The areas are marked on navigation charts that warn boater to stay clear or be aware of planes taking off or landing. The other thing is constant bearing decreasing range, if you don’t know what that means you shouldn’t be navigating a boat.
or a plane, both need to see and avoid, it's probably about a 60/40 thing. the aircraft probably had no line of sight at take off angle and right of way if there was any.
@@AndrewBurbo-zw6pf no line of sight with "nose up attitude" on take off run I agree, and if plane is on take off I would grant that itself full right of way
news reporter did fact checking and said boats are allowed to cross the area with caution, controller warned the pilot of the boat. why didn't he take heed to the warning?
@@AndrewBurbo-zw6pfCOLREGS Rule 18 addresses seaplane. Basically, seaplanes operating on the water shall, in general, keep well clear of all vessels and avoid impeding their navigation.
but cant blame just the boat.. the seaplane has enough time also to abort the take off and just perform a high speed taxi at that speed the plane is fairly agile to avoid that boat but both of them didnt do anything to avoid a collision
@@TheRick2130 Seapanes are not maneuverable when they are in take-off orientation they can not make turns because they have a possibility of flipping, also with the nose up attitude the pilot is effectively blind especially with a radial powered aircraft like this one.
@@TheRick2130 A Seaplane in general, and a radial-engined plane in particular, has no forward visibility once it starts its takeoff run. The nose high attitude blocks the view completely. That boat was directly ahead of the plane - while the pilot may have been advised that there was a boat in the area, it was in the one spot that he couldn't see it.
@@TheRick2130 Boat must give way to Floatplane. Pilot was given clearance with discretion - prior to takeoff roll, pilot would have [almost certainly] seen the boat, and it was not on takeoff zone 'runway' although was in Alpha. When pilot began takeoff, boat may have turned into take off zone. At which point pilot would not be able to see it.
"The vessel that is least maneuverable is the one that has the right of way," "When a floatplane is either landing or taking off, it cannot change its course. "So any other objects on the water have the responsibility to give way and to stay well clear."
COLRES 18(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.
@@brianokeefe7781 Gotta love all these rules and regulations. "on water" as opposed to takeoff/landing. And the catchall phrase "in general". Seems a lot of regulations cross into each other. Need to come directly to the point. Did a quick look up on right of way and there is power boat vs. power boat, power boat vs. sail, sail vs. sail. Then there is the shipping lanes. I wonder how big the Canada boating regulations book is. Insurance companies will be fighting each other on this. They may deem both sides at fault. Perhaps dedicated "runways on water". Wonder how long this incident will be a news story. Cheers.
@@garfieldsmith332 Exactly. Key words "in general." There's a difference between a sea plane transiting the water from A to B and one that is taking off or landing. Same as WIG vessels.
2004] § 91.115Right-of-way rules: Water operations. (a) General. Each person operating an aircraft on the water shall, insofar as possible, keep clear of all vessels and avoid impeding their navigation, and shall give way to any vessel or other aircraft that is given the right-of-way by any rule of this section. (b) Crossing. When aircraft, or an aircraft and a vessel, are on crossing courses, the aircraft or vessel to the other's right has the right-of-way.
@@JH-wd6dp 2004] § 91.115Right-of-way rules: Water operations. (a) General. Each person operating an aircraft on the water shall, insofar as possible, keep clear of all vessels and avoid impeding their navigation, and shall give way to any vessel or other aircraft that is given the right-of-way by any rule of this section. (b) Crossing. When aircraft, or an aircraft and a vessel, are on crossing courses, the aircraft or vessel to the other's right has the right-of-way.
I used to live in RedLake Ontario. I'd take my boat on the lake to go to IGA for groceries . It was a big float plane area, no traffic control. Always had to keep your eyes open.
Exactly, because locals know better. I noticed this boat driver was not trying very hard to get out of the way, so my only conclusion is that they were not local.
Careless boater, it's not a small fast rocket but a loud and big enough airplane . Unlike the pilot's limited view, the boater had plenty view to avoid collision,
@@HarmonRAB-hp4nkif If that had been two boats in an uncontrolled area, that collided boat actually had right of way. But if that was a designated sea plane runway, as it does appear; boat driver is in big trouble.
@@Mightiflier This is actually not true. When on the water both are treated as watercraft and the more maneuverable "vessel" is responsible for avoiding the collision. So either way it's the boats fault for not keeping an eye out because that planed could have easily been another boat that he didn't see.
@@ImpendingJoker I appreciate your opinion. But here is the rule for two sea going vessels approaching at a perpendicular path: “Crossing. Here both vessels are approaching each other at perpendicular or oblique angles and expect to pass close to one another. The rules specify that the vessel which has the other on its starboard side must keep out of the way.” I didn’t make that rule up.
Appreciate the response from surrounding watercraft including the Seabus. Harks back to when Sully landed his plane in the Hudson. Surrounded by ferries and other craft within minutes.
I don't know the logistics of the harbour, but it seem silly to have boats operating in the area where planes are landing. We don't allow the public to drive across runways at airports.
@@toddw6716 riiight the boat that was clearly speeding and clearly paying next to no attention in the middle of a high risk area definately isnt at fault. news flash those planes have very very little forward visability on a takeoff run and that boat was supposed to be restricted to 5kt cause its a no wake zone. also as the port officials have said themselves in interviews. right of way is the same towards the planes as it is a large commercial ship. meaning reguardless of who should have right of way its the rec crafts duty/responsibility to gtfo the planes way cause they can handle alot better. also just my personal opinion. if you see a plane coming your way and choose the "lets get in the path of the spinning death blade" option you should automatically lose your boating liscense on gounds of being the dumbest person somehow still alive
How would you suggest boats transit to and from Coal Harbour? Also for commercial and pleasure traffic to get to and from the only floating gas station? Crappy reporter he obviously is not a boater or has not done his homework. Restrict the area from boat traffic ..... not possible.
The boat had the right of way by maritime rules. The pilot especially a commercial pilot is held to a higher standard for following the rules. He was warned but chose not to listen, likely figuring he has right of way because he’s less maneuverable. This will be very interesting to see who’s going to be held accountable
(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.
Investigators will obviously question him - not only did he acknowledge - he then took off which confirms he heard it - had he read back ATC remarks - there would be no confusion on whether he heard or paid attention to the boat part of the remark - he certainly wasn't aware of where the boat was.
@@bizjets9128 investigators can figure out who was at fault, but the boat should not have been crossing the takeoff path of a seaplane in nose up attitude. I'm sure the pilot didn't see the boat until after the collision.
@@bizjets9128This is NOT an ATC person. It is a harbour information service. The aircraft, whilst on the water is no more than, albeit somewhat quick, a power driven vessel. The fact it has wings is of no consequence.
@@DB-thats-meFormer Papua New Guinea commercial pilot here - that's what I thought. It didn't sound like ATC and I've operated out of fields with many more aircraft than that without a tower but just air service advisory.
Boats are NOT supposed to be crossing that area where seaplanes are taking off. It’s clearly laid out in maritime charts which all boats are required to adhere to in this port area, no exceptions. Boater and/or his insurance company is going to fork out a lot of money in damages including hospital bills and more. How a boater can be so ignorant is beyond me … maybe he/she was from Florida and got confused ;)
Boats are not required to have radios but in this area you should. None radio boats usually huddle with boats that contact the tower for clearance to proceed under the lions gate bridge in this area.
@@dflyind Try taking that point between a BC Ferry and a pleasure boat. The LEAST maneuverable vessel has the right of way. And believe me, a float plane taking off has far less maneuverability, unless you like planes flipping over. Only with vessels of similar maneuverability does the vessel; to the right have "right-of-way".
So I live on Salt Spring Island and there is a dedicated seaplane lane for takeoff and landings, however boaters not familiar with Ganges Harbour often cross it at the wrong place. It’s not uncommon to have a plane lane or takeoff next to you and so long as both are in the correct area there is no problem
You can see by the boats wake he was traveling straight ahead and turned right directly in front of the plane! Maybe he was blinded by the sun but he was definately at fault!
True - he saw the plane late. Turned intuitively to the right, which took him directly into plane path. The correct avoidance action was to turn towards the plane direction and pass just behind it. That takes brains and awareness. Two things that the boat skipper was bereft of
My issue with this is the following: it seems that the boat driver had sufficient time to go into reverse and get out of the way (fairly easily). Was he distracted? Couldn't he hear the loud plane coming? Something is just not adding up.
@@drumswest5035 Unfortunately, the boat driver should be at fault. My understanding of Canadian water right of way rules necessitates the craft that is most maneuverable to yield to the other vessels. Seaplanes are not very maneuverable on water, thus the boat should have given way. In addition, the boat should have been aware of the area they were entering, and should have been prepared for aircraft operating in the area.
The boat is in the wrong, and if it doesn’t know the rules of boating, then they should take a course, but there should be fines concerning this accident to the boaters.
What was the speed of the boat and was the speed and directions of the boat changing a lot? The float plane has no brakes and from the moment the engine starts the plane moves. Then a pilot needs to check all the systems very fast while taxing and starts accelerating, at this time the plane looks up and the pilot doesn’t not see a lot from below, after gaining the necessary speed for a takeoff, the plane jumps out and only then the pilot can see what is in front of the plane. The pilot was cleared for a takeoff. The workload on the pilot is huge during a takeoff and visibility is very limited so if you see a float plane in a restricted area during takeoff or landing -GIVE IT A WAY. I am not trying to say who is guilty just trying to see the situation from pilot perspective There is the tower which you should contact 118.4 even if you want to fly through their control zone and they ALWAYS clear a plane for a takoff.Vancouver Harbor Tower control zone is from SFC to 2500 feet and you need a permission to get there if you fly a plane.The tower can not control their control zone because the boats has no transponder and not all of them have the radio. Now please do your own conclusions.
Strange report; The reporter stated almost immediately that no one on the plane was injured, yet waited until the report was essentially over before any mention of the health of the boat passengers.
@@alelectric2767 I thought it was an odd bit of reporting too, nothing to do with feelings. Especially considering the way the plane impacted the boat. You didn't find it odd?
I think a crucial detail is that when float planes are taking off they can't actually see in front of them because they're pointed up at like a 30 degree angle right before they're about to take off
In the audio clip (which may have been trimmed) it seems the pilot did not read back the alert about the boat in the area - to acknowledge he heard the warning and wasn't momentarily distracted. I'm not blaming the controller - but I'm betting he will be reminded that in the future he should ask for readback of such traffic alerts.
Pilots rarely read back these sorts of things. It would take up too much time on frequency. No controller would every chase a pilot for a read back on something like this.
@@bronze5420 All I can say is they do in the Chicago / SE WI area that I mainly operate in. If you don't aknowledge a detail the controller reads to you as part of a movement operation - most will query you again. A few seconds of radio time can save lives.
I think one solitary buoy marking the seaplane operating area is insufficient, multiple buoys and maybe a restricted area need to be employed. Hope everyone is safe, and future operations are safer.
I'm willing to bet that the "runway" is marked on nautical charts, IMHO, the boater should not have been there. Not like the float plane facility was erected last month, boaters in there area know about the float plane operations. The results of the investigation will probably recommend the float plane facility be moved. Wonder when something like this will make the news out of Victoria??
Yeah, from the original camera angle it looks like the boat is within the restricted area for seaplanes only that is bounded by the buoy/beacon. If so, boater is in deep doodoo.
It's marked on the charts, and it's generally unavoidable to pass through the area if you're heading to the floating Chevron or to the coal harbour or western marinas, your options are cut through the seaplane area, or deal with the just as deadly tidal flow around Stanley park. This time of year there were likely multiple boats in the area and with takeoffs and landings every 30 seconds to a minute (between the seaplane terminal and helicopter pad) atc may not have the workload to point out every boat, but just the relevant ones and the pilot noticed another boat and noted it being clear
@@LewisTheFly888 Further to my other reply, the controller cautions the pilot about the "westbound" boat. The eastbound boat was not a factor. It is possible that the pilot only saw the eastbound one and surmised there was no conflict with it.
ive rented one of those hourly boats there with my credit card, , cruised around that whole area watched those float planes takeoff. Pretty cool, however, even as a tourist I have respect for what I don't know and I'm cautious of it. They (the rental company) give specific directions and warnings and track you via sat....., but, There is no cure for the lack of common sense.
The fact that the boat made no discernible attempt to alter course might indicate a lack of proper lookout and situational awareness. Never saw it coming! 😳
@@hotprop92 The rules say that the boat should not alter its speed or course. If it does, the pilot may not be able to react in time to accommodate the change. The boat had the right of way. The pilot wasn't looking out the window (or quite possibly didn't know his airplane that well by thinking he'd be able to lift off and go over top of it). Either way, the airline is going to have to fork out some lawsuit money.
@@toddw6716 Unfortunately, the boat driver should be at fault. My understanding of Canadian water right of way rules necessitates the craft that is most maneuverable to yield to the other vessels. Seaplanes are not very maneuverable on water, thus the boat should have given way. In addition, the boat should have been aware of the area they were entering, and should have been prepared for aircraft operating in the area.
@@wally7856This is true. However, a boat has much more drag in water compared to an aircraft. As such, the plane would have continued on for much longer than the boat.
Although I agree the boat captain seems likely inept, at the end of the day, the float plane take-off should have been delayed if there was any risk of collision, and rather, perhaps the boat is reported and the police issue a ticket. Stuff can happen, the boat could be out of control, the captain could be having a heart attack.. who the heck knows, we can't just assume that the path is always going to be clear and plow through.
Seems all three messed up: the control tower was sloppy in how the conveyed the warning; the airplane pilot apparently had no view of the water and didn't look ahead prior to starting takeoff; and the boater wasn't cautious about crossing the area and apparently wasn't watching at the time of the collision, otherwise he might have tried to get out of the way--there's no indication the boat even attempted to change course or speed or alert the airplane, even though they had clear sight of it.
We don’t allow passenger cars to drive across airport runways. This is a very busy float plane area similar to a commercial airport. Pleasure craft must avoid the area, and ATC must have “ground control” authority over any essential watercraft using this space.
I've been around this downtown area for decades. Most of the seaplanes are in the air real fast. Wondering if the pilot thought he'd be clear and above the boat by then: ALMOST. OOps.
When the Beaver throttles up for takeoff there is about ten seconds that the pilot needs to rely on side window visibility only and is only able to see ahead through the windscreen when the plane in on step. Unfortunate incident.
The pilot was informed about the boat, but did he see the RIGHT one if there are others in the general area? Boats have far more maneuverability than sea planes therefore the boater should have veered away. Of course that's only IF he was paying attention and saw the plane. Guess the best way to ensure safer operations in area Alpha is to put ropes with buoy's around it. Maybe have one or two openings on each side for boats to pass through when no aircraft are taking off or landing. Each opening for boats can have signs posted that boaters must ensure they remain alert for aircraft. The buoy's will then be a physical "snap out of your boating daydream" attention getter for them.
Victoria's inner harbour has police boats that chase pleasure boaters away from where seaplanes land. Many boaters don't realize the danger they're in when crossing the inner harbour.
With thousands of take offs and landings in that area how many incidents like this have happened? I know that on Lake Union in Seattle there is a similar blending of float planes and boats that averages 5 incidents a year.
It looks like the pilot either can't see forward while taking off or was looking at the instruments instead. The control tower mentioned the boat casually, as if expecting the pilot to see it.
As a 25ton master captain, the law states sea plane gives way to any vessel. However im also a private pilot, and that training says the plane has the right of way... both entities gotta get their rules straightened out because they do conflict.
Another 27 year Merchant Mariner here. He's correct. The plane must give way. Folks are arguing manuverability. Move a vessel 200 feet. How long will that take? Now, at speed, how fast does a float plane move 200'. Argue all day about visibility and manuverability. Law states the plane must give way. Rules of the road applies. ("Road" on the water. I always found that funny)
In normal boating rules the boat on the right is the stand on vessel. The operator was following that rule. When a plane is involved it must be a different set of rules.
In this case it was two boats, one with a propeller in the water and one with the propeller in the air. The COLREGs are the ones that is applicable in this case. The boater had the right to pass the area, he/she had to keep clear though. However when there is a risk of collision then the stand on vessel in this case is the boater ave the floatplane (boat until in the air) is the give away vessel. Both vessels are required to keep a sharp lookout at all times. Both guilty but heaviest burden will most likely be on the pilot.
A forward looking camera mounted on Sea Plane would provide forward visibility before seaplane gets up on step during takeoff. Pilots have moments of greatly reduced forward visibility.
Wonder what the experience level was on the pilot? There is a pilot shortage and less experienced pilots are now flying these aircraft compared to the past. Its up to the pilot to avoid boats, regardless of whether the boats should be there or not, regardless of whether being warned of a boat or not.
I’m not sure how the heck they’d put up legal or physical barriers when there’s a hell of a lot of dock space and a floating fuel barge that can only be accessed by transiting the area Relocating the float plane ops would make more sense though that has its own challenges
It would make more sense to have a dedicated boat channel marked with buoys, so boaters can have access to Coal Harbour and the fuel barge without cutting straight across what's really an active seaplane runway.
I just did the TC boat course/test through an online third party for like $28, it's not hard at all and I knew nothing about boating. I got one question wrong in the whole thing
100% Harbour Air pilot fault. You can never just assume your take off area is clear and fly blind. He should have seen that pleasure boat in the general area and waited. He likely assumed the boat would yield.
With reason, as the rule is who is coming from the right has priority unless the plane is in take off or landing phase - at the speed the plane was, it pushed it way before being able to see the boat, not to mention that in the take off phase the plane dashboard zaps everything that isn't high enough to be seen above (hence the priority reversal).
What do you mean “how it happened”? The boat wasn’t paying attention. The plane had the right of way. Planes can’t steer on floats like boats can. Keep boats out of water op areas.
It’s amazing to me that these planes are allowed to take off in an uncontrolled space. The issue is forward visibility is lost as the aircraft begins its run due to the nose up attitude until the floats level off
@@GWNorth-db8vn It’s a mixed use space. Watercraft need to cross in order to get to a number of marinas. And it’s uncontrolled. An example of controlled would be like what is done at airports in which every single takeoff and runway crossing must wait until cleared by the tower.
Tower Control saw the boat "crossing the runway", so to speak, but gave the "clear for takeoff" at pilots' discretion. That may have been a bad call by Tower Control... should have held the seaplane. The pilot cannot see the boat, look at the angle. Does tower control know pilots can't see downward during takeoff?
Listen again, the words “clear for takeoff” were not used. The controller here is not providing control services but only advisory services. The pilot was advised of the position and direction of movement of the boat and reminded takeoff is at pilot’s discretion. The pilot of the aircraft failed to yield to traffic crossing in front of him from his right which is maritime standard, as well as aviation standard.
@@dflyind Well described. Bear in mind that we are assuming that the boat did not change heading or speed between the advisory and the collision. Regardless of right-of-way rules, operators are expected to make all efforts to avoid collision, and if the boat changed to a collision course after the seaplane was "on the step", it's all on the boat operator: once a seaplane is hydroplaning, it can't turn or stop worth a darn.
@@dflyind The words "Takeoff Northwest at your discretion" cleared the pilot for takeoff. How would you misinterpret this? The tower should have held the airplane.
@thePersonGuise wrong. A take off your discretion puts the power in the pilots hand. It allows them to go, or wait (which he should have) then take off once clear. It's fine that you have no idea what advisory vs control is or clearances vs supplemental info, but stop talking on a subject you are clearly completely uninformed about lol. Anyone who works aviation knows this. It's the absolute basic level. Pre school stuff.
Im sure most thought the boat was at fault , and they were.Boaters should be aware of their areas, this was like a busy airport as it is a sea lane used for takeoff and landings for float planes
It is absolutely the fault of the harbor authority. If there is a restricted area, it must be clearly defined. It is open water. How in the world do you know you are in a restricted area?? They are just not smart enough to have the "runway" lined with buoys. A single buoy at the end means nothing.
A barrier would also be dangerous. If a plane in the process of taking off clips a barrier, it's going to look just like this. There's a reason there's a lot of flat area around runways.
@@DaisyDay.-pm2cf I was talking about planes. Small boats are often piloted by drunken morons who don't have any clue that there are even rules to boating, nothing will stop them.
Honestly someone needs to think of a way to add wheels to the plane, then find a long surface of land to use for takeoffs/landings. It'd be genius. That, or wheels on boats instead.
Upon seeing that video I find it very hard to believe that the pilot didn't see the boat well in advance with plenty of time to stop or change course. If the visibility from the cockpit is that bad then that plane type should be banned from flying at all or boats should be banned from the area.
Due to the nose high additude necessary for takeoff it's likely the pilot never saw the boat. I have no clue why the boat didn't see the plane, and even if the boat had the right of way (which I don't think it did in that area) it would be worthwhile to take note of the human food processor mounted on the front of the plane.
The plane with the angle of the body cannot see directly in front. The boater was the cause as he could obviously see and hear the plane or should have and still turned across in front of the plane.
The rules surrounding commercial floatplane operations is shockingly relaxed. You can't drive your car across the runway of an airport. Why should you be able to drive your boat across one?
I'm leaning towards this being the pilots fault. He was warned about the boat. He should be looking ahead for obstacles. It appears the boat had no idea the plane was coming because it was to their side and their most likely watching where they're going (in front of them). The boat has permission to be there also. Obviously more needs to be done to deconflict traffic. Perhaps the boats should contact tower for permission to cross the area.
Everyone is blaming the boater, I’m on the other side that pilot was warned about traffic, as well he must power down and give way if he is unable to complete take off. There was time to make the right decision. This is about maritime rules vs aviation rules. That exclusion area is a warning area not a restricted area. This is why we have airports
Yes the pilot was informed about the boater and should have exercised way more caution. They are both to blame but the pilot more since he was warned and is responsible for his passengers
The boat owers insurance company is cringing. It's amazing though, even in the wide open ocean boaters still manage to get in each others way. The boat captain obviously was not paying any attention.
I got my pleasure craft license a few years ago, and have piloted small watercraft. I have also flown on Harbour Air floatplanes. The boaters are 100% to blame for this incident, and I truly hope that Harbour Air sues them for everything they can, including the loss of their reputation due to this incident. I'm so glad everyone survived, but boy oh boy this could have been way worse and was 100% avoidable. I also wonder, were the boaters intoxicated? That is the only thing I can think of that could be an excuse... a crappy one, but an excuse nonetheless.
Typical incomplete reporting - Nothing about all the marinas to the West, or the fuel docks in the back ground. All in the direction the boat was heading. Nothing about boating regulations. His answer - no go zones and fines.
@bonanzaguy1 there is an exception. When a fkoatplane is "taxiing" and rhis can be seen on the Vancouver Harbour charts. There is an area just off the floatplane's wharfs that is not marked as restricted access to boaters. Complicating this exception would also be how would a boater or other floatplane operator know a floatplane is taxiing? That just comes down to experience and/or knowledge gained from local operation. Otherwise each should be cautious of the other!
The plane should not commence take off if there is an obstacle on its runway path. Plane is fast, boat is very slow relatively, to get out of the way. It is like to require fire truck to give way to the airplane on take off.
I mean... when landing in THEORY the plane could give way to the boat since, unless they are out of fuel, a go around is possible. In this situation tho, I think the pilot really did all that they could without endangering the aircraft further.
@@dmitripogosian5084 Planes are VERY unmaneuverable on take-off compared to a boat. Trying to turn an aircraft while still on the surface will result in loss of control... which could result in a cartwheel on the water... ie; serious injuries to passengers. The boat on the other hand can rapidly apply power to get out of the way. The key take away here is that the tower mentioned a boat was inbound, but not IN the advisory space at the time of clearance to take off. The pilot took off with the best available information. There was no way for them to know when the boat would be there as they were NOT advised on the boat's speed or if they were actually about to enter the Alpha.
May I presume that there is a way for boaters to ask permission to cross that area ? Or notifying the control tower of their intention to cross that area ?
I'd love to hear the opinion from an expert on maritime law about who is at fault here. This might be a more complex legal issue than it appears on the surface. I'm guessing the boat is at fault, but the pilot in command of that airplane has legal responsibilities too. Bad situation any way you go. I hate seeing that aircraft destroyed. Best wishes to all involved.
The pilot can’t see directly in front of the aircraft. Too bad the tower wasn’t watching the takeoff to warn the pilot. That’s something the ATC at an airport would have to do.
They should have marked floaters to indicate where the plane lands and restrick cross traffic. The issue is cities are being more populated and more planes more boats eventually you have this issue. Boaters should know better and be watching.
Both pilots, from the plane and the boat need to be brain scanned. Which ever one they conclude was at fault they both need to be tested for lack of common sense.
Boats should not be allowed to enter the area while seaplanes are operating also beaver aircrafts have a limited view in the front when taking off due to the size of the nose above the water the pilot probably didn’t see the boat because it was in his blind zone.
A float plane base that nice, used that much, and which has a control tower should have LOUD speakers posted around the perimeter of the lagoon. "Boaters: airplane taking off/landing. See and avoid. Aircraft have right-of-way."
Exactly how much power do these planes produce? A Cessna 172 produces 180 horsepower. Takeoff proceedures requiring too much runway, especially in a high traffic area should be investigated.
The areas are marked on navigation charts that warn boater to stay clear or be aware of planes taking off or landing. The other thing is constant bearing decreasing range, if you don’t know what that means you shouldn’t be navigating a boat.
There are no runways on the water. Therefore, this is a caution or an advisory area and mariners are still entitled to navigate there.
or a plane, both need to see and avoid, it's probably about a 60/40 thing. the aircraft probably had no line of sight at take off angle and right of way if there was any.
@@AndrewBurbo-zw6pf no line of sight with "nose up attitude" on take off run I agree, and if plane is on take off I would grant that itself full right of way
news reporter did fact checking and said boats are allowed to cross the area with caution, controller warned the pilot of the boat. why didn't he take heed to the warning?
@@AndrewBurbo-zw6pfCOLREGS Rule 18 addresses seaplane. Basically, seaplanes operating on the water shall, in general, keep well clear of all vessels and avoid impeding their navigation.
I checked the charts and it’s clearly marked as a seaplane area. The powerboat had time and power to avoid but did not make any changes.
but cant blame just the boat.. the seaplane has enough time also to abort the take off and just perform a high speed taxi at that speed the plane is fairly agile to avoid that boat but both of them didnt do anything to avoid a collision
And is far more manueverable!
@@TheRick2130 Seapanes are not maneuverable when they are in take-off orientation they can not make turns because they have a possibility of flipping, also with the nose up attitude the pilot is effectively blind especially with a radial powered aircraft like this one.
@@TheRick2130 A Seaplane in general, and a radial-engined plane in particular, has no forward visibility once it starts its takeoff run. The nose high attitude blocks the view completely.
That boat was directly ahead of the plane - while the pilot may have been advised that there was a boat in the area, it was in the one spot that he couldn't see it.
@@TheRick2130 Boat must give way to Floatplane. Pilot was given clearance with discretion - prior to takeoff roll, pilot would have [almost certainly] seen the boat, and it was not on takeoff zone 'runway' although was in Alpha. When pilot began takeoff, boat may have turned into take off zone. At which point pilot would not be able to see it.
"The vessel that is least maneuverable is the one that has the right of way," "When a floatplane is either landing or taking off, it cannot change its course. "So any other objects on the water have the responsibility to give way and to stay well clear."
COLRES 18(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.
@@brianokeefe7781 Gotta love all these rules and regulations. "on water" as opposed to takeoff/landing. And the catchall phrase "in general". Seems a lot of regulations cross into each other. Need to come directly to the point. Did a quick look up on right of way and there is power boat vs. power boat, power boat vs. sail, sail vs. sail. Then there is the shipping lanes. I wonder how big the Canada boating regulations book is. Insurance companies will be fighting each other on this. They may deem both sides at fault. Perhaps dedicated "runways on water". Wonder how long this incident will be a news story. Cheers.
@@garfieldsmith332 Exactly. Key words "in general." There's a difference between a sea plane transiting the water from A to B and one that is taking off or landing. Same as WIG vessels.
2004]
§ 91.115Right-of-way rules: Water operations.
(a) General. Each person operating an aircraft on the water shall, insofar as possible, keep clear of all vessels and avoid impeding their navigation, and shall give way to any vessel or other aircraft that is given the right-of-way by any rule of this section.
(b) Crossing. When aircraft, or an aircraft and a vessel, are on crossing courses, the aircraft or vessel to the other's right has the right-of-way.
@@JH-wd6dp 2004]
§ 91.115Right-of-way rules: Water operations.
(a) General. Each person operating an aircraft on the water shall, insofar as possible, keep clear of all vessels and avoid impeding their navigation, and shall give way to any vessel or other aircraft that is given the right-of-way by any rule of this section.
(b) Crossing. When aircraft, or an aircraft and a vessel, are on crossing courses, the aircraft or vessel to the other's right has the right-of-way.
Never assume a boater knows what he is doing as most have no clue.
Sad but true.
Yea! Vary few have a clue.
That's the real problem
Starboard on the right, port is in the cupboard.
That only applies to North America. The land of the moron.
I used to live in RedLake Ontario. I'd take my boat on the lake to go to IGA for groceries . It was a big float plane area, no traffic control. Always had to keep your eyes open.
Exactly, because locals know better. I noticed this boat driver was not trying very hard to get out of the way, so my only conclusion is that they were not local.
They actually do have ATC there and have had it since 1973. It's actually a record I think for the tallest control tower in the world still.
Geez, I hope you got a lot of groceries to make it cost-effective.
@@Lithonion1 tallest what now?
King Abdulaziz International Airport (JED), Saudi Arabia: 136m (446 feet)
Careless boater, it's not a small fast rocket but a loud and big enough airplane . Unlike the pilot's limited view, the boater had plenty view to avoid collision,
you'd hear it coming he haf time to get outta the way :-\
@@barfbaby Racist troll.
@@HarmonRAB-hp4nkif If that had been two boats in an uncontrolled area, that collided boat actually had right of way. But if that was a designated sea plane runway, as it does appear; boat driver is in big trouble.
@@Mightiflier This is actually not true. When on the water both are treated as watercraft and the more maneuverable "vessel" is responsible for avoiding the collision. So either way it's the boats fault for not keeping an eye out because that planed could have easily been another boat that he didn't see.
@@ImpendingJoker I appreciate your opinion. But here is the rule for two sea going vessels approaching at a perpendicular path: “Crossing. Here both vessels are approaching each other at perpendicular or oblique angles and expect to pass close to one another. The rules specify that the vessel which has the other on its starboard side must keep out of the way.” I didn’t make that rule up.
Appreciate the response from surrounding watercraft including the Seabus. Harks back to when Sully landed his plane in the Hudson. Surrounded by ferries and other craft within minutes.
I don't know the logistics of the harbour, but it seem silly to have boats operating in the area where planes are landing. We don't allow the public to drive across runways at airports.
Pilot at fault, when on the water it’s a boat not a plane and the one to the right has the right of way. Which was the boat.
Except at Gibraltar!
@@toddw6716 riiight the boat that was clearly speeding and clearly paying next to no attention in the middle of a high risk area definately isnt at fault. news flash those planes have very very little forward visability on a takeoff run and that boat was supposed to be restricted to 5kt cause its a no wake zone. also as the port officials have said themselves in interviews. right of way is the same towards the planes as it is a large commercial ship. meaning reguardless of who should have right of way its the rec crafts duty/responsibility to gtfo the planes way cause they can handle alot better.
also just my personal opinion. if you see a plane coming your way and choose the "lets get in the path of the spinning death blade" option you should automatically lose your boating liscense on gounds of being the dumbest person somehow still alive
@@Rocker-1234 pilot was aware and still took off. What kind of pilot would do that
How would you suggest boats transit to and from Coal Harbour? Also for commercial and pleasure traffic to get to and from the only floating gas station? Crappy reporter he obviously is not a boater or has not done his homework. Restrict the area from boat traffic ..... not possible.
"One tequila, two tequila, three tequila, floor.” - was possibly the boat captian's official statement. lol
a boat is maneuverable on water; a seaplane is not.
That doesn't mean a plane can take off and ram into the side of a boat. The plane fucked up
@@ManiacalMasterSpeculate much?
The boat had the right of way by maritime rules. The pilot especially a commercial pilot is held to a higher standard for following the rules. He was warned but chose not to listen, likely figuring he has right of way because he’s less maneuverable. This will be very interesting to see who’s going to be held accountable
(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.
same requirement, but a WIG and seaplane are 2 different things.
Not "Thank you, Mark", that's "check remarks" - it's an acknowledgment that he understood the remarks, specifically the call out for the boat.
Investigators will obviously question him - not only did he acknowledge - he then took off which confirms he heard it - had he read back ATC remarks - there would be no confusion on whether he heard or paid attention to the boat part of the remark - he certainly wasn't aware of where the boat was.
@@bizjets9128 I hope Captain Hazelwood is ok in the boat!
@@bizjets9128 investigators can figure out who was at fault, but the boat should not have been crossing the takeoff path of a seaplane in nose up attitude. I'm sure the pilot didn't see the boat until after the collision.
@@bizjets9128This is NOT an ATC person. It is a harbour information service. The aircraft, whilst on the water is no more than, albeit somewhat quick, a power driven vessel. The fact it has wings is of no consequence.
@@DB-thats-meFormer Papua New Guinea commercial pilot here - that's what I thought. It didn't sound like ATC and I've operated out of fields with many more aircraft than that without a tower but just air service advisory.
Boats are NOT supposed to be crossing that area where seaplanes are taking off. It’s clearly laid out in maritime charts which all boats are required to adhere to in this port area, no exceptions. Boater and/or his insurance company is going to fork out a lot of money in damages including hospital bills and more. How a boater can be so ignorant is beyond me … maybe he/she was from Florida and got confused ;)
You are wrong boats can transit thru the area. Hope you are not a boater.
"Captain Haulover"!
Boats are not required to have radios but in this area you should.
None radio boats usually huddle with boats that contact the tower for clearance to proceed under the lions gate bridge in this area.
The way I understand it, an airplane in the water follows same laws as boats; therefore, the boat being to the right actually had right-of-way.
@@dflyind Try taking that point between a BC Ferry and a pleasure boat. The LEAST maneuverable vessel has the right of way. And believe me, a float plane taking off has far less maneuverability, unless you like planes flipping over. Only with vessels of similar maneuverability does the vessel; to the right have "right-of-way".
So I live on Salt Spring Island and there is a dedicated seaplane lane for takeoff and landings, however boaters not familiar with Ganges Harbour often cross it at the wrong place. It’s not uncommon to have a plane lane or takeoff next to you and so long as both are in the correct area there is no problem
What I recall, is that in Victoria harbor the takeoff lane is marked with buoys which have lights that go off when plane is about to takeoff.
We entered Ganges once to see a boat drop his anchor in the seaplane lane!
@@dennislandstrom6904 not really surprised tbh!
You can see by the boats wake he was traveling straight ahead and turned right directly in front of the plane! Maybe he was blinded by the sun but he was definately at fault!
True - he saw the plane late. Turned intuitively to the right, which took him directly into plane path. The correct avoidance action was to turn towards the plane direction and pass just behind it. That takes brains and awareness. Two things that the boat skipper was bereft of
My issue with this is the following: it seems that the boat driver had sufficient time to go into reverse and get out of the way (fairly easily). Was he distracted? Couldn't he hear the loud plane coming? Something is just not adding up.
one million,350,000 on average die in car crashes world wide every year,millions more badly injured---> what's the big deal
@mtsky-tc6uw
Please remain calm.
He might’ve just had bad judgement in regards to time, speed and distance
@@michynature the plane might have, as well. those float planes are in the air real fast. windy day, other usual direction, ooops.
Go into reverse ? Last thing you do on the boat to get out of the way. Or should he sped up ?
How dumb does a boat skipper have to be.
Not as dumb as the pilot who drove right into him.
As dumb as the pilot, he was in the wrong.
@@drumswest5035 Unfortunately, the boat driver should be at fault. My understanding of Canadian water right of way rules necessitates the craft that is most maneuverable to yield to the other vessels. Seaplanes are not very maneuverable on water, thus the boat should have given way. In addition, the boat should have been aware of the area they were entering, and should have been prepared for aircraft operating in the area.
Pilot was dumber.
@@landonturley1582 and it was in a no boating area the boat wasnt supposed to be there and the pilot was warned also
The boat is in the wrong, and if it doesn’t know the rules of boating, then they should take a course, but there should be fines concerning this accident to the boaters.
Aren't you supposed to take a course and obtain a licence for boating now?
Alcohol is a factor in boating.
The boaters are going to get sued for a plane now
What was the speed of the boat and was the speed and directions of the boat changing a lot?
The float plane has no brakes and from the moment the engine starts the plane moves. Then a pilot needs to check all the systems very fast while taxing and starts accelerating, at this time the plane looks up and the pilot doesn’t not see a lot from below, after gaining the necessary speed for a takeoff, the plane jumps out and only then the pilot can see what is in front of the plane.
The pilot was cleared for a takeoff.
The workload on the pilot is huge during a takeoff and visibility is very limited so if you see a float plane in a restricted area during takeoff or landing -GIVE IT A WAY.
I am not trying to say who is guilty just trying to see the situation from pilot perspective
There is the tower which you should contact 118.4 even if you want to fly through their control zone and they ALWAYS clear a plane for a takoff.Vancouver Harbor Tower control zone is from SFC to 2500 feet and you need a permission to get there if you fly a plane.The tower can not control their control zone because the boats has no transponder and not all of them have the radio.
Now please do your own conclusions.
Totally agree. (Former float plane driver.)
From the video of the crash, it looks like the boat turned to starboard and became crossing traffic.
Strange report; The reporter stated almost immediately that no one on the plane was injured, yet waited until the report was essentially over before any mention of the health of the boat passengers.
Did that hurt your feelings. 😢
@@alelectric2767 I thought it was an odd bit of reporting too, nothing to do with feelings. Especially considering the way the plane impacted the boat. You didn't find it odd?
@@alelectric2767 the feck do feelings have to do about it
I noticed that right away. Especially since I feel it was the planes fault. He knew about the boat but the boat didn't know about the plane.
I think a crucial detail is that when float planes are taking off they can't actually see in front of them because they're pointed up at like a 30 degree angle right before they're about to take off
In the audio clip (which may have been trimmed) it seems the pilot did not read back the alert about the boat in the area - to acknowledge he heard the warning and wasn't momentarily distracted. I'm not blaming the controller - but I'm betting he will be reminded that in the future he should ask for readback of such traffic alerts.
And the alert itself did not sound . . . alerting? It was not a very clear warning.
Pilots rarely read back these sorts of things. It would take up too much time on frequency. No controller would every chase a pilot for a read back on something like this.
@@bronze5420 All I can say is they do in the Chicago / SE WI area that I mainly operate in. If you don't aknowledge a detail the controller reads to you as part of a movement operation - most will query you again. A few seconds of radio time can save lives.
You read back a clearance.
I think one solitary buoy marking the seaplane operating area is insufficient, multiple buoys and maybe a restricted area need to be employed. Hope everyone is safe, and future operations are safer.
Maritime laws and regulations put the responsibility on the boat owner to know what hazards are in a area via sea charts or gps and or off limit areas
I'm willing to bet that the "runway" is marked on nautical charts, IMHO, the boater should not have been there. Not like the float plane facility was erected last month, boaters in there area know about the float plane operations. The results of the investigation will probably recommend the float plane facility be moved. Wonder when something like this will make the news out of Victoria??
Yeah, from the original camera angle it looks like the boat is within the restricted area for seaplanes only that is bounded by the buoy/beacon. If so, boater is in deep doodoo.
As a boater in. Vancouver it is marked on charts.
It's marked on the charts, and it's generally unavoidable to pass through the area if you're heading to the floating Chevron or to the coal harbour or western marinas, your options are cut through the seaplane area, or deal with the just as deadly tidal flow around Stanley park. This time of year there were likely multiple boats in the area and with takeoffs and landings every 30 seconds to a minute (between the seaplane terminal and helicopter pad) atc may not have the workload to point out every boat, but just the relevant ones and the pilot noticed another boat and noted it being clear
Small boat users almost never have or see a nautical chart
@@LewisTheFly888 Maybe that should be changed then, no?
There were two boats. It's possible the pilot only spotted the one further to the right and acted accordingly.
I only see one boat in field. The other boat I see is close to docks well away and no where near the take off / landing zone?
@@LewisTheFly888 Further to my other reply, the controller cautions the pilot about the "westbound" boat. The eastbound boat was not a factor. It is possible that the pilot only saw the eastbound one and surmised there was no conflict with it.
@@canofanger Thanks. I did not see that one.
@@LewisTheFly888 I could be totally wrong - would be interesting to see some other opinions on this.
Wow I have travelled on these Harbour air flights before. Thank goodness the passengers and crew got out safely.
Was the owner of the boat a member of the Royal Vancouver Yacht club?
Could have been a tourist who rented the boat to go for a joyride.
@@jimmyzhao2673 or a boater from Coal Harbour marina. Did not look like a rental we see around here.
ive rented one of those hourly boats there with my credit card, , cruised around that whole area watched those float planes takeoff. Pretty cool, however, even as a tourist I have respect for what I don't know and I'm cautious of it. They (the rental company) give specific directions and warnings and track you via sat....., but, There is no cure for the lack of common sense.
Boat captian should be fined, they could of took the shore around a busy sea plane takeoff and landing sight.
Were those driving the boat local? It seems like they weren't trying to move out of the way of the plane. Hope everyone is okay.
The fact that the boat made no discernible attempt to alter course might indicate a lack of proper lookout and situational awareness.
Never saw it coming! 😳
As if pilot was fully aware, especially having been warned by the tower
SNAFU
You've never heard a seaplane takeoff before because the noise can wake the dead if you think the boat wasn't aware of an oncoming collision.
@@hotprop92 The rules say that the boat should not alter its speed or course. If it does, the pilot may not be able to react in time to accommodate the change. The boat had the right of way. The pilot wasn't looking out the window (or quite possibly didn't know his airplane that well by thinking he'd be able to lift off and go over top of it). Either way, the airline is going to have to fork out some lawsuit money.
Some just ignore the rules.
You can ignore the rules, but you can't ignore a huge plane coming at you on an intercept course.
You can turn a boat, faster then you can turn a plane, especially one that's attempting to take off
I bet you you can pull back throttles on both just as fast.
Pilot at fault
Boat has more drag and can turn much sharper.
@@toddw6716 Unfortunately, the boat driver should be at fault. My understanding of Canadian water right of way rules necessitates the craft that is most maneuverable to yield to the other vessels. Seaplanes are not very maneuverable on water, thus the boat should have given way. In addition, the boat should have been aware of the area they were entering, and should have been prepared for aircraft operating in the area.
@@wally7856This is true. However, a boat has much more drag in water compared to an aircraft. As such, the plane would have continued on for much longer than the boat.
Although I agree the boat captain seems likely inept, at the end of the day, the float plane take-off should have been delayed if there was any risk of collision, and rather, perhaps the boat is reported and the police issue a ticket.
Stuff can happen, the boat could be out of control, the captain could be having a heart attack.. who the heck knows, we can't just assume that the path is always going to be clear and plow through.
That's sad for everyone! Wow
1:02 i recreated this in BeamNG Drive a few minutes ago
Seems all three messed up: the control tower was sloppy in how the conveyed the warning; the airplane pilot apparently had no view of the water and didn't look ahead prior to starting takeoff; and the boater wasn't cautious about crossing the area and apparently wasn't watching at the time of the collision, otherwise he might have tried to get out of the way--there's no indication the boat even attempted to change course or speed or alert the airplane, even though they had clear sight of it.
The boat skipper is at fault the plane was to his right and he did not give way to the plane as per the laws in the harbour.
We don’t allow passenger cars to drive across airport runways. This is a very busy float plane area similar to a commercial airport. Pleasure craft must avoid the area, and ATC must have “ground control” authority over any essential watercraft using this space.
I've been around this downtown area for decades. Most of the seaplanes are in the air real fast. Wondering if the pilot thought he'd be clear and above the boat by then: ALMOST. OOps.
Should they close off the area? I don't know. Do they allow go karts to screw around on runways in between take offs?
When the Beaver throttles up for takeoff there is about ten seconds that the pilot needs to rely on side window visibility only and is only able to see ahead through the windscreen when the plane in on step. Unfortunate incident.
The pilot was informed about the boat, but did he see the RIGHT one if there are others in the general area? Boats have far more maneuverability than sea planes therefore the boater should have veered away. Of course that's only IF he was paying attention and saw the plane. Guess the best way to ensure safer operations in area Alpha is to put ropes with buoy's around it. Maybe have one or two openings on each side for boats to pass through when no aircraft are taking off or landing. Each opening for boats can have signs posted that boaters must ensure they remain alert for aircraft. The buoy's will then be a physical "snap out of your boating daydream" attention getter for them.
Victoria's inner harbour has police boats that chase pleasure boaters away from where seaplanes land. Many boaters don't realize the danger they're in when crossing the inner harbour.
With thousands of take offs and landings in that area how many incidents like this have happened? I know that on Lake Union in Seattle there is a similar blending of float planes and boats that averages 5 incidents a year.
one million,350,000 on average die in car crashes world wide every year,millions more badly injured---> what's the big deal
It looks like the pilot either can't see forward while taking off or was looking at the instruments instead. The control tower mentioned the boat casually, as if expecting the pilot to see it.
When a floatplane is taking off the nose points upward. Looking to the right will have limited visibility.
As a 25ton master captain, the law states sea plane gives way to any vessel. However im also a private pilot, and that training says the plane has the right of way... both entities gotta get their rules straightened out because they do conflict.
It's way easier to maneuver a boat than a departing seaplane , friendo.
Physics don't care about regulations. The regs need to comply with physics.
Please cite the rule that says sea plane has right of way on waterway?
Another 27 year Merchant Mariner here. He's correct. The plane must give way. Folks are arguing manuverability. Move a vessel 200 feet. How long will that take? Now, at speed, how fast does a float plane move 200'. Argue all day about visibility and manuverability. Law states the plane must give way. Rules of the road applies. ("Road" on the water. I always found that funny)
@@raychilcote5558Yes, that is correct. The pilot will most likely carry the most of the responsibility of this accident.
In normal boating rules the boat on the right is the stand on vessel. The operator was following that rule. When a plane is involved it must be a different set of rules.
In this case it was two boats, one with a propeller in the water and one with the propeller in the air. The COLREGs are the ones that is applicable in this case. The boater had the right to pass the area, he/she had to keep clear though. However when there is a risk of collision then the stand on vessel in this case is the boater ave the floatplane (boat until in the air) is the give away vessel. Both vessels are required to keep a sharp lookout at all times. Both guilty but heaviest burden will most likely be on the pilot.
A forward looking camera mounted on Sea Plane would provide forward visibility before seaplane gets up on step during takeoff. Pilots have moments of greatly reduced forward visibility.
Wonder what the experience level was on the pilot? There is a pilot shortage and less experienced pilots are now flying these aircraft compared to the past. Its up to the pilot to avoid boats, regardless of whether the boats should be there or not, regardless of whether being warned of a boat or not.
I’m not sure how the heck they’d put up legal or physical barriers when there’s a hell of a lot of dock space and a floating fuel barge that can only be accessed by transiting the area
Relocating the float plane ops would make more sense though that has its own challenges
It would make more sense to have a dedicated boat channel marked with buoys, so boaters can have access to Coal Harbour and the fuel barge without cutting straight across what's really an active seaplane runway.
@@chiy828 doubt there was a chart aboard that boat.
Probably a credit card captain in the boat
I just did the TC boat course/test through an online third party for like $28, it's not hard at all and I knew nothing about boating. I got one question wrong in the whole thing
FYI ALL pilots have credit cards and friends and they even have their own cars!
who does these transcripts?
Simple question: why didn’t the tower (which has excellent and full visibility) advise pilot to HOLD until the boat had passed?
How did this boat not see the plane and why was he even there!
Or hear it? That seaplane bearing down on that boat had to be incredibly loud
earbuds....maybe?
100% Harbour Air pilot fault. You can never just assume your take off area is clear and fly blind. He should have seen that pleasure boat in the general area and waited. He likely assumed the boat would yield.
With reason, as the rule is who is coming from the right has priority unless the plane is in take off or landing phase - at the speed the plane was, it pushed it way before being able to see the boat, not to mention that in the take off phase the plane dashboard zaps everything that isn't high enough to be seen above (hence the priority reversal).
What do you mean “how it happened”?
The boat wasn’t paying attention. The plane had the right of way. Planes can’t steer on floats like boats can.
Keep boats out of water op areas.
boat wasnt supposed to be there and the pilot was warned
No reason either captain couldn't see the other, both at fault IMHO.
It’s amazing to me that these planes are allowed to take off in an uncontrolled space.
The issue is forward visibility is lost as the aircraft begins its run due to the nose up attitude until the floats level off
It's a controlled space for the planes.
@@GWNorth-db8vn It’s a mixed use space. Watercraft need to cross in order to get to a number of marinas. And it’s uncontrolled. An example of controlled would be like what is done at airports in which every single takeoff and runway crossing must wait until cleared by the tower.
Tower Control saw the boat "crossing the runway", so to speak, but gave the "clear for takeoff" at pilots' discretion. That may have been a bad call by Tower Control... should have held the seaplane. The pilot cannot see the boat, look at the angle. Does tower control know pilots can't see downward during takeoff?
Listen again, the words “clear for takeoff” were not used. The controller here is not providing control services but only advisory services. The pilot was advised of the position and direction of movement of the boat and reminded takeoff is at pilot’s discretion. The pilot of the aircraft failed to yield to traffic crossing in front of him from his right which is maritime standard, as well as aviation standard.
@@dflyind Well described. Bear in mind that we are assuming that the boat did not change heading or speed between the advisory and the collision. Regardless of right-of-way rules, operators are expected to make all efforts to avoid collision, and if the boat changed to a collision course after the seaplane was "on the step", it's all on the boat operator: once a seaplane is hydroplaning, it can't turn or stop worth a darn.
@@dflyind The words "Takeoff Northwest at your discretion" cleared the pilot for takeoff. How would you misinterpret this? The tower should have held the airplane.
@thePersonGuise wrong. A take off your discretion puts the power in the pilots hand. It allows them to go, or wait (which he should have) then take off once clear.
It's fine that you have no idea what advisory vs control is or clearances vs supplemental info, but stop talking on a subject you are clearly completely uninformed about lol. Anyone who works aviation knows this. It's the absolute basic level. Pre school stuff.
Im sure most thought the boat was at fault , and they were.Boaters should be aware of their areas, this was like a busy airport as it is a sea lane used for takeoff and landings for float planes
pilots fault. He ignored the warning about the boat
This is a better video than the one I watched on Saturday evening. I was in the aquarium watching the sea lions being fed when this accident happened.
davidb3172
Ten minutes before the crash, sea lions were seen leaving the area.
set out markers where the planes take off and land. regular runways have lights and markers everywhere.
Why has there been no info about the boaters and charges laid against them???
It is absolutely the fault of the harbor authority. If there is a restricted area, it must be clearly defined. It is open water. How in the world do you know you are in a restricted area?? They are just not smart enough to have the "runway" lined with buoys. A single buoy at the end means nothing.
The boat appeared to be inside the float plane zone !!!
So ? This by itself is not disallowed
Boats shouldn't be allowed in the active Runway. There needs to be a Barrier put up To prevent Boaters from Crossing that area.
one million,350,000 on average die in car crashes world wide every year,millions more badly injured---> what's the big deal
A barrier would also be dangerous. If a plane in the process of taking off clips a barrier, it's going to look just like this. There's a reason there's a lot of flat area around runways.
@@DaisyDay.-pm2cf I was talking about planes.
Small boats are often piloted by drunken morons who don't have any clue that there are even rules to boating, nothing will stop them.
Honestly someone needs to think of a way to add wheels to the plane, then find a long surface of land to use for takeoffs/landings. It'd be genius. That, or wheels on boats instead.
Upon seeing that video I find it very hard to believe that the pilot didn't see the boat well in advance with plenty of time to stop or change course. If the visibility from the cockpit is that bad then that plane type should be banned from flying at all or boats should be banned from the area.
Due to the nose high additude necessary for takeoff it's likely the pilot never saw the boat. I have no clue why the boat didn't see the plane, and even if the boat had the right of way (which I don't think it did in that area) it would be worthwhile to take note of the human food processor mounted on the front of the plane.
Pilots have the right of way in these circumstances. Boats are much more maneuverable on water that float planes..
The plane with the angle of the body cannot see directly in front. The boater was the cause as he could obviously see and hear the plane or should have and still turned across in front of the plane.
The rules surrounding commercial floatplane operations is shockingly relaxed. You can't drive your car across the runway of an airport. Why should you be able to drive your boat across one?
Sure you can as long as you have business there and its cleared by the tower.
@@bobsmith3983 Ok, so that pleasure craft had business there? Did it have direct radio comms with the tower? Other aircraft? No.
I'm leaning towards this being the pilots fault. He was warned about the boat. He should be looking ahead for obstacles. It appears the boat had no idea the plane was coming because it was to their side and their most likely watching where they're going (in front of them).
The boat has permission to be there also.
Obviously more needs to be done to deconflict traffic. Perhaps the boats should contact tower for permission to cross the area.
Everyone is blaming the boater, I’m on the other side that pilot was warned about traffic, as well he must power down and give way if he is unable to complete take off. There was time to make the right decision. This is about maritime rules vs aviation rules. That exclusion area is a warning area not a restricted area. This is why we have airports
Yes the pilot was informed about the boater and should have exercised way more caution. They are both to blame but the pilot more since he was warned and is responsible for his passengers
Perhaps, forward facing video might help pilots see what's in the blind area in front of these planes when taking off.
Mayday TV producers: *WRITE THAT DOWN WRITE THAT DOWN!*
The boat owers insurance company is cringing. It's amazing though, even in the wide open ocean boaters still manage to get in each others way. The boat captain obviously was not paying any attention.
The air traffic control tower should have been more alert to the boat in the area also and could have warned the pilot sooner🤷🏻♂️
Beavers are not exactly quiet when they are accelerating to take off. All the boater had to do was turn and slow down.
The warning was substantially before it was shown in the video lol. It was before the pilot even began to accelerate.
I got my pleasure craft license a few years ago, and have piloted small watercraft. I have also flown on Harbour Air floatplanes. The boaters are 100% to blame for this incident, and I truly hope that Harbour Air sues them for everything they can, including the loss of their reputation due to this incident. I'm so glad everyone survived, but boy oh boy this could have been way worse and was 100% avoidable. I also wonder, were the boaters intoxicated? That is the only thing I can think of that could be an excuse... a crappy one, but an excuse nonetheless.
I hear HARD DRUGS are legal in VANCOUVER 🧐🧐🧐
I hear you never graduated from high school.
All hard drugs: heroin, LSD, cocaine, fentanyl etc are legal in BC in small quantities and as long as you are not making or selling them.
yes, it's true.
It's usually alcohol which contributes to boneheaded decisions from boat captains. Usually one too many beers
Typical incomplete reporting - Nothing about all the marinas to the West, or the fuel docks in the back ground. All in the direction the boat was heading. Nothing about boating regulations. His answer - no go zones and fines.
There are no circumstance where an airplane gives way to a boat. The boat must always give way to an airplane.
The less maneuverable vessel is the stand-on. The plane, obviously.
@bonanzaguy1 there is an exception. When a fkoatplane is "taxiing" and rhis can be seen on the Vancouver Harbour charts. There is an area just off the floatplane's wharfs that is not marked as restricted access to boaters.
Complicating this exception would also be how would a boater or other floatplane operator know a floatplane is taxiing? That just comes down to experience and/or knowledge gained from local operation. Otherwise each should be cautious of the other!
The plane should not commence take off if there is an obstacle on its runway path. Plane is fast, boat is very slow relatively, to get out of the way. It is like to require fire truck to give way to the airplane on take off.
I mean... when landing in THEORY the plane could give way to the boat since, unless they are out of fuel, a go around is possible. In this situation tho, I think the pilot really did all that they could without endangering the aircraft further.
@@dmitripogosian5084 Planes are VERY unmaneuverable on take-off compared to a boat. Trying to turn an aircraft while still on the surface will result in loss of control... which could result in a cartwheel on the water... ie; serious injuries to passengers. The boat on the other hand can rapidly apply power to get out of the way. The key take away here is that the tower mentioned a boat was inbound, but not IN the advisory space at the time of clearance to take off. The pilot took off with the best available information. There was no way for them to know when the boat would be there as they were NOT advised on the boat's speed or if they were actually about to enter the Alpha.
Language clipped in both instances. No specific acknowledgement as to the warning , nor a repeat.
How could the boat not see what was happening?
May I presume that there is a way for boaters to ask permission to cross that area ? Or notifying the control tower of their intention to cross that area ?
NO
@@surf2257 ought there be ?
Keep boats off the water airport operations area. Vary simple. It would be like allowing general public cars on airport runways.
I'd love to hear the opinion from an expert on maritime law about who is at fault here. This might be a more complex legal issue than it appears on the surface. I'm guessing the boat is at fault, but the pilot in command of that airplane has legal responsibilities too. Bad situation any way you go. I hate seeing that aircraft destroyed. Best wishes to all involved.
The pilot can’t see directly in front of the aircraft. Too bad the tower wasn’t watching the takeoff to warn the pilot. That’s something the ATC at an airport would have to do.
They should have marked floaters to indicate where the plane lands and restrick cross traffic. The issue is cities are being more populated and more planes more boats eventually you have this issue. Boaters should know better and be watching.
How did the boater not see and hear the plane coming? I'd sure like to hear what the boater has to say.
Both pilots, from the plane and the boat need to be brain scanned. Which ever one they conclude was at fault they both need to be tested for lack of common sense.
What are the new details? I didn’t hear any
Boats should not be allowed to enter the area while seaplanes are operating also beaver aircrafts have a limited view in the front when taking off due to the size of the nose above the water the pilot probably didn’t see the boat because it was in his blind zone.
Pilot received a conditional clearance but did not read back.
Boat driver did not look for traffic.
1+1= collision
A float plane base that nice, used that much, and which has a control tower should have LOUD speakers posted around the perimeter of the lagoon. "Boaters: airplane taking off/landing. See and avoid. Aircraft have right-of-way."
Tell the boat to stay out of the flight lane.
The Port Authority already uses the term "avoid"
I'd like to take a moment to tell a story about myself and offer a completely uninformed yet hardline opinion on the story. Internet commenting 101.
"Never happen again..." Where have we heard that before????
Exactly how much power do these planes produce? A Cessna 172 produces 180 horsepower. Takeoff proceedures requiring too much runway, especially in a high traffic area should be investigated.
Theres no way the pilot would have seen that boat with the plane staring to gain lift. Also he would be watching his speed so he knew when to rotate.