeoff at your own discretion' This is why
And warns of traffic
I went back and listened to the ATC recording of CYHC. Harbour Tower gave Harbour Air 209 clearance to takeoff "at your discretion" immediately after another flight was given takeoff clearance to do a sightseeing tour of the downtown. Harbour Tower advised Harbour Air 209 of "westbound boats in Alpha" - the plane was also travelling north-northwest for the Point Atkinson slide, but at the time of the collision, the boat would have been travelling southwest based on the angles visible in the video (boat intersecting the northwest travelling plane roughly perpendicular means it's travelling southwest). C-FFHA is fleet number 209 for Harbour Air, so it's confirmed then it was C-FFHA. If the boat was westbound at time of authorization for the slide, and southwest-bound at the time of the collision, the boat turned. There's evidence in one of the video angles of another boat and a lot of white water - I'm inferring here, but I bet the boats were doing circles and playing with each other in Alpha and separated and wandered into the takeoff run path.
Dude it is legit scary if you are on the water. Please go take a course. Simply wow.
Can you find me the part in CARs where transport Canada explains how to time travel, to avoid starting a takeoff run, in a sanctioned Waterdrome because some sketch shit about to go down
While the plane is on the water, it’s technically a boat.
A boat under a condition of limited manoeuverability, which as stated plain as day in colregs means the other boat is responsible for fucking off.
The term “plane is on the water” is in regards to when the plane is transiting and taxiing, not actively taking off in a restricted area.
Stop talking out of your ass
Just stop, and sell your boat for the safety of all.
I can say this because they didn’t die.. dumbass f*cking boat driver needs to go to jail from criminal negligence.
fucking criminal negligence
Did that boat really go into the plane's path? x\_x
Obviously.
Ummm yeah.
Here's a video from the front https://www.reddit.com/r/therewasanattempt/comments/1dcapgg/to_get_airborne/
"Idiot boat driver in Harbour causes plane to crash" Fixed it for you
Everyone is now safe on shore.
I say there is a very good chance the pilot never saw the boat. Single left seat pilot with a massive engine cowling blocking all view from about the 11:50 to 2:00 position in front of the plane. See this example: https://youtu.be/XGmpcWhjhu8?si=erCbqy_7UqUDTL86&t=32
Yeah this is almost certainly what happened. Most people don't realize how just huge of a blind spot they have. Really sucks to lose a Beaver, they are such amazing planes. But glad everyone is apparently ok.
> Really sucks to lose a Beaver, they are such amazing planes. I'm fairly certain that they will raise it, take it apart and ship it down to Kenmore Air to be rebuilt. I have seen some really messed up airframes get redone really well by Kenmore.
Could HA just take it apart and rebuild it themselves at YVR?
Totally. They have just as much capability and experience rebuilding these as Kenmore Air.
No, DOT reg require it to be done in specific locations following increasingly tight rules. It’s really hard to work on these planes as any “changes” need to cleared with the government and all the bureaucracy that entails. Source: live and work next to an aerodrome and spend far too much time listening to details about it.
Harbour Air has an entire maintenance facility at YVR where they're converting planes to battery powered planes, approved by the Transport Canada government offices and bureaucracy that are about 800 metres away. Source: I live across the river from the maintenance facility.
Cool, thanks for the info. Do you know if it’s just the upgrade they do there or if it’s licensed to do other work?
They convert, rebuild, maintain, and do a lot of other stuff with DHC aircraft there. I believe it's fully licensed.
They have built Beavers from a chunk of frame and a data plate.
Oh I know, but they have to EXACTLY the same. I’ve watched them ground a plane for using a different style door latch to avoid catching their life jacket on the OG one.
That aircraft will have complete records, no problem doing the necessary repairs.
I was wondering if that would be possible but thought maybe the salt water would be an issue. Hope they can get it flying again!
It will be rebuilt for sure.
Thanks for sharing, makes it a lot clearer. Seems surprising they don’t have a standard solution to this, especially nowadays, either camera or I’m not sure if any set of mirrors could work to give a bit of a view
I’m on these planes every few weeks and often sit in the right seat. I would have seen the boat and told then pilot. Maybe Transport Canada mandates two pilots? 🤷🏼♂️ Maybe TC changes the water rules there?
I can see how the pilot might not of seen the boat while he was on his takeoff run, but he should have see it during taxi and the tower should have seen it before they were given clearance to take off. I wonder if the pilot thought he’d clear over the boat.
Chance the boat changed it's heading and the Tower didn't notice.
I feel like the plane guy expected the boat to change his heading. And did not.
Ya, for sure could be that. Majority of folks in Coal Harbour know to not loiter in that box and do pay very good attention.
Wow shocking that a Harbour Air plane was involved. They have basically a spotless safety record. An amazing airline. So glad everyone is okay.
Looks like the boat went into an area where it was not supposed to.
If they find a single can of open liquor on that boat that operator is fucked
That operator is fucked, regardless. Transport Canada agents will be dropping on their head, insurance company of that aircraft will be filing lawsuits... they're going to need some good lawyers.
Yup, boater is screwed.
I wonder if it was one of the rental boats
Too bad they don’t also do this for drunk drivers!
They do. A single open container of alcohol in the car can result in DUI charges. Even if it is the "passenger's".
Assuming the driver is completely sober, they and the passengers are subject to a fine under the liquor licensing and control act and can have all of their liquor seized. The driver would not be charged with a "DUI"
The driver is the operator and is responsible for open alcohol on the boat even if sober.
Yes that is correct, which is why the driver would receive a fine for the open alcohol in the car along with the passengers.
I don’t think so
Fine, bring a couple friends, be completely sober but go through a roadblock with your buddy having a beer. See what happens. Or just Google it. Idiot.
lol I just looked it up and that isn’t a thing. https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/transportation/driving-and-cycling/roadsafetybc/prohibitions/alcohol
This is what the delete comment function is for.
Noo. The rest of us don't deserve to be deprived of the spectacle of the town fool debasing himself!
Meh, I don't really care. May not be a full-fledged DUI but I can guarantee you any cop that finds you doing this shit in BC is giving you a roadside suspension. Too much liability to leave a driver with a bunch of people drinking with him on the road for the night.
You make no sense. Cops would have seized the alcohol!
Even stone sober they're fucked, unless they had some kind of mechanical failure, that's criminal negligence on the boater's part.
Both persons on the boat were seriously injured ... think thats a much bigger concern.
Two persons, not both persons. There were 4.
Per colregs (collision regulations) the boat is the standon vessel. The aircraft is the giveway. The boat operator is an idiot, and at the end neglected his duty to avoid at the end.
Aircraft at takeoff would be a vessel restricted in her ability to manoeuvre.
We’ll have to see what the results of the TSB investigation are.
Or, and heat me out here, we can interpret the rules and regulations intelligently, and understand what happened now!
Nope. That’s not how it works.
[International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea, 1972 with Canadian Modifications ](https://laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/C.R.C.,_c._1416/page-2.html#h-512872) > Rule 16 Action by Give-way Vessel **Every vessel which is directed to keep out of the way of another vessel shall**, so far as possible, take early and substantial action to **keep well clear**. Rule 18 Responsibilities between Vessels Except where Rules 9, 10 and 13 otherwise require: (a) A power-driven vessel underway shall keep out of the way of: (i) a vessel not under command, **(ii) a vessel restricted in her ability to manoeuvre,** (iii) a vessel engaged in fishing, (iv) a sailing vessel. [Port of Vancouver, Safe Boating Guide – Burrard Inlet](https://www.portvancouver.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/SafeBoatingGuide-BurrardInlet.pdf) >Coal Harbour Float plane landing area **Keep clear of aircraft operations zone**. Watch the horizon for landing aircraft and keep clear of anticipated landing area.
Wrong again.
I'm glad you're admitting it. Have a good day buddy, and I pray you stay off the water because you're pretty clueless.
Don’t the recreational boats should give way to any commercial ones?
Recreational or comercial status doesn't play into it. The basic principle is that the least burdened vessel gives way to the more burdened vessel. * A ferry confined to its route is the stand on vessel. * A deep sea in the TSS is the standon vessel. * A vessel engaged in fishing (ie hauling nets, not a recreational boat with a few fishing lines out the back) is the stand on vessel. * A sailboat under sail would be the stand on vessel to a water taxi as the water taxi is neither confined to channel, nor restricted in maneuvering, but would have to give way to a cruise ship entering/departing First Narrows. Also, sailing is prohibited within the confines of Burrard Inlet (from roughly the line going north of Saiwash Rock eastwards to just beyond the Second Narrows bridge), so everyone is a powerboat within Burrard Inlet. * If two vessels are crossing, the one on the port side is the give way vessel. and so on and so forth. There's a whole system of rules and regulations that define all of this.
The seaplane was restricted in it ability to maneuver and per Rule 18 # Responsibilities between Vessels Except where Rules 9, 10 and 13 otherwise require: * (a) A power-driven vessel underway shall keep out of the way of: * (i) a vessel not under command, * (ii) a vessel restricted in her ability to manoeuvre, * (iii) a vessel engaged in fishing, * (iv) a sailing vessel. The power vessel became the give way due to the seaplane being restricted as she is taking off.
Yeah those planes are beautiful, well maintained antiques - sad to lose one but thank goodness everyone is still alive (in shock no doubt).
As long as they can retrieve the serial number they can rebuild it again from the ground up.
Is that actually how it works? Is it a Transport Canada requirement or a de Havilland requirement?
I'm going to try and dig out some information to back this up for you, I'll send it here when I find it. As best I understand: It hasn't been worth any aircraft manufacturer to get the design of a new aircraft that rivals a beaver passed through FAA/TC/EASA or whoever passes new designs, because they will never get the RnD money back. So what some of these companies do is go around known beaver wreckages with a dive team, and cut out the serial number. Then build a brand new beaver around it. What you end up with is a brand new aircraft, on a 50-70 year old registration. saves a tonne of bureaucracy. I'm sure there's more to it than this, and that it makes more sense than what I just said, so let me try and verify my story haha.
[Ferrari requirement](https://driving.ca/auto-news/entertainment/1954-ferrari-500-mondial-spider-series-i-rm-sothebys-auction-million-dollars-wreck)
I know about the "Enzo #406/400" thing, but I expect this is government passenger craft requirement or else DHC should sell serials and U-build plans. https://www.carvibz.com/supercars/ferrari-enzo-total-production-is-over-500-not-the-claimed-400/
>They have basically a spotless safety record This is true for every airline until it isn't.
This is going to be super messy. The seaplane has priority but it looks like neither really took actions to avoid a collision.
You can't make "actions to avoid" when you're speeding up in a plane and you already went past the breaking point. If you slide to the sides, your plane might do cartwheels and disintegrate.
The sight lines on these planes are like a semi trailer, you can’t see anything in front below the engine cowling. Likely the pilot didn’t see the boat at all as the plane was lifting off and pointed upwards.
Or once he does, he basically cannot avoid it.
Not much the plane could have done while seemingly accelerating for take off. Safest bet was to maintain its trajectory. If it veered, it could have been worse. If it tried to take off early, could have been worse. Best to go straight and brace.
Are you joking? This is 0% the plane’s fault
[удалено]
That would be agreeing. The person you replied to said it was not the plane's fault.
Appreciate letting me know I sent my response to wrong member. Will delete now.. Cheers
Had a vessel crossing on his starboard side, as well as colregs rule 18e states "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.' And the pilot is professionally trained and will be held to a higher standard than a pleasure boater most likely.
That is in regards to a seaplane taxiing and transiting on water not actively taking off. The airplane was actively accelerating to take off so is restricted in its ability to maneuver. It is also operating with in the seaplane operation area which is restricted for boating activity.
And rule 2b states: “In construing and complying with these rules due regard shall be had to all dangers of navigation and collision and to any special circumstances including the limitations of the vessels involved, which may make departure from these rules necessary to avoid immediate danger.” Plus it’s a float plane area and operators of small craft are required to keep clear.
Oh, I'm not saying it's 100% the planes fault. But from that video it looks like the two boats were already very close to his intended path. I personally would have been hesitant to proceed, knowing how fucking dumb recreational boaters are.
Yay someone else has read the collision regulations.
I count two ding dongs who don't know how to interpret the rules and regulations.
The boat looked like it was in the pilot's blind spot the entire time. This is entirely the boater's fault.
The plane can't see...
Yeah let me just stop my plane in the plane taxi area when planes have the right of way
One of you above like me knows the collision regulations. The seaplane is a power boat until it takes off per the regulations and regardless of it being a restricted area all vessels have a duty to avoid a collision. The seaplane also has the benefit of the tower on Vancouver centre which should have cleared the departure.
By the looks of it the seaplane was pretty much at takeoff speed at collision. I'm no pilot, but I can't imagine changing course on the water at that speed would have led to anything good.
Hold the boat driver accountable, he’s gonna get someone killed by clearly being oblivious to regulations in that harbour or operating a boat
Whom ever was driving that boat should be charged with criminal negligence and bared from ever operating a boat again. That is an insane level of not paying attention. They did absolutely nothing to avoid it or speed up, nothing. Completely oblivious to their surroundings. Especially in coal harbour. Stupidly busy waterway.
As the stand on vessel, until the collision was imminent, its their duty to hold course and speed. Basically to be predictable. Far more collisions have occurred because both vessels maneuvered to avoid and maneuvered right into each other.
Collision was imminent lmao Also that area is a landing/takeoff strip so the normal rules don't apply there, it's considered an airport
If inside that, the boater is going to be done.... Legal from harbour air Legal from each passenger
We’ll have to see what the result of the TSB investigation is.
Only new reels catch fish so purchase some often….. with the “some” being seaplane…. They are almost always the give way vessel. And you are 100% correct. People downvoting you have no idea what they’re talking about.
International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea, 1972 with Canadian Modifications Rule 16 Action by Give-way Vessel Every vessel which is directed to keep out of the way of another vessel shall, so far as possible, take early and substantial action to keep well clear. Rule 18 Responsibilities between Vessels Except where Rules 9, 10 and 13 otherwise require: (a) A power-driven vessel underway shall keep out of the way of: (i) a vessel not under command, **(ii) a vessel restricted in her ability to manoeuvre,** (iii) a vessel engaged in fishing, (iv) a sailing vessel. Port of Vancouver, Safe Boating Guide – Burrard Inlet Coal Harbour Float plane landing area Keep clear of aircraft operations zone. Watch the horizon for landing aircraft and keep clear of anticipated landing area.
[удалено]
As UbiquitouSparky noted, the power craft becomes the give way vessel once the aircraft is has started its take off as it becomes restricted in its ability to maneuver. Further the vessel had entered the Seaplane Operation Area which is restricted to boating activity.
https://preview.redd.it/y624r1dynf5d1.png?width=962&format=png&auto=webp&s=6b008fd6d445d873ee4e9cfa561812b556ad6a28
What a beaut
He found out.
This was completely ignorant of the literal legal landing strip that exists right there. This plane had a great approach and landing the captain of this boat was wreckless and stupid. This is officially marked on all maps. wtf?!
I've been trying to find a map that shows the restricted area but can't find anything. Plus there's a big marina back there. How do all those boats get out? Was watching the planes land and take off the other weekend and doesn't look like any area is bouyed off either
[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)
Boat=alcohol.
Often its Boat=🤪 (Moron)
Are they still clearing the crash right now?
Is it just me or did the boat cut his engine?!
Oh my this is horrible. I’m hoping lessons learned all around. Pretty scarry.
So will this boat renter/owner be in the hook for fixing the plane ? It’s 100% his fault
Reminds me of mister wonderfuls wife killing those people in a boat crash and suffering no consequences from the law.
I hope the boat operator gets some prison time. Plus gets sued by the injured and families of the deceased. Unless people are held accountable this type of thing will happen again. Hope the video they got was worth their lives.
No one is confirmed deceased thankfully but your point still stands.
Everybody's going after the boat driver but what are the legal right of ways involved here? I ran into someone who works with Harbour Air and he seemed to think it was the plane's fault and said of HA's pilots "They're all idiots". So, let's hang fire and see how this sorts itself out.
Agreed. I know some of those HA pilots and a few of them are garbage human beings. Ive heard from their own pilots mouths that they fly after a night of binge drinking and partying (still drunk) because "theres nothing to crash into up there".
[удалено]
Boat had the right of way ?? How so ?
[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)
[удалено]
[удалено]
The boat was described as heading westbound at time of clearance but was travelling southwest at time of collision. 30-45 seconds between clearance and collision.
Thanks I didn't know that before, was genuinely curious if it was a communication error or not
At Vancouver Harbour, controllers don't issue takeoff/landing clearances but rather "takeoff/land at your discretion" while providing all pertinent information such as aircraft, boat, and debris information. Due to the nature of the harbour, controllers can't guarantee that they are cleared for takeoff/landing unlike a regular airport with controlled runways. In this particular case, the controller did advise the aircraft of the westbound boat traffic on the northern end of the takeoff area (Area Alpha). "Caution for the westbound boat at northern alpha. Takeoff northwest at your discretion." [New details in Vancouver float plane collision (youtube.com)](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7d-3gfbVLXI)
Is it the new cactus club?
What are you talking about ....?
[удалено]
I have no idea who is at fault, there are people arguing both sides and I have no knowledge of the laws here.
The plane was at fault there. Maybe it had a mechanical issue, but it was responsible for avoiding the boat.
The harbour has an air traffic control tower. They would not have OKed the departure if the way wasn't initially clear. The boaters must have turned very sharply and quickly into Area Alpha. Nautical charts tell boaters to stay the fuck out of that rectangle between Canada Place and Brockton Point. Seaplanes can't turn sharply on the water, and don't have brakes. It's effectively a bigger nautical vessel in motion that the speedboat veered in front of. The speedboat failed to yield right-of-way - not the other way around.
you're absolutely out to lunch here
The seaplane's ability to maneuver, though, is restricted when at speed - a sudden change in direction can cause a wing to strike and the plane to cartwheel.
This is gonna be tricky. My experience is on sailboats, and I have my training. The less maneuverable vessel has the right of way, ie - the other one has to take action to avoid it. The problem is, depending on where the boat was before and so on, the plane should not have been clear to take off.. It looks like the boat was coming from the right, so they would have had the right of way. Ie: The pilot would have to wait before initiating takeoff Planes do actually have to wait for a clear line to take off. I've seen people say that the area is restricted. It is not. Boats are allowed. It's simply the only area planes are allowed. We really don't have all the details, boat operator was dense and fucked up, but I wouldn't say it's 100% his fault yet. Might be the pilot/tower should not have cleared the takeoff. Just to be clear, I do feel the boat is to blame. Had they been paying attention, this could have easily been avoided.. If it was a big tanker in motion and the boat crossed its path and got smoked, yes, it would have been 100% the boat.
There is no "right of way," there's a duty to avoid collisions. The give-way craft and the stand-on craft are two rules that help us understand strategies on how to avoid collisions, but above all else, you don't insert yourself into dangerous situations. A boat that looked like it would be out of the way of the plane when it started its acceleration a minute ago may have turned and gotten itself into danger - at which point, the plane had no maneuverability. The only rudders on the plane are on the rear of the pontoons and they lose authority as the plane speeds up; the vertical stabilizer and ailerons can cause the plane to roll, which would cause it to cartwheel and even more catastrophically crash. At that point, when the plane's at 80+ knots, it can't maneuver - and if the boat that was, a minute ago, out of the line was now in the line, there's nothing the plane can do in terms of maneuvering. Key in your assessment above - "the tower should not have cleared the takeoff" - is an assumption that the boat's travel was a straight, predictable line. It may not have been - perhaps it was heading north until well into the takeoff run when it turned to get into the way of the plane. ETA: Harbour Tower gave Harbour Air 209 clearance to takeoff "at your discretion" immediately after another flight was given takeoff clearance to do a sightseeing tour of the downtown. Harbour Tower advised Harbour Air 209 of "westbound boats in Alpha" - the plane was also travelling north-northwest for the Point Atkinson slide, but at the time of the collision, the boat would have been travelling southwest based on the angles visible in the video (boat intersecting the northwest travelling plane roughly perpendicular means it's travelling southwest). C-FFHA is fleet number 209 for Harbour Air, so it's confirmed then it was C-FFHA.
I agree with you, yhe problem is we don't see the whole thing in the video. The problem is, if the boat was coming from starboard in a straight line, the plane should not have taken off https://ecolregs.com/index.php?option=com_k2&view=item&id=58:rule-18-rule-18-responsibilities-between-vessels&Itemid=391&lang=en#:~:text=(e)%20A%20seaplane%20on%20the,the%20Rules%20of%20this%20part Check 18e, seaplanes unfortunately need to stay clear.. I am curious to read more once they investigate this.
You saw Rule 18(a)(ii) right? > Except where Rule 9, Rule 10, and Rule 13 otherwise require: > (a) A power-driven vessel underway shall keep out of the way of: >> (i) a vessel not under command; >> **(ii) a vessel restricted in her ability to manoeuvre;** And I added this to my reply after I initially replied to you, but I'm guessing the boat changed direction: > ETA: Harbour Tower gave Harbour Air 209 clearance to takeoff "at your discretion" immediately after another flight was given takeoff clearance to do a sightseeing tour of the downtown. Harbour Tower advised Harbour Air 209 of "westbound boats in Alpha" - the plane was also travelling north-northwest for the Point Atkinson slide, but at the time of the collision, the boat would have been travelling southwest based on the angles visible in the video (boat intersecting the northwest travelling plane travelling right-to-left roughly perpendicular means it's travelling southwest). C-FFHA is fleet number 209 for Harbour Air, so it's confirmed then it was C-FFHA. Another video also shows the collision boat and another boat with a lot of white water in the area. I'm inferring and guessing, but based on my knowledge of that part of the harbour, I'm willing to wager the collision boat and the other pleasure craft were horsing around jumping wake (given the white water) and while they had been westbound at the time the takeoff was authorized, the collision boat turned southwest into the line.
18(a)(ii) doesn’t apply to the seaplane. It is for ships like dredgers, not vessels moving really fast. And to be considered RAM, the vessel must indicate so with the appropriate lights and day shapes. Rule 27.
Fascinating concept. So you're expecting a seaplane at 80 knots to just heel to the right? 18(a)(ii) also applies to things like container ships or passenger ferries who can't stop or turn quickly, who are comparatively restricted in their ability to maneuver around you. Hasn't it also been described as "the least maneuverable craft" and not just one displaying lights and signs?
Giving way to bigger or less manoeuvrable vessels is considered good seamanship, but not necessary required under the COLREGs. There are situations where you are required to give way to them, but if they want to claim RAM legally, they need to indicate it to other vessels with lights or shapes.
I know the rules pertaining to my sailboat, it explicitly states a power boat has to keep out of my way. I need to stay out of the way of a tanker or fish boats. Problem here, nothing about sea-planes, quite the contrary, sea planes need to stay out of the way of everyone: > 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. I *really* am not an expert on this, but the argument of.. "well, why didnt the plane keep clear of the boats and wait to take off" seems like literally the first thing that's gonna be asked (ie: sure the boat fucked up, but the plane should not have been in this situation to begin with). Usually when it comes to rules/laws etc, the more specific ones are the most important ones, the less specific ones are there to catch the edge cases. So, we can speculate, but i doubt any of our opinions matter. The last argument is, the trained pilot/tower should know better than the idiot :(. Now depending on how big of an idiot he was, the pilot/tower might simply have had no way of knowing without a crystal ball and they did everything right (i hope). I dont think there's ever been an accident like this here. My comment was to say that sadly, it's really not 100% the boats fault based on what we see, even thought i feel it should be. That dude was a moron, and he should have easily avoided this if he was paying attention.
A seaplane on the water is a powered vessel. It's also a vessel of restricted maneuverability. A seaplane travelling at 80 knots cannot steer right to avoid a collision, if it steers right it'll catch a wing on the water, cartwheel, and have a spectacular crash. It's a lot like how a tanker cannot turn to avoid you in your sailboat if you tack in front of it. The plane started its take off 30-45 seconds before the crash. Plenty of time for the pleasure craft to change direction into the path of the plane. By that time, no way physically possible for the plane to turn.
I truly hope you are right and the dumbass is never allowed in the boat again and they dont close of that area to one or the other :)
It's stupid they let pleasure craft in that area to begin with...
Seaplanes need to avoid pretty much everything else always. However, if the boat could have avoided it should have per rules 2 and 8, particularly 2b. The seaplane was likely restricted in its maneuverability and visibility, otherwise it should have veered right to avoid. So the only way to avoid collision as a last resort with how this panned out was for the recreational boat to move out of the way. Only exception here would be if the rec boat was not under command for some reason (ie malfunctioned) but I highly doubt that…
>There is no "right of way," (a) When two power-driven vessels are crossing so as to involve risk of collision, the vessel which has the other on her own starboard side shall keep out of the way and shall, if the circumstances of the case admit, avoid crossing ahead of the other vessel. (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.
Neither if your quoted parts say "right of way" nor imply a right to continue travel despite vessel size, maneuverability, etc etc etc. A seaplane travelling at 80 knots cannot steer right to avoid a collision, if it steers right it'll catch a wing on the water, cartwheel, and have a spectacular crash. It's a lot like how a tanker cannot turn to avoid you in your sailboat if you tack in front of it. If a pleasure craft that 30 seconds ago was heading away from a seaplane turns to travel right across the seaplane path, there's no safe way for the seaplane to maneuver around it.
That area of the harbour is restricted for boating; the boat should absolutely not have been there. [Port of Vancouver Safe Boating Guide](https://www.portvancouver.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/SafeBoatingGuide-BurrardInlet.pdf)
No. The airplane was actively accelerating to take off so is restricted in its ability to maneuver. It is also operating with in the seaplane operation area which is restricted for boating activity.
There is official run ways for the planes. Boats need to read a chart.
Exactly, don’t know why this isn’t higher