ProDave
Well-known member
This would have been a lot worse if the boat had a mast.
Video of a collision between a float plane and powerboat in Vancouver Harbour.
- Thread starter Concerto
- Start date
Sandy
Well-known member
Because when an aircraft is taking off or landing it is a vessel.
See Rule 3.
The boat was the stand on vessel.
benjenbav
Well-known member
I’ve marked the approximate location of the collision. The area may be designated as priority for float planes but it is not exclusively reserved for them.
As can be seen from this image, boats need to transit this area both to and from the yacht club/marinas and to and from the (Chevron) fuel dock. There’s a whole chunk of land due west of each of those that prevents access to the Pacific that way!
As can be seen from this image, boats need to transit this area both to and from the yacht club/marinas and to and from the (Chevron) fuel dock. There’s a whole chunk of land due west of each of those that prevents access to the Pacific that way!
jamie N
Well-known member
I reckon that this will be an accident where awareness is raised, and as such it'll become an even rarer event than it thankfully is now.
It's possible that take off clearance won't be granted unless an acknowledgement of surface vessels crossing the area is received.
It's possible that take off clearance won't be granted unless an acknowledgement of surface vessels crossing the area is received.
benjenbav
Well-known member
Zoomed out view:
Mister E
Well-known member
What shape of thing should the aircraft be flying to show the restricted ability to manoeuvre?
capnsensible
Well-known member
Some of the places I've sailed in where seaplanes operate have clearly defined zones where harbour by laws are in force to avoid such incidents. Wonder if that's the case here and boat owners don't know it?
Concerto
Well-known member
After reading all the comments in the in link in post #2 (Airline Floatplane And Boat Collide In Vancouver Harbor (Updated) - AVweb), the general comments were this area of the harbour was zoned for float planes to use, and thus gave them priority of normal watercraft. This means any vessel entering the area should maintain a good lookout. A quote from one of these posters is worth quoting.
This accident reminds me of an old saying – “it takes two people to have a collision, but only one to avoid it.”
The idea of a plane landing in the Solent is not any different to the airliner that made an emergency landing in New York harbour, it could happen. Some years ago a Sunderland aircraft was landed on the River Medway. The river was cleared of all boats during the landing and whilst it headed up river to Chatham Dockyard. The process was reversed some years later when it was moved to a new destination. More recently there were Notices to Mariners that a small float plane was going to try a regular service on the Medway, but after testing , nothing else happened.
lustyd
Well-known member
I don't think you can override the colregs. It's certainly possible to set aside an area for the seaplanes, but that doesn't remove obligations under colregs which specify what to do in a collision situation regardless of other factors. All parties are required to avoid collisions, and in a collision all parties are considered at fault by default.
There is no concept of right of way in colregs, only guidance on what to do. If you see a collision situation developing you're obliged to take avoiding action, and in this situation that would be the seaplane turning to starboard since the boat was there and is the stand on vessel.
Whether the boat had the right to be there is irrelevant, and a separate matter.
LittleSister
Well-known member
A seaplane is not normally a vessel restricted in its ability to manoeuvre under the ColRegs. The definitions in those Regulations exclude it from the 'restricted in ability to manoeuvre' class unless it becomes restricted by the nature of its work (Rule 3g), and include it in the class of vessel 'seaplane' (3e).
As far as I can make out there are not specific shapes or lights for a seaplane as such, but if it becomes e.g aground/a fishing/a towing vessel/restricted in its ability to manoeuvre etc, it is excused strict compliance with the lights and shapes requirements if this is impracticable, but must show shapes/lights as similar as possible to standard.
wombat88
Well-known member
The flying boat/seaplane landing area in the Solent used to be clearly marked on the charts. East Side of Southampton water.
capnsensible
Well-known member
Home Page
As this is clearly a busy, active seaplane operating area, it would be surprising if the harbour bylaws don't provide operating procedures that all water users should be aware of. Stand on vessel can be argued about...as it usually is on here...for ever, but cmon, good seamanship makes it obvious not to dick about where they are operating. Of course not every leisure boat skipper will be aware of harbour rules, but as common sense goes, it's up there with riding you bike across London Airport Runway.
As this is clearly a busy, active seaplane operating area, it would be surprising if the harbour bylaws don't provide operating procedures that all water users should be aware of. Stand on vessel can be argued about...as it usually is on here...for ever, but cmon, good seamanship makes it obvious not to dick about where they are operating. Of course not every leisure boat skipper will be aware of harbour rules, but as common sense goes, it's up there with riding you bike across London Airport Runway.
capnsensible
Well-known member
Calshot was a busy operating base during ww2 and the post war era. Inactive for decades. Once in a blue moon, iirc, there has been the odd memorial type of flight.
capnsensible
Well-known member
Avalook at Rule 1 b. Exactly the sort of stuff that marine lawyers will argue over.
Mister E
Well-known member
The plane is restricted as in once it gets to a certain speed it can not just engage reverse and stop.
You can claim college but the boat was the one that could do something about it.
You can claim college but the boat was the one that could do something about it.
lustyd
Well-known member
They do, it was covered well in one of the videos linked in the thread.
Indeed, 1b is effectively what I said. Colregs don't change the bylaws, but equally bylaws don't negate the existance of the colregs if a collision situation exists. The boat absolutely shouldn't have been there from what I can see, but that doesn't mean the floatplane wasn't obligated under colregs to avoid a collision, they were and didn't. As such, both are liable for the accident and both should have acted differently. The colregs are all about not saying you had right of way and crashing regardless.
LittleSister
Well-known member
The boat only needed (and seemingly failed) to take avoiding action because the stand-on seaplane had failed to meet its obligations to give way, or not create a conflicting situation in the first place, under the ColRegs.
The plane was the the one that could originally do something about it and was obliged to do so - i.e. heed the warning from Air Traffic Control about the approaching (stand on) boat, and not start his/her take-off roll until s/he could see that the area ahead was clear and would remain souring the take-off.
capnsensible
Well-known member
Vancouver Port Information guide. Check it out. The restricted area ...Area Alpha....is clearly marked.
Paragraph 8.23 concerns aircraft. They must obey colregs. In the restricted area, leisure and recreational vessels are required to keep clear.
Small boat shouldn't have been there and what is a seaplane pilot at speed gonna do anyway.
Paragraph 8.23 concerns aircraft. They must obey colregs. In the restricted area, leisure and recreational vessels are required to keep clear.
Small boat shouldn't have been there and what is a seaplane pilot at speed gonna do anyway.
lustyd
Well-known member
Shouldn't have been there, but was there. No good insisting you're right, right up until the very end. The pilot has no doubt learned this now, as has the boater who although was stand on from a collision perspective should have still taken avoiding action (as should the pilot).
What is a more interesting (to me at least) discussion, is if the boater had realised the plane wasn't going behind them, what could they have safely done at that point? Turn port and you may turn into the plane as it turns to starboard (as it should). Turn starboard and risk remaining in the planes path. Crash turn 180 and again be at risk of turning into the plane as it turns to avoid you. They could have slowed to a stop but would that leave them sitting in the path of the plane?
What is a more interesting (to me at least) discussion, is if the boater had realised the plane wasn't going behind them, what could they have safely done at that point? Turn port and you may turn into the plane as it turns to starboard (as it should). Turn starboard and risk remaining in the planes path. Crash turn 180 and again be at risk of turning into the plane as it turns to avoid you. They could have slowed to a stop but would that leave them sitting in the path of the plane?
dolabriform
Well-known member
But was the boater stand on?
The port bylaws state, "In the restricted area, leisure and recreational vessels are required to keep clear."
