Juan, I fly a beaver commercially in one of the busiest boat traffic vs float plane traffic areas in Canada. the visibility is not that bad. The visibility when taxiing vs on the step is pretty much the same. This pilot was on the step a long time and could have step taxied around the boat, rejected the takeoff, or done literally anything else other than run the boat over. Even if you think you’re in a boat free area you need to be looking for things to hit. And then not hit them. Whether the pilot was right wrong or indifferent I think this should not have happened. And for anyone reading this that thinks the pilot was right, imagine going to your bosses desk after you get out of the hospital. What do you say? I didn’t see him there? I did see him but I thought he’d move? Give me another airplane please. Not good explanations or excuses whatever you want to call them.
Don't you think this also could have been a situation of ego's neither refused to change course? How could it be possible the pilot not seen that boat right in front of him, and the boater would hear the loud prop noise. Very lucky no one was hit by that prop if it turns out to be the pilots fault he should lose his ticket for doing that.
As teenagers, my cousin and I were out in a canoe when we saw a float plane taking off in our general direction. Needless to say, we gave way. We didn't pause to consider right of way, nor visibility issues, nor exactly how close it would come. We just paddled like all hell was behind us! 😂
Same. We kayak in Departure Bay, which is busy with seaplanes, ferries, sailboats and powerboats. We stick close to shore, but sometimes we need to cross areas and you need to time it, watch for planes and ferries and paddle like crazy to get out of the potential path before trouble occurs. I don't care if I have right-of-way if a plane or ferry can't see me and is heading right toward me.
Canoes do not come under regulations as they are not vessels, they are personal watercraft. Vancouver harbor has banned operating personal watercraft within their boundaries.
@@Glen-uy4jt I think the point was that they valued their safety over who had the right to be where, not the classification of the "vessel". If either the operator of the boat, the pilot, or both knew of their proximity to the other, they both should have been willing to take steps to avoid a collision regardless of who legally had to right of way. Filing a report or complaint about rules not being followed, or amending such rules to come more in line with the actuality of situations when it's found that they do not adequately cover them, or work in the best interests of those potentially involved is much easier if you haven't been run over by a boat or seaplane. Not to mention, it's not just you as a pilot, or operator/captain of the boat you have to consider, but the passengers of both vessels. If you're willing to sacrifice yourself to prove some point, others should not have to suffer the consequences.
Great analysis, thanks. I'm a US Coml, IFR, ASEL/ASES rated pilot and also a retired crash injury lawyer. The maritime ROW categories are not exclusive; a vessel can be in more than one category at a time, as you stated. But any given vessel is entitled to be assigned the highest ROW priority category into which it fits at a given moment. So, the Beaver was both a vessel under motor power (lowest priority), and a vessel with limited maneuverability (a mich higher priority) during the time it was accelerating nose-up and climbing onto the step on its takeoff run. For the same reason that a small outboard runabout should yield ROW to a large cargo ship, the Beaver had ROW here. Another factor I rarely see mentioned is speed. The boater may have thought they were not on a collision course because he may have felt he could have gone completely and safely across the Beaver's path before the Beaver got to where their courses would intersect. But the boater probably failed to consider that an airplane on a takeoff run is NOT traveling at the speed of a typical fast motorboat, say 20 to 30 knots, but two to three times that fast. I have also seen that fatal calculus play into many T-bone motorcycle crashes, where the driver of a crossing vehicle entering from a side road thought he had plenty of room and plenty of time to get across the lane occupied by an oncoming motorcycle on the main highway, but was unaware that the motorcycle was traveling 80 or 90 mph in a 40 or 50 mph zone. In the bike case, it was the cyclist who broke the law by speeding, and it was not unreasonable for the motorist to try to cross, based on what he expected the speed of highway traffic to be. In this case, it was unreasonable (based just on the info you provided) for the boater to try to cross the Beaver's takeoff path. Had he throttled back for just 30 seconds or so, and watched the Beaver take off, he could have proceeded on his way with virtually no delay, and a fine airshow takeoff on top of it.
I don’t think the boater was trying to cross the plane’s path. I think he/she simply lacked situational awareness given various distractions (possibly including socializing, loud music, alcohol, cell phone etc) I also think the float plane pilot failed to notice the boat before committing to take off roll.
That plane was not limited in it's maneuverability. It could speed up, slow down, turn left and turn right. For a vessel to be limited in maneuverability it must be mechanically damaged or meet the following criteria and it must display proper lighting stating it is in limited maneuverability mode: (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 mineclearance 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.
I’m on the side of ‘If you can’t judge the speed of another vehicle, maybe you shouldn’t be on the road’. Speeding doesn’t alter right-of-way law. Yes, they are breaking the law by speeding, but they still have right-of-way.
Hi, thanks. Most US states apply a comparative negligence rule, with the jury assigning percentages of fault to the various participants in a crash. Rarely is anyone entirely NOT at fault. Speeding just a little bit over the limit, I would agree with you, should not affect that person having the right of way. But with these T-bone motorcycle crashes, we were talking about speeds double or triple the posted limit. The duty of the crossing driver is to yield to oncoming cross traffic that he reasonably should perceive to be within a zone of danger if the crossing vehicle were to make its maneuver in front of the oncoming vehicle, instead of yielding, sure. But if the vehicle on the favored boulevard is a full block away, and if the crossing driver knows that he would have more than enough time to safely cross before the favored driver even got close IF the favored driver were doing the speed limit (or a little above), it is not negligent to conclude it is safe to cross. The real question is, at what point of combined distance and presumed speed of the approaching favored vehicle does the crossing vehicle have to conclude "it's too dangerous" and wait to yield until the favored vehicle has passed? Most sensible "defensive drivers" would argue, "when in doubt, WAIT," but the point is, even a careful crossing driver may misjudge that decision point without being negligent if the oncoming motorcycle is both tiny compared to a car or truck (and therefore LOOKS farther away) and traveling at 3 TIMES the speed limit.
Very interesting that Juan referred to Sal here. It so happened that in Sal’s latest video on the “stuck at max throttle in Charleston”, he mentioned Juan by name. This makes me very happy.
Yep....Juan's a gent....we took a Delta flight from Atlanta to Tampa on Saturday...a 75....thought of Juan being in the Right Seat even though he's an American Airlines aviator.
Always treat boaters as if they’re trying to kill you. When I was getting my float rating in Canada, the discussion was really “legal” vs practical. It doesn’t matter who legally has the right to be there except for who gets the blame afterwards. Boaters, especially pleasure craft, are notorious for being unpredictable and not following the rules. They’ll turn in front of you when you least expect it. I’ve had plenty of seadoos try to race me on the water.
I haven't had seadoos try to race me because I've never been on the water, but I had a red tail hawk join off my right wing flying downwind at my home airport. I have to say the red tail hawk displayed nothing but professionalism.
Anyone can buy a boat and “go boating”. The stuff I’ve seen while on the water is everything from stupid or ignorant to downright reckless and dangerous. It’s worse up (PNW) here during the summer.
@@major__kongHang glider pilot here. Red-tailed hawks are quite skilled and have a broad airspeed and sink-rate envelope. Their minimum sink speed in still air is about 250 ft / min, and their best glide appears to be about 12 to 1. They rack up airtime faster than most human pilots, and since their airframe doesn’t have any autopilot functionality, all of their hours are hand-flown.
I’m seaplane rated. On Lake Union in Seattle there are 5 buoys with flashing lights. If the lights start flashing boaters are to move 200 feet away. SEATTLE - From Memorial Day to Labor Day, five advisory buoys will flash in Lake Union when seaplanes are set to take off or land, advising boaters and paddlers to move 200 feet east or west for safety reasons. The Recreational Boating Association of Washington (RBAW) launched the "Mind the Zone" campaign in 2022 to inform paddlers and boaters about the guidance and says pilots reported people moving away more quickly last summer. They hope this summer to continue the education process, especially as more new people hit the water. Lake Union has a lot of seaplane traffic. Sounds like this idea should be implemented in Vancouver.
I have operated a large power boat on Lake Union for 27 years and am also a pilot. I love the floatplanes but am not a fan of the buoys. On a busy day on the lake there are several hundred power boats, kayaks, sailboats, and paddle boards on the lake, most of which are adrift. From the time the lights on the buoys are activated by a pilot approaching to land, there is only about one minute until touchdown. Only a small fraction of the boats will notice the lights at all, let alone have time to power up and get out of the way. The buoys are 500 feet apart and the zone they define (assuming 200 feet both directions) takes up a huge chunk of the middle of the lake (2000x400 feet). In the 5 years the buoys have been present I have seen thousands of landings on the lake, not one of which was facilitated by or made safer by the buoy system. Instead, the very capable pilots find the best possible spot to land - very often not near the buoys, and land with plenty of clearance from boats. As the video point out, the pilot's visibility is restricted on take-off for several seconds before the aircraft comes up "on-step". That is why the pilot MUST be assured that their takeoff path is clear BEFORE they throttle up and be prepared to abort the takeoff immediately once up on step and visibility improves. Simply put, the floatplanes pilots are ENTIRELY responsible for avoiding everyone else while taking off or landing. Lake Union is a busy mixed use public resource - both recreational and commercial. During times that it is too crowded to facilitate safe floatplane operations, those operations should cease.
That is a great idea. Here in Eastern WA, we are so used to planes on water meaning fire planes, we rush to get out of the way for them. As someone who grew up boating with the rules, smaller power craft within the powercraft class everything else being equal give way to bigger- jet skis get nothing- unless they are literally to the right. Common sense says boat was wrong. They had more control. They could literally turn on a dime.
Be careful. These are "Advisory" only. As a boat, I don't have to move, I can stand my ground. They tell people to be advised that there is an incoming aircraft. Don't expect anybody to move, especially sailboats on Tuesdays. Seattle owns these, and has no control over the water rules themselves, and are complete unenforceable. There is a 7MPH limit on the lake, your incoming speed is 80MPH, we couldn't even move out if you clicked your mike 5-7 times if we wanted. (also a pilot, motor boat, and sailboat user on Lake Union)
I flew my floatplane out of Kenmore, WA for many years. It's probably the busiest floatplane harbor in the lower 48, but has the bad luck of having an estuary right next to it that has a public boat launch. Boaters, jet skiers, and paddle boarders come out of the estuary perpendicular to the take-off/landing area and freely intermix with the private and commercial floatplane operations. It's nothing short of a miracle that no one has been killed there - yet. I had jet skiers race up alongside me as I touched down, then turn sharply to spray me and zip away laughing, raising a beer bottle or a middle finger, or both. Never underestimate the stupidity of a boater - and I'm also a boater. And Juan, you're right! You should definitely get a float rating. It's a hoot! One one trip, at my 12-year-old son's request, we flew the entire trip (over the water) back from the San Juans to Kenmore at 50' AGL. I've never felt more like a bird.
You don't need a float plane to fly 50' above the water. My dad liked to tell of the time when he was in the Navy, and they flew him and several other personnel from San Diego to San Francisco. Before they took off, they made everyone put on parachutes. Then they flew 50' above the water the entire way. This was during the Korean War.
Water Rudders are retracted for take off and landing. In the event of a rejected takeoff you’re only going to have rudder authority until you can get them dropped back down. It’s going to cost you a case of beer if you’re caught taking off or landing with water rudders down.
As a frequent boater in NH Lakes with floatplanes around, I’ve been of the opinion that I’m always the give way vessel vs the plane all due to my assumption they have very limited mobility. Plus those boating rules always dictate that if you’re unsure you must assume you’re the give way vessel.
Was on my cabin cruiser in Coal Harbor nearby when the accident occurred (though did not actually witness it). Always navigating this restricted stretch of water in summer, and as a former pilot, ALWAYS check and give those floats planes absolute right of way. Every now and then a boat will cruise straight through that zone oblivious to the danger. Surprised this is the first in my life time it's happened.
There appears to be a second watercraft visible between the one involved in the incident and the light based on the first clip. Possible the pilot heard the tower warning, picked out the #2 watercraft that appears to be moving away from the takeoff path, and either never saw #1 due to the forward blind spot or never looked for additional obstructions.
I’m not a pilot but I do have 50 years of sailboat experience and I wholly agree with your comments about ALL vessels, including seaplanes. Most yachties know the international rules for ALL vessels - the boat on the right has right of way but you get out of the way of vessels with limited ability to manoeuvre. And when you have priority under the rules you do not assert it mindlessly in risky situations. Many powerboaters do not appear to know these rules and seem to believe they can navigate wherever they wish - there is plenty of history of collisions. However, I agree that it is not obvious where the blame attaches in this incident.
I live in the towers facing coal harbour and am looking at Burnaby shoal light right now . I count 3 pleasure craft one commercial ferry a freighter anchored in the channel 2 large Alaska cruise ships just departing and a couple of Harbour air scheduled flights landing across the harbour from the Stanley park side On a busy weekend it can be nuts out there, throw in some casual untrained pleasure boaters and something was bound to happen The good thing is no fatalities reported so far The bottom line in my nautical trading is to avoid a collision if you can as you can be just as dead right as wrong Keep up the great information and analysis 😢
I'm also in Coal Harbour and fly harbour air often. That was a rental boat with most likely an inexperienced boater. You're right the harbour is wild in summer.
You're describing all the vessels you can see out your window, but how many vessels are actually within the charted aircraft operations zone? I'm guessing none of the pleasure boats, and certainly not the ferry, freighter or cruise ships. You may as well count all the seagulls, because they're just as relevant to your point.
As a boat owner/skipper, of a 19' runabout, it's always always head on a swivel! Identify and avoid. I try to maintain at least 100 yards between me and other vessels. I don't care who is the stand on vessel, I assume that all other skippers are some level of intoxicated. That's just the way it is. PWC operators are often a menace to navigation; very dangerous. Many boats also suffer from limited visibility when they accelerate from a dead stop. Their bows rise just like the sea planes nose does and the skippers can't see anything in front of them either. Add sun in their eyes and they are even more blind and dangerous. That being said, I love being on the water. Once I got to see a Super Scooper drop down and fill it's tank then climb up and over the dam at Castaic Lake. That was exciting. Thank you Juan. R, Steve
@@swerne01 YES! That's because I see them drinking beer and hard liquor right out in the open! Always go wide around a point. They come blasting out of five mile per hour zones towing skiers. Just really dangerous. R, Steve
Just a note for all of the commenters saying, “forget the COLREGS, just avoid a collision.” Of course taking action to avoid a collision is part of the “rules of the road” (COLREGS). However, operators knowing which vessel is stand-on and which is give-way is a critical part of collision avoidance. Why? Because if both vessels take late action to avoid, they may both turn right into each other.
Right, but the boat still cut off a seaplane who was taking off. Seaplane had clear room for takeoff, and this boat stupidly cut off a seaplane who was actively taking off. COLREGS don't tell you that as long as you aren't the give way vessel, that you are allowed to speed in front of other vessels and cut them off.
Yes, that’s correct but underplays the ultimate and overriding principle of safety in maritime operations, which is as you say that all vessel operators have a duty to avoid collision and risk to vessel, life and limb, at all times. Even if you are the stand-on vessel, you still have that duty and if avoiding imminent collision entails altering your speed or course in any manner whatsoever, so be it. Whatever you do in that emergency circumstance should be done with deliberately obvious intention, such that your change of course or speed cannot be misconstrued. In other words, for instance, if possible and you are helming a manoeuvrable vessel such as was involved in this incident, don’t deviate by 2 degrees, deviate by 90 degrees or 180 degrees. Don’t tease the throttle, accelerate rapidly or crash stop and reverse to make your intention clear and achieve maximum separation. As I’ve said elsewhere, it is difficult to quote COLREGS from a pine box buried 6’ under. Better to live to shake your fist at the cause of your rudely interrupted passage once the danger has passed. In this case it seems that the boat’s skipper was charged with DUI following the incident so I think it’s reasonable to assume that his decision making capacity was to some degree impaired. That does not, however, exonerate the pilot who seems to have failed to maintain adequate lookout. Whatever the final analysis, I’m just astonished that everyone survived.
I lived on Lake Union, in Seattle, and we have 3 seaplane companies operating there; Kenmore Air, Seattle Seaplane, and Canadian-owned and operated Harbor Air. There is no "tower" on the lake. I sailed a sailboat, and always gave the right-of-way to the floatplanes. But power boaters are another breed and usually have little situational awareness. A floatplane is a vessel (boat) until it's off the water. However, a floatplane also has a limited ability to maneuver or stop and limited visibility on take-off and should have the right-of-way. Floatplanes are very very loud on takeoff. There is NO way the boat didn't hear it. With the responsibility of all parties to avoid a collision, I would blame the power boater.
The videos of landing at Lake Union are absolutely mental. I've flown in and out of there before and that lake gets so busy in the summer. In this incident in Vancouver the water was relatively deserted compared to what Lake Union can be like.
'should have the right of way due to lack of visibility' runs into the issue that, even if boaters were to know and obey the rules, they do not know about the lack of visibility.
Legally speaking Rule 15 says the seaplane is the give way vessel. We've both sailed on Lake Union and I was taught early as a courtesy to stay out of the way of the seaplanes. I also know that regardless of all other rules you have a duty to avoid a collision if the give-way boat fails to give way, and obviously the power boater didn't do that. But the seaplane had the first responsibility to give way under the COLREGs and failed to do so. Are you a total idiot to not then evade and yourself violating Rule 8 of the COLREGs? Heck yes. But the seaplane, legally, had the first duty to give way.
I live here. There are planes coming or going from that patch of water constantly. Any local yokel with or without a boat should know that's a place that float planes operate. You can't possibly have been to the harbour area without noticing. I have no idea who has right of way, but both parties need to do better.
Lived there over the Harbour for decades. Wondering if the pilot was a new kid on the block as these planes are usually in the air FAST. though he could be in the air by boat time. He WAS. Just not QUITE high enough. if that's the story, he's looking at a really BAD day.
@@user-zf3xb3qx8wi agree ive boated in that area for years and was told by other seaplane pilots that the rookies fly on the weekends. It looks like he was heavy as he should of been airborn way before he hit the boat.
@@drumswest5035 The plane being heavy was my hunch as well. I've got a nagging feeling the operator saw the boat and thought they would clear it. Number 1 rule of seaplane is that boats can't be trusted. Number 2 rule of seaplane is to refer to rule number 1.
Having been a passenger in commercial float planes several times. In one case the pilot had a grab handle fitted to the wind above his head and he pulled himself up and took a really good look just as he put the power on, in another case (in a beaver) the pilot held the door open for the start of the run and again made really sure the water was clear. This 2nd case very also a congested harbour and the plane operator had their own look out double checking.
I used to sail pretty regularly in Vancouver. Ultimately the most important rule is to stay clear of vessels with limited maneuverability. A seaplane clearly has limited maneuverability. If you see one in motion even once, whether it's landing, taking off, or taxiing, you know this. Here's an example: We were racing once in in a big championship in Vancouver. A freighter drove through the race course. I changed course so I could always see the bridge of the freighter. A bunch of boats didn't change course, getting ridiculously close to the freighter. Even with a tall mast on a small boat there was no way anyone of the bridge could have seen those boats. The harbor pilot on the freighter called in a complaint about all the boats who didn't stay clear, and included us on the list. They tried to throw us all out of the race. Somehow we convinced the race organizers that we had taken appropriate actions. We were at sea level with a 25 foot mast, we could always see the bridge of the freighter at all times, and we maneuvered so the harbor pilot could clearly discern our intentions. Fortunately we weren't thrown out of the race, and the race organizers awarded us time for avoiding the freighter. The point is that everybody should have known to stay the hell out of the way of a vessel with limited maneuverability. Some of them didn't, and they paid a price for it. Clearly the harbor managers had contacted the race organizer and complained. It was very clear what the expectation was: stay the hell out of the way of vessels with limited maneuverability. Finally, sailors, especially experienced sailors, know the rules and normally follow them (I have no idea what those sailors in Vancouver thought they were doing). People with power boats generally have no clue what they are doing, and constantly do stupid stuff, often because they are drunk. Drunk and stupid is a dangerous combination anywhere, but especially somewhere you can run over somebody with a high-horsepower machine weighing thousands of pounds, and/or fall in the water and drown.
What about the door post on the right side obscuring the view? This happens occasionally in any vehicle you operate. It's happened to me in cars, trucks and planes.
One of the biggest issues here in Vancouver is the large amount of weekend warrior boaters, and renters. It's an epidemic during the summer, and this was one of the first nice days of spring.
Your RC is the problem not the sailors. I race in one of the busiest shipping lanes in the world. Maintaining visual with the bridge is useless. Maintain your course, 50 yards of clearance is plenty if you're astern of the freighter. If you're not comfortable with that racing in an active shipping lane just isn't for you. That's fine, but do not paint with such a broad brush if you don't know what you're doing.
@@15Webber One reason I got rid of our Toyota Prius is because I had too many instances of pulling up to a stop sign, and not seeing the car to my left. The driver side roof pillar completely obscured the other car! I learned to waggle my head back and forth to look around it, but I consider that roof pillar to be poor design, or else a poor fit for my driving position in the car. And don't get me started about the rear windows! I never did get used to that wacko design. It's too bad, because I loved the drive train, for the most part.
@@EXROBOWIDOW I've driven vans, tractor trailers and cars. The closest I've come to being in an accident is usually because of the blind spot behind the door post on the right side. A quick glance that way they may be completely hidden.
In the first video, aren't there *two* boats in the area? You can see the lighthouse and two other white specks. If the pilot was warned to look out for "a boat" or "the boat" rather than "two boats" and spotted the one to the right (which was safely clear), he might have thought it was the one the tower was referring to.
Exactly what I saw. There are 2 boats, the controller points out one, the pilot says "Check Remarks" so technically acknowledges, but does he really acknowledge it or is he being complacent? Does he only see the wrong boat? Beaver has a big 1-o'clock blind-spot while on step and likely never saw the boat. Why didn't the controller say "reject takeoff" as the situation was developing? the swiss cheese lined up on this one... boat captain, pilot, and controller all could have done better.
The two that were in the boat were lucky to not lose their heads. They ended up being taken to the hospital in pretty rough condition. FYI, It's June and we're swimming in that water, cold yes, there will be shrinkage, but it's not life threatening unless you can't swim.
I’m a commercial rated pilot and also a push boat captain. Seaplanes has to follow the CFR’s concerning navigating in water ways. I’m another’s words, seaplanes has to follow the rules of the roads as if your a water vessel.
Hi Juan, I am a sailor, pilot (alas, wheels only!) and I occassionally operate a power vessel for my job for the Port Authority. I watch floatplanes come and go safely all day long safely and wish I could be flying one. The area is not exclusively for floatplanes, they must share the waterway with other vessels. It is marked as a warning area, yes, and it is exactly that, a warning to all boaters, no more, no less. I suspect the pilot is unfortunately partly to blame, surely he would not have started his takeoff run if he saw the boat coming. But how a small power boat could not hear the roar of a Beaver on takeoff is beyond me. He had a duty to see and avoid but seemed oblivious. I have to wonder if the power boat was a rental.
That's because it was a renter, who likely didn't even have a boat license. In Vancouver there's a ton of rental places that let you take boats out with just a DL, and it's a major issue here every summer.
I'm a PWC operator, grew up on the water on yachts to sailboats. My thoughts on right of way is as follows. If it's bigger than you, get the heck outta the way! Situational awareness keeps us safe, whether someone is in the right or wrong. We all need to have our TCAS running whenever operating vessels, motor vehicles, and flying machines! Glad to hear no life was lost in this case.
Yeah coming at this from a boater's perspective, I'd consider a floatplane on takeoff as restricted in ability to maneuver. But I also put no faith in pleasure boats with bimini tops. I'm being prejudiced, but there's no way they're monitoring VHF and should be considered as a vessel not under command.
@@Mike-01234 i don't know if it's ego's. maybe the boaters seen plenty of planes take off but get out of the water much earlier vs this one that might of been heavy and had to run longer and thus assumed they were out of the way..
@@Mike-01234 I say this about car accidents too. The primary purpose of the rules is not to assign blame. The primary purpose is to prevent accidents. If you are using a specific rule ("vessel not on the right must give way" or "vessel with restricted maneuverability has priorit") to justify putting yourself in a situation which could cause an accident, you are literally using the letter of the law to defeat the spirit of the law. If you read through the boating rules carefully, somewhere there will be a blurb about it being the duty of all vessel operators to do whatever is necessary to avoid an accident regardless of what all the other rules say. If both parties are keeping an eye out for potential accidents, fewer holes in the swiss cheese will line up than if only one party is keeping an eye out because the other party is confident they have the right of way.
Very good overview and presentation of the events that happened here in Vancouver this past weekend As a sailor, I can confirm that you were absolutely correct about your understanding and interpretation of the ColRegs “rules of the road” as we commonly referred to them. While the seaplane is taxing, they share the same rights as any power vessel, which would make them giveaway to another power vessel depending upon which side they are approaching in accordance with the collision regulations and just for our viewers to know, a sailboat operating with its auxiliary motor is considered to be a power vessel, and therefore on equal footing. But the moment a seaplane is in it takeoff evolution. It is now afforded the same rights as a vessel, which is restricted in its ability to maneuver and thus all others vessel in your example are expected to act as “Giveway” vessels There are many other vessels coming in and out of that very small area of operations from cruise ships to tankers that are very close by and very large luxury power yachts coming out of the one of eight marinas just in that immediate vicinity This is the reason I suspect that they have the tower controller there to aid in the pilots decision, whether not to proceed with takeoff. As an aside, over in Victoria, the water space is even further constrained , and there they use in addition to a tower lighted buoys. And it is published in every notice to mariner, as well as the cruising guide for Victoria Harbor, that when those lights are flashing boats are restricted from travelling across that particular portion of the body of water. I suspect that we will likely see a similar system of flashing boys being employed here in Cole Harbor, Regretfully it seems that it will ultimately come down to boaters learning to make wiser and safer decisions. Thank you for your content
Wow. Our crew sailed through this exact area the morning of this collision, leaving Harbour Air to starboard and Burnaby shoals to port as usual. To answer the hosts query, boat traffic is unavoidable here for the hundreds of vessels moored in the 2 nearby marinas West of Harbour Air. To be inside of Burnaby shoals near the fuel barge can be sketchy at low tide for deeper keel monohulls. As a sailor, I'm surprised to see the majority opinion considers the aircraft as the 'give way vessel' as in all of my training we learn that commercial vessels have right of way over pleasure vessels, and you need to GTF out of their way. I'm so relieved (and surprized) to hear no lives were lost, what a blessing. This reminds me of something my instructor in an offshore survival course said to us.. The same sentiments are echoed by several others here, pilots and boaters alike... He said: "You may indeed have the right of way, but don't t assume the other vessel's understanding or abilities and take every precaution to avoid collision anyways, because it won't matter that you had the right of way if you end up being 'DEAD RIGHT'!"
I’ve spent many hours at conventions looking out over the Vancouver harbour. I’m not a pilot or ATC, but I was always amazed at the lack of physical delineation of the take off zones. I don’t want to pile on just because an accident happened, but I’m not totally surprised.
I had an experience shortly after I received my float plane rating. It was in an 85 hp J-3. As you know, you solo a J-3 from the back seat. I was practicing take-offs and landings on a Sunday afternoon. The lake was full of boats and water skiers. When I was ready to go, I checked carefully to ensure no craft were in my takeoff path or were approaching the path. When I added full power the nose came up and I had no visibility forward. As the plane accelerated and came onto the step and I could see forward, I realized a boat with a skier had turned directly into my takeoff path. It was too late to abort, but fortunately the J-3 accelerates quickly to flying speed and I was able to get it out of the water before reaching the boat. You are very vulnerable during the plow phase of the takeoff with little visibility forward.
watching the vid. these planes USUALLY are airborne pretty fast. wondering if the pilot thought he'd be in the air by then. and he was. but not enough.
Hopefully you learned from it not to practice takeoffs and landings on a Sunday afternoon with a lake full of boats and water skiers. If you must, take off and go to another lake or practice something else. Boaters are unaware and unpredictable. Glad you didn't hit anybody and you lived to fly another day!
IRPCS - colregs apply to seaplanes when they are on the water. Rule 18e states - “A seaplane on the water shall, in general, keep clear of all vessels and avoid impeding their navigation.” It goes on to say that when a risk of collision exists they shall comply with Part B rules - so the vessel with the other to its port side shall stand-on. So clearly under these rules it was the floatplane that should have manoeuvred. However avoiding a collision was the responsibility of both vessels (Rule 2). If there is a government regulation governing, prohibiting or restricting vessels in the seaplane operating area then it would generally supersede the colregs. Side note - A seaplane is generally not considered to be limited in ability to manoeuvre - that applies to things like cable laying, towing, dredging, etc… and the relevant lights or day shapes are displayed.
absolutely agree, well stated. Both had an obligation to lookout (Rule 5) and avoid collision (Rule 2). The pleasure craft maintained course and speed (Rule 17) but the give-way vessel, the sea plane did not take substantial action early to avoid a collision (Rule 16). Ultimately I think majority of the fault will fall on the pilot as you said for Rule 18(e)
Hi Juan, As someone who lives and works in Vancouver (on boats), I can tell you that on the marine maps, that area is marked off for boaters, as you are meant to go around the takeoff and landing zone. Unfortunately, that is the second time this week that a float plane has come in contact with a pleasure boat. Also, talking to First Responders who responded to it, there was a language barrier on behalf of the boat's master.
@@blancolirio I feel like we need some idiot lights on buoys setup for this runway. Remote activation of lights prior to and during takeoff may be of some help? Regardless of the regs, both parties dropped the ball but that boat really should have noticed the Beaver running down on them. When I'm on the water the sound or sight of a float plane maneuvering gives me pause enough to slow down or stop and asses their intentions as well as the overall situation. The situation in Vancouver is obviously a mess but unless some kind of comprehensive solution is found we'll end up with a fatality sooner or later.
My parents were both float-rated Alaskan bush pilots (were... both gone now), and they both said this repeatedly... "Will you be right and dead, or wrong and safe?" I flew with them often, and situational awareness was Rule #1. Passengers were part of that... they regularly suggested their passengers speak up if they saw something questionable. This smacks of ego from the boat (I have the right of way so bugger off) and loss/lack of situational awareness from the pilot... he read back the warning of boat traffic.... he knew it was there "somewhere".
Also there are two boats close to each other, so it's very possible that the pilot took note of the boat warning but since it's only mentioning one boat he thought he was in the clear once he spotted the one to his right. Even a passenger's warning "there is a boat in the way" might get mistaken for the other boat.
Most salient comment I've seen in this entire comment section. The pilot has limited visibility, didn't see the collision boat and assumed the other boat was the boat the tower, and the passenger were talking about. My opinion, the plane should have kept clear.
I am a very experienced boater - 65 years and counting. I also have my PPL and about 15hours on floats. The Canadian Safe Boating Guide (published by Transport Canada instructs boaters to keep well clear of seaplanes. The Collision Regulations state that a seaplane would be considered a vessel (boat) with limited manoeuvre ability. My guess it that the boat was in the wrong. Very fortunate that nobody was killed or badly injured. The boater could have easily avoided the accident. The pilot also could have perhaps reduced the severity but the boat would lot have collided with the seaplane if the operator had taken even the most basic steps to stop or turn away.
Hi Jaun, thanx for your various episodes on your channel. I was in Vancouver in 2012 - unfortunately never got to fly in any floatplanes while there. Love that part of the world all the way up to Alaska. Big hello from Cape Town South Africa.
I grew up in the right seat of my Dads 185 on floats. Very little visibility until you got on step. You could grab the reinforcement bars and kinda get a peak out the side. Boats, floating logs (deadheads) and hidden sand bars are a worse case scenario. Water rudders are up on take off! With heavy loads you have to rock her up to plane.
as a boater, I can confirm the pecking order.... a float-plane is a motor-boat in a Marina, but on Takeoff it is considered a vessel highly restricted in maneuvering, so the highest priority of all the vessels under control. also, it is recommended that one should never enter an area of floatplane operations if such is in use... and NEVER downwind of an airplane. the problem is, a boater is not trained to scan the kind of distance one needs to scan in order to be able to avoid an airplane, it's just far to much of a speed difference. where we were, the general good practice was to announce any takeoff on Channel-16 on the the maritime VHF radio, &/or make 6 long horn-blasts using a compressed air handheld horn... *(which is the Maritime signal for starting a maneuver with restricted maneuverability) both of these should be something any skipper will recognize and pay close attention to. hope this helps!
I agree that it's both wise and courteous to minimize time sailing through such an area, but... - 6 long blasts isn't a standard signal (it may be a local convention) - Seaplanes are specifically called out in Rule 18 as being obligated to keep clear of all other vessels (this video unfortunately referenced a summary rather than checking the actual rules). - People often run into trouble when they try to assess "maneuverability". Restricted ability to maneuver is specifically defined in the COLREGs. I think it would be quite unusual to be applied here, and it's also inconsistent with COLREGS treatment of WIG craft. - Both vessels here clearly failed to keep a proper look-out. Would the boater be excused because he missed a powerboat doing 70 mph? This is a common factor in such court cases: at least one party, often both, isn't maintaining an effective watch.
@@missinggravitas the 6 long blasts thing was at least quoted as being the Relevant International Maritime Standard Signal in the times I took the exams, but that was a while back... it was in thesame index as the light and day signals for boats with reduced maneuverability. maybe that changed now... I am not current, and definitely not on the US system.
@@missinggravitas if the vessel is considered to have been in such a position/pace that the reasonable sighting distance gave less than a certain chance of successful maneuver, the vessel going at the higher pace was considered at fault. the fault of the lookout might still be there, but, only in the civil case, where they will usually be assigned a 10% or 5% of the blame... the coast guard investigation would mark them as a factor, but not at fault/
@@stanislavkostarnov2157 It sounds like the danger signal in 34(d): at least 5 short blasts, given when there is doubt about the other's intentions or it it seems insufficient action is being taken. At least since the '72 colregs there aren't any special sound signals for status. I'm curious now, so I might dig up some of the older rules.
@@missinggravitas we were taught, 5 short blasts was - get on the radio or make your intentions clear by other means.... at least in colloquial parlance... what I am talking about is more like, "I am now moving and am unable to change course, so it's your responsibility to get out of my way..."
Yeah Dr. Sal!…. Juan, I feel that the two of you complement each other very well in your areas of expertise…. Air and Water. I big thank you to both! ✌🏻🙂
Juan... I can play substitute for Sal (Less his pinache'!). As you pointed out there is a fundamental difference between "rules of the road" on the water and that which we follow in aviation. (USCG Aviator, grad from US Merchant Marine Academy '95 3rd Mate Unlimited & Marine Casualty Investigator.) I am editing my reply... I suggested the NTSB, USCG, FAA would be investigating. I am incorrect, this event occured in Canada and I was incorrect with repect to jurisdiction regarding the investigation. However, I stand by the remainder of the assessment... Canada is signatory to COLREGs. I would suggest my over all assessment is accurate to the best of my ability. All is subject to change as more information is found. The CSB, Canda Safety Board will be leading this investigation. I will also add, the US needs to follow this and adjust our own regulations accordingly. As usual, you are correct on both of your points. With the exception of the term "Right of Way" in that this term is never used with respect to COLREGS. It is easy to mix a car driving term and maritime term; However, the distictions are critical. "The Burdened vs Stand-on Vessel" Vessels generally fall into two separate catagories... 1. "Stand on" vessel 2. "Give way" or Burdened Vessel Obligation for Safe Operation Rule (COLREGS Rule 2a) This rule states that ALL vessels must operate in such a way so as avoid a collision. It is the responsibility of the give way vessel, to maneuver so as avoid a collision. It is expected that the "stand on vessel" will maintain course and speed until which point collision is immenent and then the stand on vessel is obligated to make efforts to avoid collision. The Collision One view of this I saw, the boat, was underway & makingway, with the seaplane on the boat's port bow. This makes the boat the burdened vessel and the seaplane the stand on vessel until the impact was noted to be imminent, at which point the seaplane would be obligated to take action that any reasonable operator in a similar circumstance would take. (Abort the take-off). However, once the boat made its error, there was little that could be done by the seaplane as may have been required by rule 2a. Vessel Catagory / Operational State Seaplanes fall into a unique catagory, often misunderstood. When in a "taxi" low speed, in a state of displacement, they would be like any other powered vessel and subject to those rules When on their take off run, getting on plane, the Seaplane, fits the catagory of a vessel restricted in its ability to maneuver. Given then very nature of the take off, needing to be into the wind, on plane etc... the seaplane is unequivocally a "vessel restricted in its ability maneuver." However, this does not releive the aircraft to ensure their path is clear, it would be best practice to announce on marine VHF (Channel 12 or 16) their intent with a securite' call to announce their takeoff roll. Also, while there maybe a control tower, I suspect all operations on the water; from the peerspective of ATC would with "Due Regard" (at the plane operators risk). Apportionement of Fault Anytime, we look at a marine casualty, blame is never 100% on one operator or another, failure is often apportioned between both parties in the collision. There is another angle of this collision that shows the boat moving into path of the Beaver. Investgators will likely look into... (Direct play from JB) 1. Did the Beaver Make an Announcement Secureite' Call 2. Did the boat operator maintain a watch on the radio (CH 16 & 12) 3. Did the Boat operator enter into restricted or known area for seaplane ops 4. Did the Boat oeprator maintain an adequate look out doctrine 5. What was the opational state of the boat & was the operator impaired 6. What training did the boat operator have, likely recreational 7. The Aircraft operator, how familar were they the COLREGs (Maritime rules of the road) 8. What safety briefing did the PAX on the plane get and was it effective in the egress from the aircraft One thing I know is not covered in COLREGs and how CCG (I am not sure how Canada regulates seaplanes but suspect it not unlike the US) rules regarding Commercial Vessel Operation.) The plane is a waterborne vessel engaged in commercial operations with paying PAX on board. Technically speaking, would this operator require a commercial USCG license to taxi that plane from the dock to the position on take off? I am not stating this be required, but I think, it is something that the USCG (Redacted, Canada CG CSB) may look at in their investigation. There will likely be a NTSB investigation, FAA investigation & a USCG marine casualty investigation. (Redacted, this event is a Canadian event, so those agencies will lead the investigation) [This was my error] At Kings Point, this senerio was nearly always discussed as a part of the classes (2) on COLREGs, however, always considered... it will never happen. So, it appears failure of imagination has reared its ugly head. Semper Paratus & Acta Non Verba (USCG & USMMA Mottos respectively) John B Hall, KP '95 CG HH65 pilot CG Marine Casualty Investigator
John is spot on. The issue was if the seaplane observed the boat before they went on the plane and did not communicate their intention. Thanks for the shout-out. A perfect chance for a team up!
"There will likely be a NTSB investigation, FAA investigation & a USCG marine casualty investigation." This is *Canada*. None of those *American* institutions have any jurisdiction here. It is being investigated by Transport Canada, who have control over this specific area of Coal Harbour. American laws don't cross the border. The Port Of Vancouver site says two things about the Sea Planes. They have a marked zone in Coal Harbour that says, "Aircraft Operations Zone: Keep Clear" and, "Listen for aircraft. Float planes landing or taking off need plenty of space." Transport Canada will weigh the incident and make its decision about whose fault and what rules may need to be changed.
As a Canadian boater, I hold 2 different operator's permits. The PCOC is maintory for all powered vessel operators. As well I have a Toronto Harbor license. Both classes teach you to always give way to float aircraft as they are absolutely the less maneuverable vessel. This one is very cut and dry. the boat was in an area they are to keep clear of,. And actually appear to slow down in the path of the aircraft and the aircraft is the less maneuverable. The boat is absolutely at fault.
In 1974 I was a passenger in the float plane on Lake Bemidji, Bemidji, Minnesota. There was a strong south wind that day, so we took off and landed southbound. After we landed we were still moving along at a pretty good rate. Briefly I thought the plane was going to wind up in the parking lot. At the last second the pilot pulled back hard on the stick. The plane did what I called a squat and we stopped quickly within a few feet of the dock. That plane was not a Beaver so we had good forward visibility. To this day I’m amazed at how quickly we stopped.
We boat in the PNW (WA & BC) and have visited several areas where float planes & boats interact in close proximity. The float planes are very ubiquitous up here. I’ve been trained that until the planes take off they are restricted by the same right of way rules as any other boat, as you mentioned. Yet their ability to maneuver is definitely not as simple as vessels. We research where we anchor & traverse and try to leave plenty of room for them, but sometimes they appear & land without notice, seemingly out of nowhere. Captains/vessel operators had better keep their head on a swivel and pre-plan, but that’s not always the case, especially in the busy summer months. I’m actually surprised this doesn’t occur more often.
I first found your channel based on research I was doing for a group dual sport ride through Death Valley and found your solo trip of the same. I have since thoroughly enjoyed the variety of content you provide and the very concise yet detailed way you approach matters like this collision. As a side note, I live in clear view of where this accident took place though did not witness it. Love your channel!
The Reverend is always amazed how well you put these videos together so fast and with such accuracy and insight. Praise be to the Gods of Infernal Combustion!
It was a matter of time before something like this happened. I've been sailing in BC waters for 25 years and so many power boaters either lack situational awareness, don't know the rules of the "road", or feel a sense of entitlement when they put their hand on that throttle. We've even had BC Ferries run over power boaters because they were unaware of their surroundings. If you think Vancouver harbour is busy, check out Ganges harbour on Saltspring Island with satellite view enabled. Harbour Air flies in there many times a day and when you're boating there, you have to keep your wits about you - and above you!
Ganges, though, has a single direction that the aircraft operate in, and multiple buoys indicating such and where the aircraft areas are. Even though I respect those buoys absolutely, it's felt like the aircraft have come scarily close to my mast on landing. (and I just have a little 35' mast, not some mega yacht).
In the past I operated sea planes in and out of Coal Harbour for 14 years, some of them for this operator. I have not worked there for some years now so haven't any insight on the pilot flying, or his experience. Right of way rules on the water are part of the training at Harbour Air. The pilot would have been familiar with those rules and regulationns. I'm having a hard time fathoming why he did not see the the boat. Boats, wake and floating logs are always taken into consideration before starting your slide. I don't think he saw the boat at all, or until he didn't have time to react. Looking at the two videos, I don't believe he was trying to force it off the water, I believe he was hitting the wake of the east bound boat. The two most common areas boats transit east and west are exactly where these two boats where transiting and on the south side, right in front of the seaplane docks. All of this the pilot would be well aware. Also I believe it happened near noon so pilot fatigue should not have been a factor.
@blancolirio Thanks Juan, and for every thing you are doing here. Another poster on a different website "Av Canada " who sounds familiar and experienced in the Vancouver harbour floatplane scene hypothosysed if the tour passenger was trying to video the take off with his phone or video camera could have been blocking the pilots view to the right. As they were converging, the boat may have appeared stationary, therefore remaining out of the pilots view.
I worked for HA for 10 years operating out of the harbour as well. I agree with your comments. I’ve only heard of one other case of boat floatplane collision. The other time it was a landing where plane came up behind boat and under aircraft. Blind spots are a concern with all aircraft. I think this was just that, both boat and floatplane were in each others blind spot. However, my first priority as a pilot was situational awareness. I would suspect there was some weakness there for both parties. The warning by tower of the conflict with the boat doesn’t help the pic’s case. It will be interesting to see how the accident investigation comes out.
I learned this when becoming a Coxswain in the US Navy. The COLREGS [International Regulations for Prevention of Collisions at Sea, 1972 (72COLREGS)] actually has the pecking order with Seaplanes beneath powered vessels. Rule 18 "A seaplane on the water shall, in general, keep well clear of all vessels and avoid impeding their navigation. In circumstances, however, where risk of collision exists, she shall comply with the Rules of this Part." Rule 3 is vessels restricted in their ability to maneuver (which is not a seaplane) but generally consists of things like towing, recovering, launching, etc. The reason a seaplane is not part of this category is they can increase/decrease power, turn, possibly get airborne. While restricted vessels literally cannot change anything about what they are doing, because of what they are doing. Hope that explanation helps. (edit: keep clear also does not mean restricted. There is a fueling station on the West of the aircraft operating area. So you could transit, I would go around; but you enter and clear the area. Basically don't just float or idle)
so what is to happen when the plane starts to take off and is going fast & the boat appears crosssing where the plane is taking off...is it not easier for the boat to change direction then the plane???
This is correct. I was a CG Coxswain. NRCFSPS(W) Not under command, restricted in ability to maneuver, constrained by draft, fishing/trolling, sailing, power driven, seaplane, (wing in ground) The boat was the stand on vessel, though rule 7 still applies
Juan - you are correct: a seaplane taking off or landing is considered a vessel with restricted manoeuvrability, and is the stand-to vessel relative to a boat under power. In this collision, the boat ought to have manoeuvred to clear the plane.
COLREGS rule 18 (e) require that seaplanes operating on the water must stay well clear of all other vessels. In other words a seaplane is always at the bottom of the pecking order. However that does not eliminate ALL vessel's responsibility to avoid a collision in rule 7
Juan- I went to a small college in NH that had a flight program. During the winter semester break we would fly the whole fleet to Vero Beach and get almost a semester's worth of training done. On a weekend off, I went (hitch-hiked) to Jack Brown's Seaplane Base and got my seaplane rating. It was a blast! My last time flying floats was my check-ride (I passed). Do it!
I was just passing by the waterfront today. And haven't even got to watch the local news and you are on it. Dunno what your drinking or doing but keep it up.
Hi Juan, I am not a pilot but I do Moore my sailboat at the Vancouver Rowing Club, just to the west/south west of this accident and have sailed across here thousands of times. The list you have is NOT complete, at least for Canada. The list leaves off Aircraft for some reason and they are below "Motor Driven Vessel" and must give way to all other traffic. The area shown as "active aircraft area" is only for an advisory not to keep boats clear and even in this area planes must give way to others on the water. I have had many close calls in this area as pilots think they own the are with excuses ranging from "well we are going to fast to clear" or "we have limited visibility" but planes are advised to land further out on the water when it is busy and taxi in or out past the congestion, not just try to take the right. I watch for them as being right isn't worth being right and being dead but the boat has full right of way.
Just a note (from a licensed sea captain, and PPL): the motor boat COLREGs apply here because the plane is touching the water (they actually apply after takeoff too, where seaplanes are to give way to ALL other traffic). One of the COLREGs is that a local authority can override the general rules to do something like give the seaplanes right of way in that area (it's not clear that they actually have done that from the map you showed, so I will assume that the COLREGs apply here, if that area is truly off limits completely to motor boats, then what follows is not relevant). There's a couple of COLREGs at play here. You mentioned that the seaplane might be a RAM (restricted in ability to maneuver). I don't believe that rule applies as it is defines a RAM vessel as: "a vessel which from the nature of her work is restricted in her ability to manoeuvre as required by these Rules and is therefore unable to keep out of the way of another vessel." This means things like dredges, cable-layers and other ships where changing the course means they have to stop working. The seaplane is still able to take off if it changes course, and it is able to change course, so not really applicable. For the purposes of the COLREGs, this is just two motor boats. Other interesting COLREGs: Rule 5 requires a competent lookout. I would argue that the seaplane definitely wasn't doing this. They were verbally warned that there was a vessel crossing their track, and proceeded on the takeoff run anyway putting that boat in their blindspot. The motorboat it is hard to tell. He was the stand-on vessel, his role is to NOT change course in the COLREGs, and it would be reasonable to expect the seaplane to go around him, up until it was aimed right at him. The COLREGs do not assign right of way, no one has right of way at sea. Instead, they note who is to give way (change course) and who is to stand-on (maintain course). Critically, COLREGs rule 1 states that nothing in the COLREGs exempts from the responsibility to avoid a collision regardless of who is the stand-on vessel. This is really two people who erred in controlling their vessels. A pilot who was told to look out for a specific hazard and did not, and a boater who HAD to have seen a Beaver bearing directly at them and did nothing.
Slight correction to this, seaplanes give way to all vessel traffic in the water as well. "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."
I was just in Vancouver watching seaplane operations two weeks ago. I thought the planes and boats operating in the same area was a safety hazard. I guess I was right.
@@MegaMultiAnonymous yeh, speak up. I lived downtown Van. for decades and Harbour Air has THOUSANDS of take offs and landings in Burrard INlet, Victoria inner Harbour, Seattle and Nanaimo without incident. Just wonderin if this is a new guy and thought he'd be in the air by the time he got to the boat. He WAS, just played Can Opener Bridge and trimmed a little off the top of the Bimini.
The vessel hierarchy is one of the most poorly understood and taught principles for seaplane pilots. It is very clear in the Colregs, rule 18 e (and summarized by FAR 91.115a) that seaplanes are the absolute bottom of the vessel hierarchy. Yet I meet seaplane pilots every summer that think they have the right of way over boats, and can specifically name the instructor that taught them so. The problem is that people get hung up on the question of maneuverability, which is certainly a part of the hierarchy. But in the case of seaplanes, we operate at a speed and in a dimension that is outside the regular scan or parameters of all other vessels. The boater has no idea how long your takeoff slide will last, how much room you need, or perhaps even that from the other end of the harbor you will be upon him so quickly. As a result, the safe thing, which is mirrored both in colreg and in 91.115 in the US air regs, is to make it the responsibility of the pilot to stay well clear.
As a long time sailor, in sailing vessels, it is incumbent upon all boat captains to have read the chart and know what waters are restricted. Further, it is uncumbent upon all boat operators to keep a good lookout and avoid collision at all costs. Clearly, the operator of the power boat was not keeping a good lookout. There are rules, and then there is common sense.
Juan, I have loved your content and analysis for years. Top tip, if you're referencing a RUclips video, you can pause it and use the period key (also has the '>' symbol on it) and each press of it will advance the video by one frame giving you a frame by frame analysis of it. In this case it was pretty wild to see the pontoon and boat reacted.
As a lifetime boater I can tell you that the fundamental rule for the boat is, essentially, "see and avoid", and the boater could be faulted for failing to maintain an adequate lookout while underway even if the boat was technically the "stand on" vessel. As to it being a 'restricted area', I pulled up the marine chart of the area on my Navionics marine app and, except for a user-added comment that there are seaplanes operating in the area, there is no mention of the seaplane base and no indication of any restricted or prohibited waterways. There are also several marinas and a fueling barge to the west of the seaplane track. Vessels would have to routinely pass through the seaplane takeoff/landing area when entering or leaving any of these facilities, so the possibility of boat traffic in the area must be a known hazard for the pilots of Harbour Air.
The "floatplane area" as mapped bottles up several marinas, plus the Vancouver Yacht Club itself, including hundreds of boats owned by the wealthiest elites of Vancouver. So I welcome Harbour Air to purchase the marinas, for the right to restrict these mere billionaire's access to the sea.
To clarify, knowing that a boat was even in the vicinity of a possible collision, the pilot should have waited until the vessel was clear of any potential interface. Even a brief scan of the area before the takeoff roll would have revealed the boat. This is an extremely busy area, with helo ops in addition to the seaplanes.
Wow. Never knew the nose would rise that much! From the outside looking at a take off it does not look that dramatic but it sure is when in the cockpit. Great post Juan. Cheers from CYYB.
I"ve had a power boat for almost 20 years, now sailing for fun. I'm also a private pilot that used to fly in Alaska.... AND, I've very recently been on a Beaver as a tourist.... no way that boat didn't see/hear the Beaver. Honestly makes me wonder if they didn't want to get close for a youtube video.
@@wally7856 I don't know if there are any sound ordinances in this harbor for recreational boaters, but it is also extremely popular for recreational power boats and ski boats to have blaringly loud stereo systems these days, complete with large subwoofers and speakers all around the perimeter and/or mounted to the ski boat's tow bar. So, a combination of a loud outboard motor within feet of your ears + a blaring stereo system would surely mask the sound of the Beaver (yes, I know they are LOUD) until it was much closer and too late... Look up the Inverse Square Law regarding the "fall-off" or reduction in Sound Pressure Levels (SPL/loudness) as distance increases. If there is a sound source that is 80dB that is within a few feet of you, it will EASILY mask a distant sound source even if it is 130dB+ at the source. HOWEVER, IMO this is a more so a VISUAL/Lookout failure on both the Beaver Pilot and Boat Captain. I also noticed that in this particular case and from my experience, the Beaver took much longer to get on plane/up on the floats and become airborne, but as reported it was a fully loaded flight as well, so perhaps somewhat more expected, but perhaps a less experienced pilot as well? In addition, this boat captain was most likely an inexperienced casual boater operating a rental boat...and it was reported that the first responders noted a Language Barrier on the part of the boat captain as well, so that may infer a few things, or not. But the boater *might* also have thought that the float plane would have become airborne much sooner based on witnessing other take-offs. Obviously the investigation should shed more light on the circumstances involved and it will be very interesting to read. But, given the speed of both "vessels", it's a miracle that no one was killed. I was expecting the Beaver to summersault over-end or prop-down into the water if not upside down. Hopefully better rules and regulations for both boaters and float plane pilots will result. However, IMO it's almost impossible to "police" or account for the sheer numbers of casual "weekend warrior" power boaters/boat rentals that are so loosely regulated (and more often than not drinking alcohol), as opposed to A/C pilots who MUST train extensively, understand and strictly adhere to rules, regulations, and flight operations in order to become licensed.
Grew up in and lived in Vancouver for many years and used to love to go down to Coal Harbour and watch the Beavers and Otters take off and land and that takeoff run that was done to the east of Stanley Park often has small boats coming and going. I often thought there was a conflict there and am not surprised this took place.
As a long-time boat owner on Long Lake in Maine, I'm always on the lookout for float planes taking off and landing in Naples where a tour operator is based. Regardless of who *legally* has the right of way, I always assume it is me, the boater, that has to give way as my boat is far more nimble and maneuverable compared to the float plane.
Canada's Transportation Safety Board (TSB) will be investigating this incident. Two people, both of which were on the boat, were transported to hospital. All passengers and the pilot aboard the plane were uninjured in the collision. There is some divergence on how many, if any, passengers were on the boat. "The Transportation Safety Board said in a Sunday statement that they have begun conducting witness interviews, and they are co-ordinating with the aircraft recovery team to understand their plans. "In the next few days, the investigation team will attend the aircraft recovery, examine the wreckage, continue gathering information, and conduct more interviews," a TSB spokesperson said." - CBC
correction: if you leave your water rudders down during takeoff, you owe the person that catches you a case of beer. Water rudders should be up just prior to take off.
6:30 Keep in mind however that St-Hyacinthe (my local GA airport) isn't really a floatplane base. They have a canal along the runway so you can land and takeoff for winterizing and maintenance, but it's only a shade over 1500 feet long. So this guy is trying to get it airborne ASAP.
Wow, not what I would have thought Juan. It sounds like Transports Canada would say the Seaplane should give way. But then the maps clearly states it's a restricted part of the harbor. So much confusion.
But there can still be boats etc. in restricted water. Engine breakdowns, sail rigging problems, snarled props. The area is not controlled like an airport runway.
It's not statutorily prohibited to operate a boat in that "Aircraft Operation Zone". There is only an advisory to boaters to exercise extreme caution. While the Port Reg's advise pilots boats are restricted from the area. Yup,the Port incongruent with each other.
In the context of maritime navigation, the term "vessel restricted in her ability to maneuver" refers to vessels that, due to the nature of their work, are limited in their capacity to maneuver as required by navigation rules, making them unable to avoid other vessels. According to the U.S. Coast Guard's Navigation Rules, this category includes vessels engaged in specific activities such as: 1. Laying, servicing, or picking up navigation marks, submarine cables, or pipelines. 2. Dredging, surveying, or underwater operations. 3. Replenishment or transferring persons, provisions, or cargo while underway. 4. Launching or recovering aircraft. 5. Mine clearance operations. 6. Towing operations where the tow restricts the vessel's ability to deviate from its course. These vessels must display appropriate signals and lights to indicate their restricted maneuverability to other vessels in the vicinity
Juan, thanks for educating this non-pilot. Your explanation of these events was fascinating to me. I liken it to riding a bike or walking on public streets. My rule is "just because you have the right-of-way, doesn't mean you should take it". A takeoff and landing in a float plane is on my bucket list. Living in North Idaho near the shores of Lake Pend Orielle gives me that possibility, but the opportunity has not yet presented itself. I discovered you when the big ship was stuck in the Suez canal, and have been following ever since. Thanks again for your clear and concise insight.
I remember taking sailing lessons in Coal Harbour in the mid-1970's. While practicing the "man overboard" rescue, we had to take a short break from the drill as a seaplane taxied over the "man" (a life preserver) passing with the preserver between the pontoons. Vancouver harbour is quite congested at times, being the busiest seaport in Canada.
Was that with the retired Coast Guard guy that bought Dunderave low bank in the early sixties?? Took lessons in a Thunderbird and got tapped as the Navigator.
As many float pilots will attest, its hard to see out the front of the aircraft during the initial plows Ing phase of a takeoff slide. In this case, it is a little of that and some I believe clear miss in checking your takeoff zone prior to starting your run. Glad everyone is ok and safe.
The standard rules of the road apply nicely when both vehicles are at usual maneuvering speed. However, in my opinion, once the aircraft starts its takeoff run, it comes under "limited ability to maneuver" and should have precedence over a boat not in distress. I am retired Coast Guard and have been in several sketchy right-of-way situations.
Would make sense, but on the other hand the boat cant maneuver far in the short time given by speeding aircaft. what if it was a sailboat ? How fast you can get out of the way ?
No. 72 colregs rule 3g on the definition of Restricted in ability to maneuver: (g) The term "vessel restricted in her ability to manoeuvre" means a vessel which from the nature of her work is restricted in her ability to manoeuvre 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 manoeuvre" 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 launching or recovery of aircraft (as in aircraft carrier) (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. Rule 18: hierarchy of vessels in sight of one another: Not under command Restricted in ability to maneuver Constrained by draft Fishing Sailing Power Driven Seaplane (Wig) Non-rates can fool senior people sometimes. I was also in the CG and was a coxswain until 2018
@@Cybnew All fixed wing aircraft are extremely vulnerable during takeoff and landing operations. That's why entering an active runway without clearance is strictly forbidden. Taking off on a body of water doesn't make the seaplane any less vulnerable to runway intrusions.
Juan - when I was operating a corporate Lake Renegade (yes, such a thing!) Never failed to amaze me the boaters and more importantly the jet skis that failed to recognize how little maneuverability a sea plane has. And that there are no brakes!. Fortunately the Lake has better visibility, but a few times I just had to cut the throttle and drop the plane back into displacement because a jet ski thought it would be interesting to head towards my takeoff path.
Hi Juan; As a former naval officer & pilot I need to comment. A float plane or sea plane when on the water is governed by the nautical rules of the road (specifically the inland rules by the location). Both vessels (the one with wings and the one without) are bound by the same rules. In a crossing situation, the vessel on the right (both are classified as power vessels here) has the right of way. The boat was the privileged or stand on vessel, while the float plane was the burdened or give way vessel. Here the plane had limited visibility but did not locate the reported boat before starting his take off run. And the boat did not take evasive action when reaching the point of extremes (meaning when a collision seemed inevitable). . Navy Pilots are also ship handlers as we are eligible for command at sea. Rick
I have flown as a passenger out of Coal Harbour quite a few times - usually with Harbour Air, as it happens - and my experience is that rejected takeoffs are fairly routine there. I don't believe I have experienced a rejected takeoff because of traffic conflict with a boat, but I have experienced them because of boat wake on a number of occasions. On one departure I think we had over half a dozen rejected takeoffs before getting in the air. Boat wake repeatedly led to porpoising during the takeoff run. The pilot would simply bring power down, wait, try again. It's unclear to me if they rejected for safety or passenger comfort, but there was no hesitation to reject. My sense is that Harbour Air pilots would expect to reject frequently, rather than that being a rare or unusual situation in that harbour. I wonder if the pilot may have identified an incorrect boat as the potential conflict and believed they were clear, then experienced the visibility issues highlighted in the video. Given my experience of how routine rejected takeoffs are in Coal Harbour, I doubt they just blazed through expecting traffic to give way or simply not be there in the first place
Watching videos of floatplanes operating, i always wondered about the relationship to water vessels, especially when the water traffic is high. Interesting. Good catch Juan.
This is pretty clear-cut: the seaplane is in the wrong and the only thing the powerboat did wrong was failing to maneuver to avoid a collision in extremis. Under COLREGS Section 18(e) seaplanes are generally supposed to stay well clear of all watercraft and avoid impeding their navigation, and if they do end up where the risk of collision exists, they are to follow the standard nautical rules of the road. Not only did the floatplane fail to stay well clear of known marine traffic that was called out by the tower, but when they got close, the boat was to starboard of the floatplane. So the boat had right of way, but again the seaplane failed to yield. Edit Note: this was within Canadian waters, but the Canadians have incorporated the COLREGS into their national law
Juan the sad fact is many in the pleasure boating community don't care or know what the Rules of The Road are and ignore restricted zones on the water. I forget the average near misses a year that happen on Lake Union in Seattle Washington between pleasure boaters and aircraft in the designated water runway on Lake Union. There are even lighted warning buoys marking the area with flashing lights signaling aircraft landing or takeoff in progress.
I used to fly in the bush in N Ontario and taught float ratings. In my initial briefing I'd say: "Floats is easy peasy to master once you acquire the basic skills. It's a big stable catamaran, easy to point. The hard part is STAYING OUT OF TROUBLE". Off airport hazards. Boating hazards, etc. All boaters have to be treated as clueless. This is on the pilot, regardless of the actual R of W rules. The takeoff should have been rejected. You could steer to the right on the step to go behind the boat, but its wake can cause porpoising and you always avoid wakes. So unless you are confident you will pass well in front of it, you reject. He was on the step for a while and unless the guy was really short, should have had no problem spotting it. Time pressures can get pretty intense in this sort of operation if trips are getting backed up, and this can influence the decision to keep going. I would take off downwind sometimes (if winds weren't too strong), just to save a few minutes to avoid finishing up the day's trips after sunset. It's a world of living by your wits, and shades of grey instead of go-no-go.
I've only flown in (not piloted) a seaplane on several ocassions but I do have some time at the helm of both power boats and sailboats. The rule of thumb I was taught in the maritime world was that the less manuevable vessel had the ROW. Which would lead me to believe in this scenario that the boat, being more manuevarable, should have given way to the seaplane. In this case particularly, the boat was operating in a known and charted seaplane takeoff and landing lane.
It's actually "Vessels Restricted in Their Ability to Maneuver" such as as fishing boat hauling a net or a buoy tender retrieving a buoy. I don't feel this comes into play in this scenario. Both the aircraft and the vessel had authoritative control of direction and speed here.
@@user-gq2vn1xj2r What is meant, is that if you check the whole sequence of priorities, it goes from less maneuverable craft to more. This is the underlying principle. This is why sailboats have priority over motor boats.
@@user-gq2vn1xj2r your joking right ? the plane is way less maneuverable .. Its like a sailboat. Cant turn on a dime etc.. The boat had every chance to avoid collision.. What was the boat captain doing ?? if he saw that plane going in that direction he could have turned or cut power to avoid certain collision. Whether the boat captain thought he was in the right he should have seen the imminent collision coming and taken action.. There are float planes on the lake I boat on and I dont fool around.. I give them plenty of room to take off and land. Better safe than sorry or d3ad.
I too was long of the opinion that a "water runway" was exactly that... a RUNWAY, so STAY THE HELL OFF OF IT!!! But, after discussing it with my bush pilot parents, they both said it's not a runway in the traditional sense... it's an "aircraft operations area", proceed with caution. The boat here was undeniably the stand-on vessel, and the refusal to give way was pure and simple EGO... "I've got the right-of-way, so piss off". By the time the pilot needed to do something about it he couldn't see the boat... he lost situational awareness, and that's all she wrote. My father taught me a very valuable lesson on "right-of-way"... would you rather be right and dead, or wrong and safe... it's really hard to overcome the natural, understandable instinct to stand firm and refuse to get pushed around. It's also understandable to want to live. Take yer pick.
I got to go for a ride in a Beaver out of Coal Harbour once, and luckier still, I got to sit in the right seat up front. What shocked me was how little you could see once the pilot poured on the gas (I'm used to the view from the left seat of a Cessna 172 landplane). I've also sat on the walkway around Burrard Inlet (the area where this accident happened) and I'm kind of surprised that these collisions don't happen more often. The aviators seem to have a handle on things, but far too many boaters have an overly carefree approach to boating. Pilots in the area know just how clueless some boaters can be (sad but true) but what floored me was the unshakable sense of entitlement on display by some of the pleasure boaters on that body of water, (especially on Canada Day, when I took my ride). Another pilot I flew with (different operator, but same region) said to the effect 'it's just a sad fact of flying there- assume the boater has a God complex and steer well clear'. It might be premature judgement on my part, but I wouldn't rule out the boater figuring the plane would avoid them, and not what's supposed to be a shared responsibility of all vessel operators-to 'see and avoid'.
I think the nose up when throttle applied answers the question. While taxing out perhaps you aren't scanning as much as you should and with a tiny boat perhaps not making a lot of foamy wake you might not register speed and direction. Great presentation.
Juan, I fly a beaver commercially in one of the busiest boat traffic vs float plane traffic areas in Canada. the visibility is not that bad. The visibility when taxiing vs on the step is pretty much the same. This pilot was on the step a long time and could have step taxied around the boat, rejected the takeoff, or done literally anything else other than run the boat over. Even if you think you’re in a boat free area you need to be looking for things to hit. And then not hit them. Whether the pilot was right wrong or indifferent I think this should not have happened.
And for anyone reading this that thinks the pilot was right, imagine going to your bosses desk after you get out of the hospital. What do you say? I didn’t see him there? I did see him but I thought he’d move? Give me another airplane please. Not good explanations or excuses whatever you want to call them.
Totally agree with this comment!!
Don't you think this also could have been a situation of ego's neither refused to change course? How could it be possible the pilot not seen that boat right in front of him, and the boater would hear the loud prop noise. Very lucky no one was hit by that prop if it turns out to be the pilots fault he should lose his ticket for doing that.
the pilots attention was somewhere else
plus there are quite a few logs in BC and Alaska....
Why did the boater do literally nothing to avoid this? He has all the maneuverability vs the plane.
As teenagers, my cousin and I were out in a canoe when we saw a float plane taking off in our general direction. Needless to say, we gave way. We didn't pause to consider right of way, nor visibility issues, nor exactly how close it would come. We just paddled like all hell was behind us! 😂
Same. We kayak in Departure Bay, which is busy with seaplanes, ferries, sailboats and powerboats. We stick close to shore, but sometimes we need to cross areas and you need to time it, watch for planes and ferries and paddle like crazy to get out of the potential path before trouble occurs. I don't care if I have right-of-way if a plane or ferry can't see me and is heading right toward me.
Canoes do not come under regulations as they are not vessels, they are personal watercraft. Vancouver harbor has banned operating personal watercraft within their boundaries.
That's a paddlin'
@@Glen-uy4jt I think the point was that they valued their safety over who had the right to be where, not the classification of the "vessel". If either the operator of the boat, the pilot, or both knew of their proximity to the other, they both should have been willing to take steps to avoid a collision regardless of who legally had to right of way. Filing a report or complaint about rules not being followed, or amending such rules to come more in line with the actuality of situations when it's found that they do not adequately cover them, or work in the best interests of those potentially involved is much easier if you haven't been run over by a boat or seaplane. Not to mention, it's not just you as a pilot, or operator/captain of the boat you have to consider, but the passengers of both vessels. If you're willing to sacrifice yourself to prove some point, others should not have to suffer the consequences.
@@CarbonKevin
Jasper Beardly, is that you?
Great analysis, thanks. I'm a US Coml, IFR, ASEL/ASES rated pilot and also a retired crash injury lawyer. The maritime ROW categories are not exclusive; a vessel can be in more than one category at a time, as you stated. But any given vessel is entitled to be assigned the highest ROW priority category into which it fits at a given moment. So, the Beaver was both a vessel under motor power (lowest priority), and a vessel with limited maneuverability (a mich higher priority) during the time it was accelerating nose-up and climbing onto the step on its takeoff run. For the same reason that a small outboard runabout should yield ROW to a large cargo ship, the Beaver had ROW here. Another factor I rarely see mentioned is speed. The boater may have thought they were not on a collision course because he may have felt he could have gone completely and safely across the Beaver's path before the Beaver got to where their courses would intersect. But the boater probably failed to consider that an airplane on a takeoff run is NOT traveling at the speed of a typical fast motorboat, say 20 to 30 knots, but two to three times that fast. I have also seen that fatal calculus play into many T-bone motorcycle crashes, where the driver of a crossing vehicle entering from a side road thought he had plenty of room and plenty of time to get across the lane occupied by an oncoming motorcycle on the main highway, but was unaware that the motorcycle was traveling 80 or 90 mph in a 40 or 50 mph zone. In the bike case, it was the cyclist who broke the law by speeding, and it was not unreasonable for the motorist to try to cross, based on what he expected the speed of highway traffic to be. In this case, it was unreasonable (based just on the info you provided) for the boater to try to cross the Beaver's takeoff path. Had he throttled back for just 30 seconds or so, and watched the Beaver take off, he could have proceeded on his way with virtually no delay, and a fine airshow takeoff on top of it.
I don’t think the boater was trying to cross the plane’s path. I think he/she simply lacked situational awareness given various distractions (possibly including socializing, loud music, alcohol, cell phone etc)
I also think the float plane pilot failed to notice the boat before committing to take off roll.
That plane was not limited in it's maneuverability. It could speed up, slow down, turn left and turn right. For a vessel to be limited in maneuverability it must be mechanically damaged or meet the following criteria and it must display proper lighting stating it is in limited maneuverability mode:
(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 mineclearance 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.
I’m on the side of ‘If you can’t judge the speed of another vehicle, maybe you shouldn’t be on the road’. Speeding doesn’t alter right-of-way law. Yes, they are breaking the law by speeding, but they still have right-of-way.
Hi, thanks. Most US states apply a comparative negligence rule, with the jury assigning percentages of fault to the various participants in a crash. Rarely is anyone entirely NOT at fault. Speeding just a little bit over the limit, I would agree with you, should not affect that person having the right of way. But with these T-bone motorcycle crashes, we were talking about speeds double or triple the posted limit. The duty of the crossing driver is to yield to oncoming cross traffic that he reasonably should perceive to be within a zone of danger if the crossing vehicle were to make its maneuver in front of the oncoming vehicle, instead of yielding, sure. But if the vehicle on the favored boulevard is a full block away, and if the crossing driver knows that he would have more than enough time to safely cross before the favored driver even got close IF the favored driver were doing the speed limit (or a little above), it is not negligent to conclude it is safe to cross. The real question is, at what point of combined distance and presumed speed of the approaching favored vehicle does the crossing vehicle have to conclude "it's too dangerous" and wait to yield until the favored vehicle has passed? Most sensible "defensive drivers" would argue, "when in doubt, WAIT," but the point is, even a careful crossing driver may misjudge that decision point without being negligent if the oncoming motorcycle is both tiny compared to a car or truck (and therefore LOOKS farther away) and traveling at 3 TIMES the speed limit.
Sorry I should have never gotten out of bed, otherwise I'm at fault. Good reasoning,safety committee, good thing you're not held to same standard.
Regardless of the regulations, my instructor taught me that Rule #1 is "Don't hit anything." Good rule.
Nothing here mentioned about common sense!
@@user-rq5mp4hv7t because it's not very common..
Very interesting that Juan referred to Sal here. It so happened that in Sal’s latest video on the “stuck at max throttle in Charleston”, he mentioned Juan by name. This makes me very happy.
Both great quality channels
Jaun does a great job on his channel
Yep, I caught that too.
Both great RUclips channels.
Yes! We've got to get Sal and Juan together for drinks sometime.
Yep....Juan's a gent....we took a Delta flight from Atlanta to Tampa on Saturday...a 75....thought of Juan being in the Right Seat even though he's an American Airlines aviator.
Always treat boaters as if they’re trying to kill you. When I was getting my float rating in Canada, the discussion was really “legal” vs practical. It doesn’t matter who legally has the right to be there except for who gets the blame afterwards. Boaters, especially pleasure craft, are notorious for being unpredictable and not following the rules. They’ll turn in front of you when you least expect it. I’ve had plenty of seadoos try to race me on the water.
I haven't had seadoos try to race me because I've never been on the water, but I had a red tail hawk join off my right wing flying downwind at my home airport. I have to say the red tail hawk displayed nothing but professionalism.
Anyone can buy a boat and “go boating”. The stuff I’ve seen while on the water is everything from stupid or ignorant to downright reckless and dangerous. It’s worse up (PNW) here during the summer.
@@major__kongHang glider pilot here. Red-tailed hawks are quite skilled and have a broad airspeed and sink-rate envelope. Their minimum sink speed in still air is about 250 ft / min, and their best glide appears to be about 12 to 1. They rack up airtime faster than most human pilots, and since their airframe doesn’t have any autopilot functionality, all of their hours are hand-flown.
Similar to riding motorcycles. It doesn't matter who has the right-of-way if you're dead.
Along the lines of a motorcyclist. I do believe there's a law of gross tonnage, I certainly pay attention to it.
I’m seaplane rated. On Lake Union in Seattle there are 5 buoys with flashing lights. If the lights start flashing boaters are to move 200 feet away. SEATTLE - From Memorial Day to Labor Day, five advisory buoys will flash in Lake Union when seaplanes are set to take off or land, advising boaters and paddlers to move 200 feet east or west for safety reasons.
The Recreational Boating Association of Washington (RBAW) launched the "Mind the Zone" campaign in 2022 to inform paddlers and boaters about the guidance and says pilots reported people moving away more quickly last summer. They hope this summer to continue the education process, especially as more new people hit the water.
Lake Union has a lot of seaplane traffic. Sounds like this idea should be implemented in Vancouver.
I have operated a large power boat on Lake Union for 27 years and am also a pilot. I love the floatplanes but am not a fan of the buoys. On a busy day on the lake there are several hundred power boats, kayaks, sailboats, and paddle boards on the lake, most of which are adrift. From the time the lights on the buoys are activated by a pilot approaching to land, there is only about one minute until touchdown. Only a small fraction of the boats will notice the lights at all, let alone have time to power up and get out of the way. The buoys are 500 feet apart and the zone they define (assuming 200 feet both directions) takes up a huge chunk of the middle of the lake (2000x400 feet). In the 5 years the buoys have been present I have seen thousands of landings on the lake, not one of which was facilitated by or made safer by the buoy system. Instead, the very capable pilots find the best possible spot to land - very often not near the buoys, and land with plenty of clearance from boats. As the video point out, the pilot's visibility is restricted on take-off for several seconds before the aircraft comes up "on-step". That is why the pilot MUST be assured that their takeoff path is clear BEFORE they throttle up and be prepared to abort the takeoff immediately once up on step and visibility improves. Simply put, the floatplanes pilots are ENTIRELY responsible for avoiding everyone else while taking off or landing. Lake Union is a busy mixed use public resource - both recreational and commercial. During times that it is too crowded to facilitate safe floatplane operations, those operations should cease.
The pilot was warned by ATC about the boat ahead of him. That in itself should have been sufficient to prevent this incident.
@@TomGruber-kz9uo takeoff path WAS clear, until the idiot boater decided to enter it
That is a great idea. Here in Eastern WA, we are so used to planes on water meaning fire planes, we rush to get out of the way for them. As someone who grew up boating with the rules, smaller power craft within the powercraft class everything else being equal give way to bigger- jet skis get nothing- unless they are literally to the right. Common sense says boat was wrong. They had more control. They could literally turn on a dime.
Be careful. These are "Advisory" only. As a boat, I don't have to move, I can stand my ground. They tell people to be advised that there is an incoming aircraft. Don't expect anybody to move, especially sailboats on Tuesdays. Seattle owns these, and has no control over the water rules themselves, and are complete unenforceable. There is a 7MPH limit on the lake, your incoming speed is 80MPH, we couldn't even move out if you clicked your mike 5-7 times if we wanted. (also a pilot, motor boat, and sailboat user on Lake Union)
I flew my floatplane out of Kenmore, WA for many years. It's probably the busiest floatplane harbor in the lower 48, but has the bad luck of having an estuary right next to it that has a public boat launch. Boaters, jet skiers, and paddle boarders come out of the estuary perpendicular to the take-off/landing area and freely intermix with the private and commercial floatplane operations. It's nothing short of a miracle that no one has been killed there - yet. I had jet skiers race up alongside me as I touched down, then turn sharply to spray me and zip away laughing, raising a beer bottle or a middle finger, or both. Never underestimate the stupidity of a boater - and I'm also a boater.
And Juan, you're right! You should definitely get a float rating. It's a hoot! One one trip, at my 12-year-old son's request, we flew the entire trip (over the water) back from the San Juans to Kenmore at 50' AGL. I've never felt more like a bird.
Some boaters are dumb though, it's true. Most not, obviously. Boating is dangerous because dumb boaters get themselves and others killed.
You don't need a float plane to fly 50' above the water. My dad liked to tell of the time when he was in the Navy, and they flew him and several other personnel from San Diego to San Francisco. Before they took off, they made everyone put on parachutes. Then they flew 50' above the water the entire way. This was during the Korean War.
Water Rudders are retracted for take off and landing. In the event of a rejected takeoff you’re only going to have rudder authority until you can get them dropped back down. It’s going to cost you a case of beer if you’re caught taking off or landing with water rudders down.
Came here to say this as well. Good observation.
haha... the case of beer was the rule when I got my float endorsement in 1980. Glad to see it still applies, and not everything changes with time.
@@craig7350 Its down to a 6-pack. Beer has gotten more expensive than Av-Gas.
We’re talking Canadian beer right? 😉
So sad seeing such a beautiful machine get damaged.
As a frequent boater in NH Lakes with floatplanes around, I’ve been of the opinion that I’m always the give way vessel vs the plane all due to my assumption they have very limited mobility. Plus those boating rules always dictate that if you’re unsure you must assume you’re the give way vessel.
Was on my cabin cruiser in Coal Harbor nearby when the accident occurred (though did not actually witness it). Always navigating this restricted stretch of water in summer, and as a former pilot, ALWAYS check and give those floats planes absolute right of way. Every now and then a boat will cruise straight through that zone oblivious to the danger. Surprised this is the first in my life time it's happened.
Juan says: "I should get a float plane rating". while smiling. love it
I had the same reaction
There appears to be a second watercraft visible between the one involved in the incident and the light based on the first clip. Possible the pilot heard the tower warning, picked out the #2 watercraft that appears to be moving away from the takeoff path, and either never saw #1 due to the forward blind spot or never looked for additional obstructions.
good suggestion and quite possible. , the other boat looked to traveling east bound though ??? 🤔
That other boat was the one I noticed first: admittedly only in a video, but it clearly was the more prominent.
I’m not a pilot but I do have 50 years of sailboat experience and I wholly agree with your comments about ALL vessels, including seaplanes. Most yachties know the international rules for ALL vessels - the boat on the right has right of way but you get out of the way of vessels with limited ability to manoeuvre. And when you have priority under the rules you do not assert it mindlessly in risky situations. Many powerboaters do not appear to know these rules and seem to believe they can navigate wherever they wish - there is plenty of history of collisions. However, I agree that it is not obvious where the blame attaches in this incident.
The controller specifically mentions the westbound boat.
I live in the towers facing coal harbour and am looking at Burnaby shoal light right now . I count 3 pleasure craft one commercial ferry a freighter anchored in the channel 2 large Alaska cruise ships just departing and a couple of Harbour air scheduled flights landing across the harbour from the Stanley park side
On a busy weekend it can be nuts out there, throw in some casual untrained pleasure boaters and something was bound to happen
The good thing is no fatalities reported so far
The bottom line in my nautical trading is to avoid a collision if you can as you can be just as dead right as wrong
Keep up the great information and analysis 😢
I'm also in Coal Harbour and fly harbour air often. That was a rental boat with most likely an inexperienced boater. You're right the harbour is wild in summer.
You're describing all the vessels you can see out your window, but how many vessels are actually within the charted aircraft operations zone?
I'm guessing none of the pleasure boats, and certainly not the ferry, freighter or cruise ships.
You may as well count all the seagulls, because they're just as relevant to your point.
As a boat owner/skipper, of a 19' runabout, it's always always head on a swivel! Identify and avoid. I try to maintain at least 100 yards between me and other vessels. I don't care who is the stand on vessel, I assume that all other skippers are some level of intoxicated. That's just the way it is. PWC operators are often a menace to navigation; very dangerous. Many boats also suffer from limited visibility when they accelerate from a dead stop. Their bows rise just like the sea planes nose does and the skippers can't see anything in front of them either. Add sun in their eyes and they are even more blind and dangerous. That being said, I love being on the water. Once I got to see a Super Scooper drop down and fill it's tank then climb up and over the dam at Castaic Lake. That was exciting. Thank you Juan. R, Steve
I love your assumption that all other skippers are at some level of intoxication.
@@swerne01 YES! That's because I see them drinking beer and hard liquor right out in the open! Always go wide around a point. They come blasting out of five mile per hour zones towing skiers. Just really dangerous. R, Steve
@@swerne01 , As Nate Bargatze says, "Everyone driving a boat is either drunk or eleven. No one's a normal person
@@steveinla8963Good to know they're everywhere like that☹️
@@swerne01 It's a pretty good rule of thumb from what I've seen
Just a note for all of the commenters saying, “forget the COLREGS, just avoid a collision.” Of course taking action to avoid a collision is part of the “rules of the road” (COLREGS). However, operators knowing which vessel is stand-on and which is give-way is a critical part of collision avoidance. Why? Because if both vessels take late action to avoid, they may both turn right into each other.
Right, but the boat still cut off a seaplane who was taking off.
Seaplane had clear room for takeoff, and this boat stupidly cut off a seaplane who was actively taking off. COLREGS don't tell you that as long as you aren't the give way vessel, that you are allowed to speed in front of other vessels and cut them off.
Yes, that’s correct but underplays the ultimate and overriding principle of safety in maritime operations, which is as you say that all vessel operators have a duty to avoid collision and risk to vessel, life and limb, at all times.
Even if you are the stand-on vessel, you still have that duty and if avoiding imminent collision entails altering your speed or course in any manner whatsoever, so be it.
Whatever you do in that emergency circumstance should be done with deliberately obvious intention, such that your change of course or speed cannot be misconstrued.
In other words, for instance, if possible and you are helming a manoeuvrable vessel such as was involved in this incident, don’t deviate by 2 degrees, deviate by 90 degrees or 180 degrees. Don’t tease the throttle, accelerate rapidly or crash stop and reverse to make your intention clear and achieve maximum separation.
As I’ve said elsewhere, it is difficult to quote COLREGS from a pine box buried 6’ under.
Better to live to shake your fist at the cause of your rudely interrupted passage once the danger has passed.
In this case it seems that the boat’s skipper was charged with DUI following the incident so I think it’s reasonable to assume that his decision making capacity was to some degree impaired.
That does not, however, exonerate the pilot who seems to have failed to maintain adequate lookout.
Whatever the final analysis, I’m just astonished that everyone survived.
I lived on Lake Union, in Seattle, and we have 3 seaplane companies operating there; Kenmore Air, Seattle Seaplane, and Canadian-owned and operated Harbor Air. There is no "tower" on the lake. I sailed a sailboat, and always gave the right-of-way to the floatplanes. But power boaters are another breed and usually have little situational awareness.
A floatplane is a vessel (boat) until it's off the water. However, a floatplane also has a limited ability to maneuver or stop and limited visibility on take-off and should have the right-of-way.
Floatplanes are very very loud on takeoff. There is NO way the boat didn't hear it. With the responsibility of all parties to avoid a collision, I would blame the power boater.
The videos of landing at Lake Union are absolutely mental. I've flown in and out of there before and that lake gets so busy in the summer. In this incident in Vancouver the water was relatively deserted compared to what Lake Union can be like.
'should have the right of way due to lack of visibility' runs into the issue that, even if boaters were to know and obey the rules, they do not know about the lack of visibility.
Yes that's a key general maritime rule you mentioned there; all parties must do what they can to avoid collision, regardless of who has right of way.
Legally speaking Rule 15 says the seaplane is the give way vessel. We've both sailed on Lake Union and I was taught early as a courtesy to stay out of the way of the seaplanes. I also know that regardless of all other rules you have a duty to avoid a collision if the give-way boat fails to give way, and obviously the power boater didn't do that. But the seaplane had the first responsibility to give way under the COLREGs and failed to do so. Are you a total idiot to not then evade and yourself violating Rule 8 of the COLREGs? Heck yes. But the seaplane, legally, had the first duty to give way.
@@marinareilly-collette2490, even though he has less maneuverability?
I live here. There are planes coming or going from that patch of water constantly. Any local yokel with or without a boat should know that's a place that float planes operate. You can't possibly have been to the harbour area without noticing. I have no idea who has right of way, but both parties need to do better.
Lived there over the Harbour for decades. Wondering if the pilot was a new kid on the block as these planes are usually in the air FAST. though he could be in the air by boat time. He WAS. Just not QUITE high enough. if that's the story, he's looking at a really BAD day.
@@user-zf3xb3qx8wi agree ive boated in that area for years and was told by other seaplane pilots that the rookies fly on the weekends. It looks like he was heavy as he should of been airborn way before he hit the boat.
@@drumswest5035 The plane being heavy was my hunch as well. I've got a nagging feeling the operator saw the boat and thought they would clear it.
Number 1 rule of seaplane is that boats can't be trusted. Number 2 rule of seaplane is to refer to rule number 1.
Having been a passenger in commercial float planes several times. In one case the pilot had a grab handle fitted to the wind above his head and he pulled himself up and took a really good look just as he put the power on, in another case (in a beaver) the pilot held the door open for the start of the run and again made really sure the water was clear. This 2nd case very also a congested harbour and the plane operator had their own look out double checking.
I used to sail pretty regularly in Vancouver. Ultimately the most important rule is to stay clear of vessels with limited maneuverability. A seaplane clearly has limited maneuverability. If you see one in motion even once, whether it's landing, taking off, or taxiing, you know this.
Here's an example: We were racing once in in a big championship in Vancouver. A freighter drove through the race course. I changed course so I could always see the bridge of the freighter. A bunch of boats didn't change course, getting ridiculously close to the freighter. Even with a tall mast on a small boat there was no way anyone of the bridge could have seen those boats.
The harbor pilot on the freighter called in a complaint about all the boats who didn't stay clear, and included us on the list. They tried to throw us all out of the race. Somehow we convinced the race organizers that we had taken appropriate actions. We were at sea level with a 25 foot mast, we could always see the bridge of the freighter at all times, and we maneuvered so the harbor pilot could clearly discern our intentions. Fortunately we weren't thrown out of the race, and the race organizers awarded us time for avoiding the freighter.
The point is that everybody should have known to stay the hell out of the way of a vessel with limited maneuverability. Some of them didn't, and they paid a price for it. Clearly the harbor managers had contacted the race organizer and complained. It was very clear what the expectation was: stay the hell out of the way of vessels with limited maneuverability.
Finally, sailors, especially experienced sailors, know the rules and normally follow them (I have no idea what those sailors in Vancouver thought they were doing). People with power boats generally have no clue what they are doing, and constantly do stupid stuff, often because they are drunk. Drunk and stupid is a dangerous combination anywhere, but especially somewhere you can run over somebody with a high-horsepower machine weighing thousands of pounds, and/or fall in the water and drown.
What about the door post on the right side obscuring the view? This happens occasionally in any vehicle you operate. It's happened to me in cars, trucks and planes.
One of the biggest issues here in Vancouver is the large amount of weekend warrior boaters, and renters. It's an epidemic during the summer, and this was one of the first nice days of spring.
Your RC is the problem not the sailors. I race in one of the busiest shipping lanes in the world. Maintaining visual with the bridge is useless. Maintain your course, 50 yards of clearance is plenty if you're astern of the freighter. If you're not comfortable with that racing in an active shipping lane just isn't for you. That's fine, but do not paint with such a broad brush if you don't know what you're doing.
@@15Webber One reason I got rid of our Toyota Prius is because I had too many instances of pulling up to a stop sign, and not seeing the car to my left. The driver side roof pillar completely obscured the other car! I learned to waggle my head back and forth to look around it, but I consider that roof pillar to be poor design, or else a poor fit for my driving position in the car. And don't get me started about the rear windows! I never did get used to that wacko design. It's too bad, because I loved the drive train, for the most part.
@@EXROBOWIDOW I've driven vans, tractor trailers and cars. The closest I've come to being in an accident is usually because of the blind spot behind the door post on the right side. A quick glance that way they may be completely hidden.
In the first video, aren't there *two* boats in the area? You can see the lighthouse and two other white specks. If the pilot was warned to look out for "a boat" or "the boat" rather than "two boats" and spotted the one to the right (which was safely clear), he might have thought it was the one the tower was referring to.
Exactly what I saw. There are 2 boats, the controller points out one, the pilot says "Check Remarks" so technically acknowledges, but does he really acknowledge it or is he being complacent? Does he only see the wrong boat? Beaver has a big 1-o'clock blind-spot while on step and likely never saw the boat. Why didn't the controller say "reject takeoff" as the situation was developing? the swiss cheese lined up on this one... boat captain, pilot, and controller all could have done better.
Remembering how chilly the southern portion of the Puget Sound can be, I’m glad everyone is okay.
Not really everyone. 2 people in critical condition in the hospital
The two that were in the boat were lucky to not lose their heads. They ended up being taken to the hospital in pretty rough condition.
FYI, It's June and we're swimming in that water, cold yes, there will be shrinkage, but it's not life threatening unless you can't swim.
Vancouver BC is not in Puget Sound
I’m a commercial rated pilot and also a push boat captain. Seaplanes has to follow the CFR’s concerning navigating in water ways. I’m another’s words, seaplanes has to follow the rules of the roads as if your a water vessel.
Hi Juan, I am a sailor, pilot (alas, wheels only!) and I occassionally operate a power vessel for my job for the Port Authority. I watch floatplanes come and go safely all day long safely and wish I could be flying one. The area is not exclusively for floatplanes, they must share the waterway with other vessels. It is marked as a warning area, yes, and it is exactly that, a warning to all boaters, no more, no less. I suspect the pilot is unfortunately partly to blame, surely he would not have started his takeoff run if he saw the boat coming. But how a small power boat could not hear the roar of a Beaver on takeoff is beyond me. He had a duty to see and avoid but seemed oblivious. I have to wonder if the power boat was a rental.
That's because it was a renter, who likely didn't even have a boat license. In Vancouver there's a ton of rental places that let you take boats out with just a DL, and it's a major issue here every summer.
I'm a PWC operator, grew up on the water on yachts to sailboats. My thoughts on right of way is as follows. If it's bigger than you, get the heck outta the way! Situational awareness keeps us safe, whether someone is in the right or wrong. We all need to have our TCAS running whenever operating vessels, motor vehicles, and flying machines! Glad to hear no life was lost in this case.
Looked to me like it was two ego's at work who refused to make a course change. Seen this before on the water happens at boat ramps too.
Yeah coming at this from a boater's perspective, I'd consider a floatplane on takeoff as restricted in ability to maneuver. But I also put no faith in pleasure boats with bimini tops. I'm being prejudiced, but there's no way they're monitoring VHF and should be considered as a vessel not under command.
@@Mike-01234 i don't know if it's ego's. maybe the boaters seen plenty of planes take off but get out of the water much earlier vs this one that might of been heavy and had to run longer and thus assumed they were out of the way..
Size & weight determine right of way in my book. No matter what kind of craft it is.
@@Mike-01234 I say this about car accidents too. The primary purpose of the rules is not to assign blame. The primary purpose is to prevent accidents. If you are using a specific rule ("vessel not on the right must give way" or "vessel with restricted maneuverability has priorit") to justify putting yourself in a situation which could cause an accident, you are literally using the letter of the law to defeat the spirit of the law.
If you read through the boating rules carefully, somewhere there will be a blurb about it being the duty of all vessel operators to do whatever is necessary to avoid an accident regardless of what all the other rules say. If both parties are keeping an eye out for potential accidents, fewer holes in the swiss cheese will line up than if only one party is keeping an eye out because the other party is confident they have the right of way.
Sounds like the tower phrased it as 1 boat in the path. The pilot may have seen the rightmost boat and continued thinking they were clear.
Underrated comment.
He read The clearance bout the boat it's pilot error
I didn't see the boat he hit the first time I watched this, I thought it was the wake at the apex of a turn the other boat had made under high power.
I'm kinda in agreement on this... I think he saw the other boat and the incident boat's wake and thought it was one boat...
@OfficialBlancoliriocv your a fake
Very good overview and presentation of the events that happened here in Vancouver this past weekend
As a sailor, I can confirm that you were absolutely correct about your understanding and interpretation of the ColRegs “rules of the road” as we commonly referred to them.
While the seaplane is taxing, they share the same rights as any power vessel, which would make them giveaway to another power vessel depending upon which side they are approaching in accordance with the collision regulations and just for our viewers to know, a sailboat operating with its auxiliary motor is considered to be a power vessel, and therefore on equal footing.
But the moment a seaplane is in it takeoff evolution. It is now afforded the same rights as a vessel, which is restricted in its ability to maneuver and thus all others vessel in your example are expected to act as “Giveway” vessels
There are many other vessels coming in and out of that very small area of operations from cruise ships to tankers that are very close by and very large luxury power yachts coming out of the one of eight marinas just in that immediate vicinity
This is the reason I suspect that they have the tower controller there to aid in the pilots decision, whether not to proceed with takeoff.
As an aside, over in Victoria, the water space is even further constrained , and there they use in addition to a tower lighted buoys. And it is published in every notice to mariner, as well as the cruising guide for Victoria Harbor, that when those lights are flashing boats are restricted from travelling across that particular portion of the body of water.
I suspect that we will likely see a similar system of flashing boys being employed here in Cole Harbor,
Regretfully it seems that it will ultimately come down to boaters learning to make wiser and safer decisions.
Thank you for your content
Wow. Our crew sailed through this exact area the morning of this collision, leaving Harbour Air to starboard and Burnaby shoals to port as usual. To answer the hosts query, boat traffic is unavoidable here for the hundreds of vessels moored in the 2 nearby marinas West of Harbour Air. To be inside of Burnaby shoals near the fuel barge can be sketchy at low tide for deeper keel monohulls. As a sailor, I'm surprised to see the majority opinion considers the aircraft as the 'give way vessel' as in all of my training we learn that commercial vessels have right of way over pleasure vessels, and you need to GTF out of their way. I'm so relieved (and surprized) to hear no lives were lost, what a blessing. This reminds me of something my instructor in an offshore survival course said to us.. The same sentiments are echoed by several others here, pilots and boaters alike... He said: "You may indeed have the right of way, but don't t assume the other vessel's understanding or abilities and take every precaution to avoid collision anyways, because it won't matter that you had the right of way if you end up being 'DEAD RIGHT'!"
I’ve spent many hours at conventions looking out over the Vancouver harbour. I’m not a pilot or ATC, but I was always amazed at the lack of physical delineation of the take off zones. I don’t want to pile on just because an accident happened, but I’m not totally surprised.
I had an experience shortly after I received my float plane rating. It was in an 85 hp J-3. As you know, you solo a J-3 from the back seat. I was practicing take-offs and landings on a Sunday afternoon. The lake was full of boats and water skiers. When I was ready to go, I checked carefully to ensure no craft were in my takeoff path or were approaching the path. When I added full power the nose came up and I had no visibility forward. As the plane accelerated and came onto the step and I could see forward, I realized a boat with a skier had turned directly into my takeoff path. It was too late to abort, but fortunately the J-3 accelerates quickly to flying speed and I was able to get it out of the water before reaching the boat. You are very vulnerable during the plow phase of the takeoff with little visibility forward.
watching the vid. these planes USUALLY are airborne pretty fast. wondering if the pilot thought he'd be in the air by then. and he was. but not enough.
Hopefully you learned from it not to practice takeoffs and landings on a Sunday afternoon with a lake full of boats and water skiers. If you must, take off and go to another lake or practice something else. Boaters are unaware and unpredictable. Glad you didn't hit anybody and you lived to fly another day!
Why were you practicing take-offs and landings with a lake full of boats and water skiers?
@@user-zf3xb3qx8w yah it seemed way heavier then the example takeoff runs.
@@CaptainRon1913 people with aircraft think they are above everyone else. look at morons making emergency landings on highways.
IRPCS - colregs apply to seaplanes when they are on the water.
Rule 18e states - “A seaplane on the water shall, in general, keep clear of all vessels and avoid impeding their navigation.” It goes on to say that when a risk of collision exists they shall comply with Part B rules - so the vessel with the other to its port side shall stand-on.
So clearly under these rules it was the floatplane that should have manoeuvred. However avoiding a collision was the responsibility of both vessels (Rule 2).
If there is a government regulation governing, prohibiting or restricting vessels in the seaplane operating area then it would generally supersede the colregs.
Side note - A seaplane is generally not considered to be limited in ability to manoeuvre - that applies to things like cable laying, towing, dredging, etc… and the relevant lights or day shapes are displayed.
absolutely agree, well stated.
Both had an obligation to lookout (Rule 5) and avoid collision (Rule 2). The pleasure craft maintained course and speed (Rule 17) but the give-way vessel, the sea plane did not take substantial action early to avoid a collision (Rule 16).
Ultimately I think majority of the fault will fall on the pilot as you said for Rule 18(e)
Hi Juan, As someone who lives and works in Vancouver (on boats), I can tell you that on the marine maps, that area is marked off for boaters, as you are meant to go around the takeoff and landing zone. Unfortunately, that is the second time this week that a float plane has come in contact with a pleasure boat. Also, talking to First Responders who responded to it, there was a language barrier on behalf of the boat's master.
oh boy....
@@blancolirio I feel like we need some idiot lights on buoys setup for this runway. Remote activation of lights prior to and during takeoff may be of some help?
Regardless of the regs, both parties dropped the ball but that boat really should have noticed the Beaver running down on them.
When I'm on the water the sound or sight of a float plane maneuvering gives me pause enough to slow down or stop and asses their intentions as well as the overall situation.
The situation in Vancouver is obviously a mess but unless some kind of comprehensive solution is found we'll end up with a fatality sooner or later.
My parents were both float-rated Alaskan bush pilots (were... both gone now), and they both said this repeatedly... "Will you be right and dead, or wrong and safe?" I flew with them often, and situational awareness was Rule #1. Passengers were part of that... they regularly suggested their passengers speak up if they saw something questionable.
This smacks of ego from the boat (I have the right of way so bugger off) and loss/lack of situational awareness from the pilot... he read back the warning of boat traffic.... he knew it was there "somewhere".
Also there are two boats close to each other, so it's very possible that the pilot took note of the boat warning but since it's only mentioning one boat he thought he was in the clear once he spotted the one to his right. Even a passenger's warning "there is a boat in the way" might get mistaken for the other boat.
Most salient comment I've seen in this entire comment section. The pilot has limited visibility, didn't see the collision boat and assumed the other boat was the boat the tower, and the passenger were talking about. My opinion, the plane should have kept clear.
I am a very experienced boater - 65 years and counting. I also have my PPL and about 15hours on floats. The Canadian Safe Boating Guide (published by Transport Canada instructs boaters to keep well clear of seaplanes. The Collision Regulations state that a seaplane would be considered a vessel (boat) with limited manoeuvre ability.
My guess it that the boat was in the wrong. Very fortunate that nobody was killed or badly injured. The boater could have easily avoided the accident. The pilot also could have perhaps reduced the severity but the boat would lot have collided with the seaplane if the operator had taken even the most basic steps to stop or turn away.
Hi Jaun, thanx for your various episodes on your channel. I was in Vancouver in 2012 - unfortunately never got to fly in any floatplanes while there. Love that part of the world all the way up to Alaska. Big hello from Cape Town South Africa.
I grew up in the right seat of my Dads 185 on floats. Very little visibility until you got on step. You could grab the reinforcement bars and kinda get a peak out the side. Boats, floating logs (deadheads) and hidden sand bars are a worse case scenario. Water rudders are up on take off! With heavy loads you have to rock her up to plane.
Love the Sal call out! Great to see two of my favorite RUclipsrs bring each other into the conversation.
I wonder what Chief Makoi will say about this
Agree fully! And Rainman Ray, of course!
as a boater, I can confirm the pecking order....
a float-plane is a motor-boat in a Marina, but on Takeoff it is considered a vessel highly restricted in maneuvering, so the highest priority of all the vessels under control.
also, it is recommended that one should never enter an area of floatplane operations if such is in use... and NEVER downwind of an airplane.
the problem is, a boater is not trained to scan the kind of distance one needs to scan in order to be able to avoid an airplane, it's just far to much of a speed difference.
where we were, the general good practice was to announce any takeoff on Channel-16 on the the maritime VHF radio, &/or make 6 long horn-blasts using a compressed air handheld horn... *(which is the Maritime signal for starting a maneuver with restricted maneuverability)
both of these should be something any skipper will recognize and pay close attention to.
hope this helps!
I agree that it's both wise and courteous to minimize time sailing through such an area, but...
- 6 long blasts isn't a standard signal (it may be a local convention)
- Seaplanes are specifically called out in Rule 18 as being obligated to keep clear of all other vessels (this video unfortunately referenced a summary rather than checking the actual rules).
- People often run into trouble when they try to assess "maneuverability". Restricted ability to maneuver is specifically defined in the COLREGs. I think it would be quite unusual to be applied here, and it's also inconsistent with COLREGS treatment of WIG craft.
- Both vessels here clearly failed to keep a proper look-out. Would the boater be excused because he missed a powerboat doing 70 mph? This is a common factor in such court cases: at least one party, often both, isn't maintaining an effective watch.
@@missinggravitas the 6 long blasts thing was at least quoted as being the Relevant International Maritime Standard Signal in the times I took the exams, but that was a while back... it was in thesame index as the light and day signals for boats with reduced maneuverability. maybe that changed now... I am not current, and definitely not on the US system.
@@missinggravitas if the vessel is considered to have been in such a position/pace that the reasonable sighting distance gave less than a certain chance of successful maneuver, the vessel going at the higher pace was considered at fault. the fault of the lookout might still be there, but, only in the civil case, where they will usually be assigned a 10% or 5% of the blame... the coast guard investigation would mark them as a factor, but not at fault/
@@stanislavkostarnov2157 It sounds like the danger signal in 34(d): at least 5 short blasts, given when there is doubt about the other's intentions or it it seems insufficient action is being taken. At least since the '72 colregs there aren't any special sound signals for status. I'm curious now, so I might dig up some of the older rules.
@@missinggravitas we were taught, 5 short blasts was - get on the radio or make your intentions clear by other means....
at least in colloquial parlance...
what I am talking about is more like, "I am now moving and am unable to change course, so it's your responsibility to get out of my way..."
Yeah Dr. Sal!…. Juan, I feel that the two of you complement each other very well in your areas of expertise…. Air and Water.
I big thank you to both! ✌🏻🙂
Juan... I can play substitute for Sal (Less his pinache'!). As you pointed out there is a fundamental difference between "rules of the road" on the water and that which we follow in aviation. (USCG Aviator, grad from US Merchant Marine Academy '95 3rd Mate Unlimited & Marine Casualty Investigator.)
I am editing my reply... I suggested the NTSB, USCG, FAA would be investigating. I am incorrect, this event occured in Canada and I was incorrect with repect to jurisdiction regarding the investigation. However, I stand by the remainder of the assessment... Canada is signatory to COLREGs. I would suggest my over all assessment is accurate to the best of my ability. All is subject to change as more information is found. The CSB, Canda Safety Board will be leading this investigation. I will also add, the US needs to follow this and adjust our own regulations accordingly.
As usual, you are correct on both of your points. With the exception of the term "Right of Way" in that this term is never used with respect to COLREGS. It is easy to mix a car driving term and maritime term; However, the distictions are critical.
"The Burdened vs Stand-on Vessel"
Vessels generally fall into two separate catagories...
1. "Stand on" vessel
2. "Give way" or Burdened Vessel
Obligation for Safe Operation Rule (COLREGS Rule 2a)
This rule states that ALL vessels must operate in such a way so as avoid a collision.
It is the responsibility of the give way vessel, to maneuver so as avoid a collision. It is expected that the "stand on vessel" will maintain course and speed until which point collision is immenent and then the stand on vessel is obligated to make efforts to avoid collision.
The Collision
One view of this I saw, the boat, was underway & makingway, with the seaplane on the boat's port bow. This makes the boat the burdened vessel and the seaplane the stand on vessel until the impact was noted to be imminent, at which point the seaplane would be obligated to take action that any reasonable operator in a similar circumstance would take. (Abort the take-off). However, once the boat made its error, there was little that could be done by the seaplane as may have been required by rule 2a.
Vessel Catagory / Operational State
Seaplanes fall into a unique catagory, often misunderstood. When in a "taxi" low speed, in a state of displacement, they would be like any other powered vessel and subject to those rules
When on their take off run, getting on plane, the Seaplane, fits the catagory of a vessel restricted in its ability to maneuver. Given then very nature of the take off, needing to be into the wind, on plane etc... the seaplane is unequivocally a "vessel restricted in its ability maneuver."
However, this does not releive the aircraft to ensure their path is clear, it would be best practice to announce on marine VHF (Channel 12 or 16) their intent with a securite' call to announce their takeoff roll. Also, while there maybe a control tower, I suspect all operations on the water; from the peerspective of ATC would with "Due Regard" (at the plane operators risk).
Apportionement of Fault
Anytime, we look at a marine casualty, blame is never 100% on one operator or another, failure is often apportioned between both parties in the collision.
There is another angle of this collision that shows the boat moving into path of the Beaver.
Investgators will likely look into... (Direct play from JB)
1. Did the Beaver Make an Announcement Secureite' Call
2. Did the boat operator maintain a watch on the radio (CH 16 & 12)
3. Did the Boat operator enter into restricted or known area for seaplane ops
4. Did the Boat oeprator maintain an adequate look out doctrine
5. What was the opational state of the boat & was the operator impaired
6. What training did the boat operator have, likely recreational
7. The Aircraft operator, how familar were they the COLREGs (Maritime rules of the road)
8. What safety briefing did the PAX on the plane get and was it effective in the egress from the aircraft
One thing I know is not covered in COLREGs and how CCG (I am not sure how Canada regulates seaplanes but suspect it not unlike the US) rules regarding Commercial Vessel Operation.) The plane is a waterborne vessel engaged in commercial operations with paying PAX on board. Technically speaking, would this operator require a commercial USCG license to taxi that plane from the dock to the position on take off? I am not stating this be required, but I think, it is something that the USCG (Redacted, Canada CG CSB) may look at in their investigation. There will likely be a NTSB investigation, FAA investigation & a USCG marine casualty investigation. (Redacted, this event is a Canadian event, so those agencies will lead the investigation) [This was my error]
At Kings Point, this senerio was nearly always discussed as a part of the classes (2) on COLREGs, however, always considered... it will never happen. So, it appears failure of imagination has reared its ugly head.
Semper Paratus & Acta Non Verba (USCG & USMMA Mottos respectively)
John B Hall, KP '95
CG HH65 pilot
CG Marine Casualty Investigator
Useful insight, thanks!
This is the comment I was looking for!
Thanks John!
John is spot on. The issue was if the seaplane observed the boat before they went on the plane and did not communicate their intention.
Thanks for the shout-out. A perfect chance for a team up!
"There will likely be a NTSB investigation, FAA investigation & a USCG marine casualty investigation."
This is *Canada*. None of those *American* institutions have any jurisdiction here. It is being investigated by Transport Canada, who have control over this specific area of Coal Harbour. American laws don't cross the border.
The Port Of Vancouver site says two things about the Sea Planes. They have a marked zone in Coal Harbour that says, "Aircraft Operations Zone: Keep Clear" and, "Listen for aircraft. Float planes landing or taking off need plenty of space." Transport Canada will weigh the incident and make its decision about whose fault and what rules may need to be changed.
Was just in Vancouver and watched a bunch of Harbor Air take off and landing. Lots of marine traffic going into and out of the marina.
great video. Been following you since the first days of the Oroville dam failure! Keep up the great work.
As a Canadian boater, I hold 2 different operator's permits. The PCOC is maintory for all powered vessel operators. As well I have a Toronto Harbor license. Both classes teach you to always give way to float aircraft as they are absolutely the less maneuverable vessel. This one is very cut and dry. the boat was in an area they are to keep clear of,. And actually appear to slow down in the path of the aircraft and the aircraft is the less maneuverable. The boat is absolutely at fault.
In 1974 I was a passenger in the float plane on Lake Bemidji, Bemidji, Minnesota. There was a strong south wind that day, so we took off and landed southbound. After we landed we were still moving along at a pretty good rate. Briefly I thought the plane was going to wind up in the parking lot. At the last second the pilot pulled back hard on the stick. The plane did what I called a squat and we stopped quickly within a few feet of the dock. That plane was not a Beaver so we had good forward visibility. To this day I’m amazed at how quickly we stopped.
Water provides a huge drag force, which is part of the reason why powerboats get such poor fuel economy.
We boat in the PNW (WA & BC) and have visited several areas where float planes & boats interact in close proximity. The float planes are very ubiquitous up here. I’ve been trained that until the planes take off they are restricted by the same right of way rules as any other boat, as you mentioned. Yet their ability to maneuver is definitely not as simple as vessels. We research where we anchor & traverse and try to leave plenty of room for them, but sometimes they appear & land without notice, seemingly out of nowhere. Captains/vessel operators had better keep their head on a swivel and pre-plan, but that’s not always the case, especially in the busy summer months. I’m actually surprised this doesn’t occur more often.
I first found your channel based on research I was doing for a group dual sport ride through Death Valley and found your solo trip of the same. I have since thoroughly enjoyed the variety of content you provide and the very concise yet detailed way you approach matters like this collision. As a side note, I live in clear view of where this accident took place though did not witness it. Love your channel!
The Reverend is always amazed how well you put these videos together so fast and with such accuracy and insight. Praise be to the Gods of Infernal Combustion!
So glad everybody went home. Grew up in Miami on the water, everybody always stayed out of Chalks way.
No. 2 people in the boat didn't go home. They are in critical condition in the hospital.
It was a matter of time before something like this happened. I've been sailing in BC waters for 25 years and so many power boaters either lack situational awareness, don't know the rules of the "road", or feel a sense of entitlement when they put their hand on that throttle. We've even had BC Ferries run over power boaters because they were unaware of their surroundings. If you think Vancouver harbour is busy, check out Ganges harbour on Saltspring Island with satellite view enabled. Harbour Air flies in there many times a day and when you're boating there, you have to keep your wits about you - and above you!
Departure Bay and the Inner Harbour in Nanaimo is very busy too, ferries, sailboats, powerboats, sea planes, personal watercraft like kayaks, etc.
Ganges, though, has a single direction that the aircraft operate in, and multiple buoys indicating such and where the aircraft areas are. Even though I respect those buoys absolutely, it's felt like the aircraft have come scarily close to my mast on landing. (and I just have a little 35' mast, not some mega yacht).
Excellent reporting of the situation in Coal Harbour and the questions that need to be asked. Has always been a challenging waterway.
In the past I operated sea planes in and out of Coal Harbour for 14 years, some of them for this operator. I have not worked there for some years now so haven't any insight on the pilot flying, or his experience. Right of way rules on the water are part of the training at Harbour Air. The pilot would have been familiar with those rules and regulationns. I'm having a hard time fathoming why he did not see the the boat. Boats, wake and floating logs are always taken into consideration before starting your slide. I don't think he saw the boat at all, or until he didn't have time to react. Looking at the two videos, I don't believe he was trying to force it off the water, I believe he was hitting the wake of the east bound boat. The two most common areas boats transit east and west are exactly where these two boats where transiting and on the south side, right in front of the seaplane docks. All of this the pilot would be well aware. Also I believe it happened near noon so pilot fatigue should not have been a factor.
Yep, I don't think he ever saw the boat.
@blancolirio Thanks Juan, and for every thing you are doing here. Another poster on a different website "Av Canada " who sounds familiar and experienced in the Vancouver harbour floatplane scene hypothosysed if the tour passenger was trying to video the take off with his phone or video camera could have been blocking the pilots view to the right. As they were converging, the boat may have appeared stationary, therefore remaining out of the pilots view.
I worked for HA for 10 years operating out of the harbour as well. I agree with your comments. I’ve only heard of one other case of boat floatplane collision. The other time it was a landing where plane came up behind boat and under aircraft. Blind spots are a concern with all aircraft. I think this was just that, both boat and floatplane were in each others blind spot. However, my first priority as a pilot was situational awareness. I would suspect there was some weakness there for both parties. The warning by tower of the conflict with the boat doesn’t help the pic’s case. It will be interesting to see how the accident investigation comes out.
@@adotintheshark4848But he was very clearly warned.
I learned this when becoming a Coxswain in the US Navy.
The COLREGS [International Regulations for Prevention of Collisions at Sea, 1972 (72COLREGS)] actually has the pecking order with Seaplanes beneath powered vessels. Rule 18 "A seaplane on the water shall, in general, keep well clear of all vessels and avoid impeding their navigation. In circumstances, however, where risk of collision exists, she shall comply with the Rules of this Part."
Rule 3 is vessels restricted in their ability to maneuver (which is not a seaplane) but generally consists of things like towing, recovering, launching, etc. The reason a seaplane is not part of this category is they can increase/decrease power, turn, possibly get airborne. While restricted vessels literally cannot change anything about what they are doing, because of what they are doing.
Hope that explanation helps.
(edit: keep clear also does not mean restricted. There is a fueling station on the West of the aircraft operating area. So you could transit, I would go around; but you enter and clear the area. Basically don't just float or idle)
so what is to happen when the plane starts to take off and is going fast & the boat appears crosssing where the plane is taking off...is it not easier for the boat to change direction then the plane???
18(e)
@@CanadianTexaninLiguria sorry what is 18e ??
@@highlanderthegreatdoesn't matter if the boat is eaiser to turn.
This is correct. I was a CG Coxswain. NRCFSPS(W)
Not under command, restricted in ability to maneuver, constrained by draft, fishing/trolling, sailing, power driven, seaplane, (wing in ground)
The boat was the stand on vessel, though rule 7 still applies
I’m going to mark myself safe from the ensuing legal bullshit that will soon follow.
its Canada. no one gets any money in lawsuits. no one is ever charged.
Juan - you are correct: a seaplane taking off or landing is considered a vessel with restricted manoeuvrability, and is the stand-to vessel relative to a boat under power. In this collision, the boat ought to have manoeuvred to clear the plane.
COLREGS rule 18 (e) require that seaplanes operating on the water must stay well clear of all other vessels. In other words a seaplane is always at the bottom of the pecking order. However that does not eliminate ALL vessel's responsibility to avoid a collision in rule 7
Juan- I went to a small college in NH that had a flight program. During the winter semester break we would fly the whole fleet to Vero Beach and get almost a semester's worth of training done. On a weekend off, I went (hitch-hiked) to Jack Brown's Seaplane Base and got my seaplane rating. It was a blast! My last time flying floats was my check-ride (I passed). Do it!
I was just passing by the waterfront today. And haven't even got to watch the local news and you are on it. Dunno what your drinking or doing but keep it up.
Clean water
Oh man, I can't wait for the Blancolirio/WGOWS crossover episode.
Hi Juan, I am not a pilot but I do Moore my sailboat at the Vancouver Rowing Club, just to the west/south west of this accident and have sailed across here thousands of times. The list you have is NOT complete, at least for Canada. The list leaves off Aircraft for some reason and they are below "Motor Driven Vessel" and must give way to all other traffic. The area shown as "active aircraft area" is only for an advisory not to keep boats clear and even in this area planes must give way to others on the water. I have had many close calls in this area as pilots think they own the are with excuses ranging from "well we are going to fast to clear" or "we have limited visibility" but planes are advised to land further out on the water when it is busy and taxi in or out past the congestion, not just try to take the right. I watch for them as being right isn't worth being right and being dead but the boat has full right of way.
Just a note (from a licensed sea captain, and PPL): the motor boat COLREGs apply here because the plane is touching the water (they actually apply after takeoff too, where seaplanes are to give way to ALL other traffic). One of the COLREGs is that a local authority can override the general rules to do something like give the seaplanes right of way in that area (it's not clear that they actually have done that from the map you showed, so I will assume that the COLREGs apply here, if that area is truly off limits completely to motor boats, then what follows is not relevant).
There's a couple of COLREGs at play here. You mentioned that the seaplane might be a RAM (restricted in ability to maneuver). I don't believe that rule applies as it is defines a RAM vessel as: "a vessel which from the nature of her work is restricted in her ability to manoeuvre as required by these Rules and is therefore unable to keep out of the way of another vessel." This means things like dredges, cable-layers and other ships where changing the course means they have to stop working. The seaplane is still able to take off if it changes course, and it is able to change course, so not really applicable.
For the purposes of the COLREGs, this is just two motor boats.
Other interesting COLREGs:
Rule 5 requires a competent lookout. I would argue that the seaplane definitely wasn't doing this. They were verbally warned that there was a vessel crossing their track, and proceeded on the takeoff run anyway putting that boat in their blindspot. The motorboat it is hard to tell. He was the stand-on vessel, his role is to NOT change course in the COLREGs, and it would be reasonable to expect the seaplane to go around him, up until it was aimed right at him.
The COLREGs do not assign right of way, no one has right of way at sea. Instead, they note who is to give way (change course) and who is to stand-on (maintain course).
Critically, COLREGs rule 1 states that nothing in the COLREGs exempts from the responsibility to avoid a collision regardless of who is the stand-on vessel.
This is really two people who erred in controlling their vessels. A pilot who was told to look out for a specific hazard and did not, and a boater who HAD to have seen a Beaver bearing directly at them and did nothing.
Slight correction to this, seaplanes give way to all vessel traffic in the water as well.
"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."
Vancouver Harbor Tower is the tallest (AGL) control tower on earth. It is on the roof of the Vancouver Sun Building.
I was just in Vancouver watching seaplane operations two weeks ago. I thought the planes and boats operating in the same area was a safety hazard. I guess I was right.
why didn't you say anything?
@@MegaMultiAnonymous yeh, speak up. I lived downtown Van. for decades and Harbour Air has THOUSANDS of take offs and landings in Burrard INlet, Victoria inner Harbour, Seattle and Nanaimo without incident. Just wonderin if this is a new guy and thought he'd be in the air by the time he got to the boat. He WAS, just played Can Opener Bridge and trimmed a little off the top of the Bimini.
@@user-zf3xb3qx8w "But I swear I thought I would clear 11' -8"..."
@@MegaMultiAnonymous ..yup, I'll be filing a report...who do I send it to though..
@@MegaMultiAnonymous yeah .... LOL
The vessel hierarchy is one of the most poorly understood and taught principles for seaplane pilots. It is very clear in the Colregs, rule 18 e (and summarized by FAR 91.115a) that seaplanes are the absolute bottom of the vessel hierarchy. Yet I meet seaplane pilots every summer that think they have the right of way over boats, and can specifically name the instructor that taught them so. The problem is that people get hung up on the question of maneuverability, which is certainly a part of the hierarchy. But in the case of seaplanes, we operate at a speed and in a dimension that is outside the regular scan or parameters of all other vessels. The boater has no idea how long your takeoff slide will last, how much room you need, or perhaps even that from the other end of the harbor you will be upon him so quickly. As a result, the safe thing, which is mirrored both in colreg and in 91.115 in the US air regs, is to make it the responsibility of the pilot to stay well clear.
This is Canada. FARs don’t apply
As a long time sailor, in sailing vessels, it is incumbent upon all boat captains to have read the chart and know what waters are restricted. Further, it is uncumbent upon all boat operators to keep a good lookout and avoid collision at all costs. Clearly, the operator of the power boat was not keeping a good lookout. There are rules, and then there is common sense.
Juan, I have loved your content and analysis for years.
Top tip, if you're referencing a RUclips video, you can pause it and use the period key (also has the '>' symbol on it) and each press of it will advance the video by one frame giving you a frame by frame analysis of it. In this case it was pretty wild to see the pontoon and boat reacted.
As a lifetime boater I can tell you that the fundamental rule for the boat is, essentially, "see and avoid", and the boater could be faulted for failing to maintain an adequate lookout while underway even if the boat was technically the "stand on" vessel. As to it being a 'restricted area', I pulled up the marine chart of the area on my Navionics marine app and, except for a user-added comment that there are seaplanes operating in the area, there is no mention of the seaplane base and no indication of any restricted or prohibited waterways. There are also several marinas and a fueling barge to the west of the seaplane track. Vessels would have to routinely pass through the seaplane takeoff/landing area when entering or leaving any of these facilities, so the possibility of boat traffic in the area must be a known hazard for the pilots of Harbour Air.
Lots of pilot turnover: hope this wasn't the new guy.
The "floatplane area" as mapped bottles up several marinas, plus the Vancouver Yacht Club itself, including hundreds of boats owned by the wealthiest elites of Vancouver. So I welcome Harbour Air to purchase the marinas, for the right to restrict these mere billionaire's access to the sea.
Check your settings on chart detail, because the seaplane area is plainly marked on CHS Chart 3493.
And vice versa- the seaplanes are a known hazard to boaters. It's a busy seaplane zone.
Being a boater my initials thoughts were the more maneuverable vessel gives way. The boater has greater visibility and ability to change course.
Thank you very much for picking this Accident up and explaining what has happened.🙂👍
To clarify, knowing that a boat was even in the vicinity of a possible collision, the pilot should have waited until the vessel was clear of any potential interface. Even a brief scan of the area before the takeoff roll would have revealed the boat. This is an extremely busy area, with helo ops in addition to the seaplanes.
Wow. Never knew the nose would rise that much! From the outside looking at a take off it does not look that dramatic but it sure is when in the cockpit. Great post Juan. Cheers from CYYB.
I"ve had a power boat for almost 20 years, now sailing for fun. I'm also a private pilot that used to fly in Alaska.... AND, I've very recently been on a Beaver as a tourist.... no way that boat didn't see/hear the Beaver. Honestly makes me wonder if they didn't want to get close for a youtube video.
good point!
idk, if you have a 200hp v8 outboard going in the boat I doubt you'd hear anything other then your own motor.
@@wally7856
I don't know if there are any sound ordinances in this harbor for recreational boaters, but it is also extremely popular for recreational power boats and ski boats to have blaringly loud stereo systems these days, complete with large subwoofers and speakers all around the perimeter and/or mounted to the ski boat's tow bar.
So, a combination of a loud outboard motor within feet of your ears + a blaring stereo system would surely mask the sound of the Beaver (yes, I know they are LOUD) until it was much closer and too late...
Look up the Inverse Square Law regarding the "fall-off" or reduction in Sound Pressure Levels (SPL/loudness) as distance increases. If there is a sound source that is 80dB that is within a few feet of you, it will EASILY mask a distant sound source even if it is 130dB+ at the source.
HOWEVER, IMO this is a more so a VISUAL/Lookout failure on both the Beaver Pilot and Boat Captain.
I also noticed that in this particular case and from my experience, the Beaver took much longer to get on plane/up on the floats and become airborne, but as reported it was a fully loaded flight as well, so perhaps somewhat more expected, but perhaps a less experienced pilot as well?
In addition, this boat captain was most likely an inexperienced casual boater operating a rental boat...and it was reported that the first responders noted a Language Barrier on the part of the boat captain as well, so that may infer a few things, or not. But the boater *might* also have thought that the float plane would have become airborne much sooner based on witnessing other take-offs.
Obviously the investigation should shed more light on the circumstances involved and it will be very interesting to read. But, given the speed of both "vessels", it's a miracle that no one was killed. I was expecting the Beaver to summersault over-end or prop-down into the water if not upside down.
Hopefully better rules and regulations for both boaters and float plane pilots will result. However, IMO it's almost impossible to "police" or account for the sheer numbers of casual "weekend warrior" power boaters/boat rentals that are so loosely regulated (and more often than not drinking alcohol), as opposed to A/C pilots who MUST train extensively, understand and strictly adhere to rules, regulations, and flight operations in order to become licensed.
Grew up in and lived in Vancouver for many years and used to love to go down to Coal Harbour and watch the Beavers and Otters take off and land and that takeoff run that was done to the east of Stanley Park often has small boats coming and going. I often thought there was a conflict there and am not surprised this took place.
As a long-time boat owner on Long Lake in Maine, I'm always on the lookout for float planes taking off and landing in Naples where a tour operator is based. Regardless of who *legally* has the right of way, I always assume it is me, the boater, that has to give way as my boat is far more nimble and maneuverable compared to the float plane.
Canada's Transportation Safety Board (TSB) will be investigating this incident. Two people, both of which were on the boat, were transported to hospital. All passengers and the pilot aboard the plane were uninjured in the collision. There is some divergence on how many, if any, passengers were on the boat.
"The Transportation Safety Board said in a Sunday statement that they have begun conducting witness interviews, and they are co-ordinating with the aircraft recovery team to understand their plans.
"In the next few days, the investigation team will attend the aircraft recovery, examine the wreckage, continue gathering information, and conduct more interviews," a TSB spokesperson said." - CBC
correction: if you leave your water rudders down during takeoff, you owe the person that catches you a case of beer. Water rudders should be up just prior to take off.
Correct. Water rudders will do you no good when aborting a takeoff because you don't drop them until the floats are in displacement mode.
6:30 Keep in mind however that St-Hyacinthe (my local GA airport) isn't really a floatplane base. They have a canal along the runway so you can land and takeoff for winterizing and maintenance, but it's only a shade over 1500 feet long. So this guy is trying to get it airborne ASAP.
Hood Lake is sooo kewl! I spent an entire Saturday afternoon Summer of '92 just walking the entire loop. It's an aviation bucket list visit.
Wow, not what I would have thought Juan. It sounds like Transports Canada would say the Seaplane should give way. But then the maps clearly states it's a restricted part of the harbor. So much confusion.
Not really. A float plane is a watercraft on water. It is an aircraft aloft.
The world is 50 shades of gray when some people expect black & white. 🤷🏻
@@RichGillin🎯
But there can still be boats etc. in restricted water. Engine breakdowns, sail rigging problems, snarled props. The area is not controlled like an airport runway.
It's not statutorily prohibited to operate a boat in that "Aircraft Operation Zone". There is only an advisory to boaters to exercise extreme caution. While the Port Reg's advise pilots boats are restricted from the area. Yup,the Port incongruent with each other.
In the context of maritime navigation, the term "vessel restricted in her ability to maneuver" refers to vessels that, due to the nature of their work, are limited in their capacity to maneuver as required by navigation rules, making them unable to avoid other vessels. According to the U.S. Coast Guard's Navigation Rules, this category includes vessels engaged in specific activities such as:
1. Laying, servicing, or picking up navigation marks, submarine cables, or pipelines.
2. Dredging, surveying, or underwater operations.
3. Replenishment or transferring persons, provisions, or cargo while underway.
4. Launching or recovering aircraft.
5. Mine clearance operations.
6. Towing operations where the tow restricts the vessel's ability to deviate from its course.
These vessels must display appropriate signals and lights to indicate their restricted maneuverability to other vessels in the vicinity
I’m so glad you showed a clip of Jim Howard in this video!!
Juan, thanks for educating this non-pilot. Your explanation of these events was fascinating to me. I liken it to riding a bike or walking on public streets. My rule is "just because you have the right-of-way, doesn't mean you should take it". A takeoff and landing in a float plane is on my bucket list. Living in North Idaho near the shores of Lake Pend Orielle gives me that possibility, but the opportunity has not yet presented itself.
I discovered you when the big ship was stuck in the Suez canal, and have been following ever since. Thanks again for your clear and concise insight.
I remember taking sailing lessons in Coal Harbour in the mid-1970's. While practicing the "man overboard" rescue, we had to take a short break from the drill as a seaplane taxied over the "man" (a life preserver) passing with the preserver between the pontoons. Vancouver harbour is quite congested at times, being the busiest seaport in Canada.
Was that with the retired Coast Guard guy that bought Dunderave low bank in the early sixties?? Took lessons in a Thunderbird and got tapped as the Navigator.
@@user-zf3xb3qx8w Not that I'm aware; it was with the "Jibset" sailing club, which I understand is still around almost 50 years later.
I found Sal during the Dali vlogs and I watch him all the time now. Kind of the same situation where I found you during the Oroville broadcasts.
8:40 here your eyes show your ongoing passion for flying and being a pilot, beautiful 😅!
Great report, thank you, RB, Nova Scotia.
As many float pilots will attest, its hard to see out the front of the aircraft during the initial plows
Ing phase of a takeoff slide. In this case, it is a little of that and some I believe clear miss in checking your takeoff zone prior to starting your run. Glad everyone is ok and safe.
The standard rules of the road apply nicely when both vehicles are at usual maneuvering speed. However, in my opinion, once the aircraft starts its takeoff run, it comes under "limited ability to maneuver" and should have precedence over a boat not in distress. I am retired Coast Guard and have been in several sketchy right-of-way situations.
Would make sense, but on the other hand the boat cant maneuver far in the short time given by speeding aircaft. what if it was a sailboat ? How fast you can get out of the way ?
@@dmitripogosian5084 The idea is not to get "in the way".
No. 72 colregs rule 3g on the definition of Restricted in ability to maneuver:
(g) The term "vessel restricted in her ability to manoeuvre" means a vessel which from the nature of her work is restricted in her ability to manoeuvre 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 manoeuvre" 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 launching or recovery of aircraft (as in aircraft carrier)
(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.
Rule 18: hierarchy of vessels in sight of one another:
Not under command
Restricted in ability to maneuver
Constrained by draft
Fishing
Sailing
Power Driven
Seaplane
(Wig)
Non-rates can fool senior people sometimes.
I was also in the CG and was a coxswain until 2018
@@Cybnew All fixed wing aircraft are extremely vulnerable during takeoff and landing operations. That's why entering an active runway without clearance is strictly forbidden. Taking off on a body of water doesn't make the seaplane any less vulnerable to runway intrusions.
@@GLICKMIRE no, but that doesn’t change the nav rules order of precedence…
Thanks again Juan. Absolutely excellent content.
Juan - when I was operating a corporate Lake Renegade (yes, such a thing!) Never failed to amaze me the boaters and more importantly the jet skis that failed to recognize how little maneuverability a sea plane has. And that there are no brakes!. Fortunately the Lake has better visibility, but a few times I just had to cut the throttle and drop the plane back into displacement because a jet ski thought it would be interesting to head towards my takeoff path.
Hi Juan;
As a former naval officer & pilot I need to comment. A float plane or sea plane when on the water is governed by the nautical rules of the road (specifically the inland rules by the location). Both vessels (the one with wings and the one without) are bound by the same rules. In a crossing situation, the vessel on the right (both are classified as power vessels here) has the right of way. The boat was the privileged or stand on vessel, while the float plane was the burdened or give way vessel. Here the plane had limited visibility but did not locate the reported boat before starting his take off run. And the boat did not take evasive action when reaching the point of extremes (meaning when a collision seemed inevitable). . Navy Pilots are also ship handlers as we are eligible for command at sea.
Rick
Thanks Juan, you gotta get a float plane rating. I heard that from someone.
I have flown as a passenger out of Coal Harbour quite a few times - usually with Harbour Air, as it happens - and my experience is that rejected takeoffs are fairly routine there. I don't believe I have experienced a rejected takeoff because of traffic conflict with a boat, but I have experienced them because of boat wake on a number of occasions. On one departure I think we had over half a dozen rejected takeoffs before getting in the air. Boat wake repeatedly led to porpoising during the takeoff run. The pilot would simply bring power down, wait, try again. It's unclear to me if they rejected for safety or passenger comfort, but there was no hesitation to reject. My sense is that Harbour Air pilots would expect to reject frequently, rather than that being a rare or unusual situation in that harbour. I wonder if the pilot may have identified an incorrect boat as the potential conflict and believed they were clear, then experienced the visibility issues highlighted in the video. Given my experience of how routine rejected takeoffs are in Coal Harbour, I doubt they just blazed through expecting traffic to give way or simply not be there in the first place
Watching videos of floatplanes operating, i always wondered about the relationship to water vessels, especially when the water traffic is high. Interesting. Good catch Juan.
This is pretty clear-cut: the seaplane is in the wrong and the only thing the powerboat did wrong was failing to maneuver to avoid a collision in extremis. Under COLREGS Section 18(e) seaplanes are generally supposed to stay well clear of all watercraft and avoid impeding their navigation, and if they do end up where the risk of collision exists, they are to follow the standard nautical rules of the road. Not only did the floatplane fail to stay well clear of known marine traffic that was called out by the tower, but when they got close, the boat was to starboard of the floatplane. So the boat had right of way, but again the seaplane failed to yield.
Edit Note: this was within Canadian waters, but the Canadians have incorporated the COLREGS into their national law
Juan the sad fact is many in the pleasure boating community don't care or know what the Rules of The Road are and ignore restricted zones on the water.
I forget the average near misses a year that happen on Lake Union in Seattle Washington between pleasure boaters and aircraft in the designated water runway on Lake Union. There are even lighted warning buoys marking the area with flashing lights signaling aircraft landing or takeoff in progress.
You are my go to aviation safety channel. Thanks for what you do. I got nothing to add, just commenting to help your algorithm.
I used to fly in the bush in N Ontario and taught float ratings. In my initial briefing I'd say: "Floats is easy peasy to master once you acquire the basic skills. It's a big stable catamaran, easy to point. The hard part is STAYING OUT OF TROUBLE". Off airport hazards. Boating hazards, etc. All boaters have to be treated as clueless. This is on the pilot, regardless of the actual R of W rules. The takeoff should have been rejected. You could steer to the right on the step to go behind the boat, but its wake can cause porpoising and you always avoid wakes. So unless you are confident you will pass well in front of it, you reject. He was on the step for a while and unless the guy was really short, should have had no problem spotting it. Time pressures can get pretty intense in this sort of operation if trips are getting backed up, and this can influence the decision to keep going. I would take off downwind sometimes (if winds weren't too strong), just to save a few minutes to avoid finishing up the day's trips after sunset. It's a world of living by your wits, and shades of grey instead of go-no-go.
Thank you Juan.
I've only flown in (not piloted) a seaplane on several ocassions but I do have some time at the helm of both power boats and sailboats. The rule of thumb I was taught in the maritime world was that the less manuevable vessel had the ROW. Which would lead me to believe in this scenario that the boat, being more manuevarable, should have given way to the seaplane. In this case particularly, the boat was operating in a known and charted seaplane takeoff and landing lane.
It's actually "Vessels Restricted in Their Ability to Maneuver" such as as fishing boat hauling a net or a buoy tender retrieving a buoy. I don't feel this comes into play in this scenario. Both the aircraft and the vessel had authoritative control of direction and speed here.
@@user-gq2vn1xj2r What is meant, is that if you check the whole sequence of priorities, it goes from less maneuverable craft to more. This is the underlying principle. This is why sailboats have priority over motor boats.
@@user-gq2vn1xj2r your joking right ? the plane is way less maneuverable .. Its like a sailboat. Cant turn on a dime etc.. The boat had every chance to avoid collision.. What was the boat captain doing ?? if he saw that plane going in that direction he could have turned or cut power to avoid certain collision. Whether the boat captain thought he was in the right he should have seen the imminent collision coming and taken action.. There are float planes on the lake I boat on and I dont fool around.. I give them plenty of room to take off and land. Better safe than sorry or d3ad.
Except the difference in speed here is so high, that it is not clear that boat is manuevarable enough in the time it had
I too was long of the opinion that a "water runway" was exactly that... a RUNWAY, so STAY THE HELL OFF OF IT!!! But, after discussing it with my bush pilot parents, they both said it's not a runway in the traditional sense... it's an "aircraft operations area", proceed with caution.
The boat here was undeniably the stand-on vessel, and the refusal to give way was pure and simple EGO... "I've got the right-of-way, so piss off". By the time the pilot needed to do something about it he couldn't see the boat... he lost situational awareness, and that's all she wrote.
My father taught me a very valuable lesson on "right-of-way"... would you rather be right and dead, or wrong and safe... it's really hard to overcome the natural, understandable instinct to stand firm and refuse to get pushed around. It's also understandable to want to live. Take yer pick.
I got to go for a ride in a Beaver out of Coal Harbour once, and luckier still, I got to sit in the right seat up front. What shocked me was how little you could see once the pilot poured on the gas (I'm used to the view from the left seat of a Cessna 172 landplane). I've also sat on the walkway around Burrard Inlet (the area where this accident happened) and I'm kind of surprised that these collisions don't happen more often. The aviators seem to have a handle on things, but far too many boaters have an overly carefree approach to boating.
Pilots in the area know just how clueless some boaters can be (sad but true) but what floored me was the unshakable sense of entitlement on display by some of the pleasure boaters on that body of water, (especially on Canada Day, when I took my ride). Another pilot I flew with (different operator, but same region) said to the effect 'it's just a sad fact of flying there- assume the boater has a God complex and steer well clear'.
It might be premature judgement on my part, but I wouldn't rule out the boater figuring the plane would avoid them, and not what's supposed to be a shared responsibility of all vessel operators-to 'see and avoid'.
I think the nose up when throttle applied answers the question. While taxing out perhaps you aren't scanning as much as you should and with a tiny boat perhaps not making a lot of foamy wake you might not register speed and direction.
Great presentation.