Seaplane collides with small boat in Vancouver

That was very scary. I don't know what the boat pilot was thinking, or if they were paying attention, but if that's a designated runway, he's screwed.
 
Even if not a designated runway, the boat is the more maneuverable craft.

Could the pilot have pulled power? Seems like drag would have slowed him down pretty quickly.
 
Boat definitely had the right of way, but both have an obligation to avoid a collision.
 
At the end of the right of way rules is the "Last clear chance to prevent collision" rule.

All other rules aside, the boater violated that rule, and is in deep trouble.
 
I mean did the guy think he was going to make it or what?? Abort the takeoff but very possible he couldn’t see him on the right side.
 
Definitely seems like forward visibility is extremely compromised on takeoff roll. Surprising there is so much video of it around.
 
I suspect the seaplane wasn't aware of the boat.
Both 91.115 and the nautical rules put the blame here squarely on the SEAPLANE.

91.115 (b) Crossing. When aircraft, or an aircraft and a vessel, are on crossing courses, the aircraft or vessel to the other's right has the right-of-way

Seaplanes aren't given any special status under the USCG regs. They are power-driven vessels when operating on the water. The only consideration is that they are exempted from some of the lighting rules. There is not, as some stated, any "less maneuverable" overriding rule, though this is the basis of many of the regulations. None of that applies here. The only rule that applies is

Rule 15 - Crossing Situation Return to the top of the page
(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.
 
Someone wasn’t paying attention ,could have been a more serious ending,no matter who had the right of way.
 
Kenny Phillips said:
That was very scary. I don't know what the boat pilot was thinking, or if they were paying attention, but if that's a designated runway, he's screwed.
Click to expand...
I don't know what the seaplane pilot was thinking. He's required to be paying attention and putting an additional lookout if he can't visually see everything himself. He blasted into a situation he was required to give way in.
 
I like how the boat seemed to immediately head towards the aircraft presumably to offer aid.
I didn't like how the cabin of the airplane seemed to become quickly immersed.

almost off-topic: Do most boat owners carry liability insurance (in Canada)?
 
mandm said:
I mean did the guy think he was going to make it or what?? Abort the takeoff but very possible he couldn’t see him on the right side.
Click to expand...
The rule requires him to post an additional lookout if he can't see.
 
geezer said:
At the end of the right of way rules is the "Last clear chance to prevent collision" rule.

All other rules aside, the boater violated that rule, and is in deep trouble.
Click to expand...
"Last clear chance" is a term used for legal negligence. And it's not clear that the legal definition meets the situation ehre.

The rules for nautical use similar is in Rule 17.

(b) When, from any cause, the vessel required to keep her course and speed finds herself so close that collision cannot be avoided by the action of the give-way vessel alone, she shall take such action as will best aid to avoid collision.

But note that doesn't absolve the seaplane:

(d) This Rule does not relieve the give-way vessel of her obligation to keep out of the way.
 
It’s interesting but pure rules the seaplane is wrong but this is crazy…I spend a lot of time still to this day delivering boats and congested harbors and sea-lanes are full of people that do not understand or follow COLREGS….summertime in any place may be less then half…I am picking up a 62 Lagoon on Thursday and delivering it to NYC harbor by Tuesday most likely. The first four and last four hours will be the most hazardous with stupid boat owners on the water…Open water and weather enroute is a cake walk comparatively. Hope the injured a quick recovery…
 
Regardless of ROW the seaplane pilot should be able to pick a takeoff area that won't contain boats during the takeoff. The biggest problem I had with that was with jet skis, some intentionally trying to get as close as possible as fast as possible just to show off.
 

INTERNATIONAL Rules of the Road...not Coast Guard rules of the Road. It just so happens that in the US the Coast Guard publishes the rules. It is International Law. As such....​


Rule 18(e) of the International Rules of the Road states: "A seaplane on the water shall, in general, keep well clear of all vessels and avoid impeding their navigation." In other words, the seaplane must give way to all water vessels. A seaplane never has right of way over a boat. Further, the rule goes on to state that where risk of collision exists, comply with the "Rules of this Part" meaning, Rules 16 and 17 apply. The boat STILL had the right of way (other vessel, in this case the seaplane was on her port side) and SHOULD have made an attempt to avoid collision (Rule 17(b))...so should have the seaplane (17(d)).

A seaplane is in its own category. It is NOT a "power-driven vessel underway" as defined by the Rules.

Rules of the Road

Edited to fix link.
 
Last edited:
KE5BM said:

INTERNATIONAL Rules of the Road...not Coast Guard rules of the Road. It just so happens that in the US the Coast Guard publishes the rules. It is International Law. As such....​


Rule 18(e) of the International Rules of the Road states: "A seaplane on the water shall, in general, keep well clear of all vessels and avoid impeding their navigation." In other words, the seaplane must give way to all water vessels. A seaplane never has right of way over a boat. Further, the rule goes on to state that where risk of collision exists, comply with the "Rules of this Part" meaning, Rules 16 and 17 apply. The boat STILL had the right of way (other vessel, in this case the seaplane was on her port side) and SHOULD have made an attempt to avoid collision (Rule 17(b))...so should have the seaplane (17(d)).

A seaplane is in its own category. It is NOT a "power-driven vessel underway" as defined by the Rules.

https://navcen.uscg.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/navRules/Nav%20Rules%20Handbook_27OCT2022_85%20FR%2058268.pdf
Click to expand...
Link InOp.
 
KE5BM said:
A seaplane is in its own category. It is NOT a "power-driven vessel underway" as defined by the Rules.

https://navcen.uscg.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/navRules/Nav%20Rules%20Handbook_27OCT2022_85%20FR%2058268.pdf
Click to expand...
I disagree. They are a subset of the power-driven vessel. As far as other than inland waters are concerned, it's treated the same as other power-driven vessels, with the exception of some of the lighting requirements. The only other mention of them (and WIG boats) is for the inland rules which don't apply here that makes it even more burdened.
 
Juan had a segment on this incident. Pretty interesting location in Canada because there's a tower there. The seaplane did get clearance to take off from said tower and the tower did mention the boat to the right of the plane.
 
By letter of law most likely seaplane is "at fault" but legal fault aside, what the hell is the boat driver thinking? Car accidents where someone could've easily avoided the accident but didn't do anything legally wrong come to mind. Boat captain is responsible for the safety of his/her passengers and there's really no excuse for cutting in front of a seaplane taking off and then getting hit in open water like that, right of way or not. Incredibly easy to see, hear and avoid. Seaplane pilot almost certainly has something to answer for here too (interested with the tower/water runway aspect of it as mentioned in this thread) but at the end of the day it's the boaters in the hospital, and that could've been easily prevented by boat captain.
 
Ok, a different question.

If the plane had been painted in camo and the boat had been a U-boat, who would be at fault.??
 
flyingron said:
I disagree. They are a subset of the power-driven vessel. As far as other than inland waters are concerned, it's treated the same as other power-driven vessels, with the exception of some of the lighting requirements. The only other mention of them (and WIG boats) is for the inland rules which don't apply here that makes it even more burdened.
Click to expand...
The text of Rule 3:

(a) The word vessel includes every description of water craft, including nondisplacement craft, WIG craft and seaplanes, used or capable of being used as a means of transportation on water.
(b) The term power-driven vessel means any vessel propelled by machinery.
(c) The term sailing vessel means any vessel under sail provided that propelling machinery, if fitted, is not being used.
(d) The term vessel engaged in fishing means any vessel fishing with nets, lines, trawls or other fishing apparatus which restrict maneuverability, but does not include a vessel fishing with trolling lines or other fishing apparatus which do not restrict maneuverability.
(e) The word seaplane includes any aircraft designed to maneuver on the water.
(f) The term vessel not under command means a vessel which through some exceptional circumstance is unable to maneuver as required by these Rules and is therefore unable to keep out of the way of another vessel.
(g) The term vessel restricted in her ability to maneuver means a vessel which from the nature of her work is restricted in her ability to maneuver as required by these Rules and is therefore unable to keep out of the way of another vessel. The term vessels restricted in their ability to maneuver shall include but not be limited to:
(i) a vessel engaged in laying, servicing or picking up a navigation mark, submarine cable or pipeline;
(ii) a vessel engaged in dredging, surveying or underwater operations;
(iii) a vessel engaged in replenishment or transferring persons, provisions or cargo while underway;
(iv) a vessel engaged in the launching or recovery of aircraft;
(v) a vessel engaged in mine clearance operations;
(vi) a vessel engaged in a towing operation such as severely restricts the towing vessel and her tow in their ability to deviate from their course.
(h) The term vessel constrained by her draft means a power-driven vessel which, because of her draft in relation to the available depth and width of navigable water is severely restricted in her ability to deviate from the course she is following.

That puts a seaplane in its own category. For comparison, other categories under the same rule are "power-driven vessel" "sailing vessel" "vessel not under command" "vessel restricted in ability to maneuver," etc. The only other place where seaplanes are mentioned outside of lighting requirements is the rule I mentioned above (Rule 18). In the Coast Guard, we call this the hierarchy rule. Here's the whole thing:
-----------------
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 maneuver;
(iii) a vessel engaged in fishing; (iv) a sailing vessel.
(b) A sailing vessel underway shall keep out of the way of:
(i) a vessel not under command;
(ii) a vessel restricted in her ability to maneuver;
(iii) a vessel engaged in fishing.
(c) A vessel engaged in fishing when underway shall, so far as possible, keep out of the way of:
(i) a vessel not under command;
(ii) a vessel restricted in her ability to maneuver.
(d)
(i) Any vessel other than a vessel not under command or a vessel restricted in her ability to maneuver shall, if the circumstances of the case admit, avoid impeding the safe passage of a vessel constrained by her draft, exhibiting the signals in Rule 28.
(ii) A vessel constrained by her draft shall navigate with particular caution having full regard to her special condition.
(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.
(f)
(i) A WIG craft shall, when taking off, landing and in flight near the surface, keep well clear of all other vessels and avoid impeding their navigation; (ii) A WIG craft operating on the water surface shall comply with the Rules of this Part as a power-driven vessel.
------------------------
Put more simply, here's who has the right of way with most privileged on top working down.

Vessel being overtaken
Not Under Command
Restricted Ability to Maneuver
Constrained by Draft
Fishing
Sailing Vessels
Power-driven vessels
Seaplanes/WIG
Vessel overtaking

For those who don't work in the maritime industry, Rule 9 is conduct in narrow channels, Rule 10 is Traffic Separation Schemes, and 13 is Overtaking which I referred to in the above list.
The part of the highlighted rule (Italic emphasis mine) that it refers to at the end are Rules 16 and 17, Actions of Give-Way Vessel and Actions of Stand-on Vessel respectively. The seaplane is the Give-Way Vessel in all situations based on Rule 13 above. However, Rule 17 gives instruction to the Stand-on Vessel (the boat in this situation):
(b) When, from any cause, the vessel required to keep her course and speed finds herself so close that collision cannot be avoided by the action of the giveway vessel alone, she shall take such action as will best aid to avoid collision.

The hierarchy rule is pretty simple. It puts seaplanes and WIGs at the very bottom of right of way. It would appear Part 91 doesn't exactly agree with these rules. This incident may require a revision of the Part. The COLREGS on the other hand have been in place since 1977 and is the law in every body of navigable water that is not considered "Inland" water of the United States.

One last part about this whole situation that is being missed. I keep seeing folks arguing about right of way and "power-driven vessels." The definitions from Rule 3 I provided above clearly specify that a seaplane is not considered a "power-driven vessel" therefore the elements of a crossing situation according to Rule 15 are not met. Rule 15 states: "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." Given that Rule 3 specifies a difference between a "power-driven vessel" and a "seaplane" Rule 15 does not apply.
 
Let'sgoflying! said:
I like how the boat seemed to immediately head towards the aircraft presumably to offer aid.
I didn't like how the cabin of the airplane seemed to become quickly immersed.

almost off-topic: Do most boat owners carry liability insurance (in Canada)?
Click to expand...
As if there were anybody still at the helm at that point
 
KE5BM said:
One last part about this whole situation that is being missed. I keep seeing folks arguing about right of way and "power-driven vessels." The definitions from Rule 3 I provided above clearly specify that a seaplane is not considered a "power-driven vessel" therefore the elements of a crossing situation according to Rule 15 are not met.
Click to expand...
This is quite an interesting scenario nut i'm curious how does having a tower in this area affect all these rules?
 
flyingron said:
I suspect the seaplane wasn't aware of the boat.
Both 91.115 and the nautical rules put the blame here squarely on the SEAPLANE.

91.115 (b) Crossing. When aircraft, or an aircraft and a vessel, are on crossing courses, the aircraft or vessel to the other's right has the right-of-way

Seaplanes aren't given any special status under the USCG regs. They are power-driven vessels when operating on the water. The only consideration is that they are exempted from some of the lighting rules. There is not, as some stated, any "less maneuverable" overriding rule, though this is the basis of many of the regulations. None of that applies here. The only rule that applies is

Rule 15 - Crossing Situation Return to the top of the page
(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.
Click to expand...
Whilst the planes aren't given special status, is the runway given special status? (Boats keep out?) For the only local water runway I know of, that is the rule; boats can only cross it at 90° and not run in it. I don't know at what level that will hold up.
 
There is no provision in COLREGS (Rules of the Road) for a water "runway" as has been mentioned. Maybe Canada has a domestic policy for it? I don't know. I can't find any marking on any nautical chart that shows a special use area so my answer is simply "I don't know."
 
Zeldman said:
Ok, a different question.

If the plane had been painted in camo and the boat had been a U-boat, who would be at fault.??
Click to expand...
Is the periscope on the sub up or down?
 
Ed Haywood said:
FIFY
Click to expand...

I lost a friend that way almost 30 years ago.
www.findagrave.com

Capt Anthony Lynn Townsend (1955-1996) - Find a...

Anthony (Captain Tony)Townsend was our dive boat captain. He was one of the warmest people I have ever met. On November 27th, 1996, Tony was killed by three men who decided to travel by boat to avoid being arrested for drunken driving after leaving a restaurant. Tony owned TNT Dive Charters...
www.findagrave.com www.findagrave.com

Drunk baztard in a high-speed offshore power boat went right through the wheelhouse of Tony's boat.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top