AV8R_87
Cleared for Takeoff
Looks like all aboard the plane survived, some unspecified injuries for the boat's occupants.
It's possible that the boat, being to the right, had the right of way.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.
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.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.
The rule requires him to post an additional lookout if he can't see.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.
"Last clear chance" is a term used for legal negligence. And it's not clear that the legal definition meets the situation ehre.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.
There's no such rule.Even if not a designated runway, the boat is the more maneuverable craft.
This was Canada. USCG rules don't apply.There's no such rule.
Link InOp.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
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.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
The text of Rule 3: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.
As if there were anybody still at the helm at that pointI 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)?
This is quite an interesting scenario nut i'm curious how does having a tower in this area affect all these rules?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.
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.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
(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.
Is the periscope on the sub up or down?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.??
congested harbors and sea-lanes are full of intoxicated people that do not understand or follow COLREGS
FIFY