Video of a collision between a float plane and powerboat in Vancouver Harbour.

[lustyd]

But was the boater stand on?

The port bylaws state, "In the restricted area, leisure and recreational vessels are required to keep clear."

Yes, the boater definitely was, don't try to overthink this. The bylaws are irrelevant once a collision situation develops, the colregs take over. The colregs apply to any and all collision situations at sea as a means for everyone to know what should happen next - they are by their nature designed to take the situation out of the process and standardise the actions.

The purpose of the bylaw was to remove the boat from the location. The colregs don't override this, and the boat definitely shouldn't have been there, there's no disputing that. The boater has already broken that bylaw either knowingly or unknowingly, however, and now both parties need to deal with the impending collision.

It is absolutely wrong for the plane to stand on in the belief that the bylaw will protect them from death. Perhaps they didn't see the boat, having already not heard the coastguard mention it - if that's the case then they possibly aren't the right person for the job. Perhaps they did see and couldn't manoeuvre - I simply don't believe this as no change in throttle or rudder can be seen, and that plane would have done something had one of the controls been used. So yes, the boater will likely be prosecuted for breaking the bylaw, but the pilot will likely also be prosecuted for putting the passengers in danger and failing to prevent the entirely preventable collision.

But as I said, more interesting and useful is what could/should the boater have done differently once in the situation?

 

[LittleSister]

Yes, the boater definitely was, don't try to overthink this. The bylaws are irrelevant once a collision situation develops, the colregs take over. The colregs apply to any and all collision situations at sea as a means for everyone to know what should happen next - they are by their nature designed to take the situation out of the process and standardise the actions.

The purpose of the bylaw was to remove the boat from the location. The colregs don't override this, and the boat definitely shouldn't have been there, there's no disputing that. The boater has already broken that bylaw either knowingly or unknowingly, however, and now both parties need to deal with the impending collision.

I dispute it. I very much doubt the local rule for leisure craft in the area to 'keep clear' means that such craft are prohibited from entering it.

But as I said, more interesting and useful is what could/should the boater have done differently once in the situation?

Keep a good look out as per Rule 5 (like the seaplane also didn't!), in which case they would almost certainly have seen the situation unfolding while there was still the potential to take avoiding action.

 

[capnsensible]

I dispute it. I very much doubt the local rule for leisure craft in the area to 'keep clear' means that such craft are prohibited from entering it.



Keep a good look out as per Rule 5 (like the seaplane also didn't!), in which case they would almost certainly have seen the situation unfolding while there was still the potential to take avoiding action.

See harbour rules 8.23 as previously quoted.

vancouver port authority area alpha - Google Suche

 

[capnsensible]

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?

The vessel is also obliged under the rules to avoid a collision, stand on or not.

Anyway, all the skipper needed to do was put helm hard to starboard and apply lots of revs. Those types of craft turn very easily and accelerate quickly and reverse course. I helm something similar most weeks and always give the crew a warning to hold on if I'm gonna engage in high speed maneuvering. Or even just accelerate. It's also part of my very short brief before leaving the dock.

 

[lustyd]

The vessel is also obliged under the rules to avoid a collision, stand on or not.

That was my point

Anyway, all the skipper needed to do was put helm hard to starboard and apply lots of revs. Those types of craft turn very easily and accelerate quickly and reverse course. I helm something similar most weeks and always give the crew a warning to hold on if I'm gonna engage in high speed maneuvering. Or even just accelerate. It's also part of my very short brief before leaving the dock.

The question is what could/should they have done, given that they could reasonably expect the plane to turn starboard as per colregs at any moment. A turn to port would potentially cause a collision, as would a turn to starboard or a 180. I definitely agree they should have done something, and obviously should have acted much sooner.
I think I'd have gone for a 180 crash turn and hoped the plane saw me do it so they didn't also turn to starboard and hit me, but that could just as easily have been a collision if the plane turned late

 

[LittleSister]

I think lawyers will do very well out of this incident.

Form my limited experience of things that have made the papers, the reported/apparent information is likely likely to be incomplete, and quite possibly misleading or even downright wrong in part.

Based on what appears to be the case, though, I suspect any transportation safety examination is likely to consider that all parties share at least some blame -
- Air traffic controller for clearing for take-off with approaching potentially conflicting vessel, plus failure to pick up pilot's failure to acknowledge warning about that vessel approaching?
- Pilot's failure to keep a good look out, possibly also for failing to pick up warning of conflicting vessel (that part of may have been obscured or unclear, but then should have queried unheard part of message)?
- Boat's skipper failure to keep a good look out, and failure to keep clear?

 

[LittleSister]

See harbour rules 8.23 as previously quoted.

vancouver port authority area alpha - Google Suche

I did.

 

[capnsensible]

That was my point

The question is what could/should they have done, given that they could reasonably expect the plane to turn starboard as per colregs at any moment. A turn to port would potentially cause a collision, as would a turn to starboard or a 180. I definitely agree they should have done something, and obviously should have acted much sooner.
I think I'd have gone for a 180 crash turn and hoped the plane saw me do it so they didn't also turn to starboard and hit me, but that could just as easily have been a collision if the plane turned late

How do you know what maneuvers a seaplane can make once it's commenced its takeoff? I don't. Mebbe turning would be fatal? Chopping the throttle? Still don't know.

As I said these small craft are highly maneuverable and I do know that. A hard turn away to starboard in that situation with revs would give the best chance of avoiding the collision.

 

[dom]

How do you know what maneuvers a seaplane can make once it's commenced its takeoff? I don't. Mebbe turning would be fatal? Chopping the throttle? Still don't know.

As I said these small craft are highly maneuverable and I do know that. A hard turn away to starboard in that situation with revs would give the best chance of avoiding the collision.

Good points, some comments:
Not flown a seaplane but most small single prop GA planes exhibit a quite strong left hand turning tendency. So starboard turns possibly not that easy.
@LittleSister: Aircraft was not “cleared for takeoff”, I think he was told to “takeoff at your discretion”
Nose sits v high in those seaplanes as they pop up on their floats so fwd vis likely not great at that point
Swerving at speed in a seaplane could be very dangerous indeed
Chopping throttle would initiate a fast deceleration but little steerage as windflow over rudder lost.
I agree with you, as a sailor and pilot I’d say notions of fancy colreg manoeuvres in such circumstances are fanciful in the extreme.

 

[lustyd]

How do you know what maneuvers a seaplane can make once it's commenced its takeoff? I don't.

A couple of hours reading the comments from pilots of these planes this afternoon is how I know now. That's not really relevant since I wouldn't have known it at sea and so would have to assume colregs apply as normal, which they would appear to do.

From a colregs perspective:
Vessel 1 is stand on and should maintain course.
Vessel 2 should turn to starboard to avoid a collision. If it helps you, replace "plane" with "fast boat" since the vessel type is not relevant according to colregs and we're discussing how to get out of the collision. The seaplane is not RAM according to colregs so we should assume it can manoeuvre (pilots confirm this is the case, and that visibility is not that restricted from that cockpit).
Vessel 2 doesn't turn to starboard for whatever reason, so colregs now require both parties to take avoiding action.
Vessel 1 (theoretically) realises that vessel 1 has not turned to starboard as expected, but can reasonably expect that they might since that's the correct action.

So, vessel 1 expects vessel 2 to either carry on or turn to starboard. What does vessel 1 do? As I said, a turn to port will potentially put you in its path if it turns late, as would a 180. A turn to starboard potentially puts you on its current path of travel.

There's not a simple answer here.

 

[lustyd]

Nose sits v high in those seaplanes as they pop up on their floats so fwd vis likely not great at that point

Pilots of this model suggest it's only during initial taxi that vis is affected, before that it's fine and as soon as the throttle is down it's fine.

Swerving at speed in a seaplane could be very dangerous indeed

But throttling back probably isn't, and would have given time in the situation

Chopping throttle would initiate a fast deceleration but little steerage as windflow over rudder lost.

These planes have sea rudders too, which could have been lowered as soon as speed was reduced and take off abandoned

As a sailor and a pilot I’d say notions of fancy colreg manoeuvres in such circumstances are fanciful in the extreme.

Agree, my question was only posed from the perspective of already being in the situation. Most of us would have already avoided it, in theory.

 

[dom]

There are a lot of unknowns here, speed was a factor, vis and manoeuvrability poss too, as were the actions of the vessel.

Personally I’d await the Canadian National Transportation Safety Board’s report before guessing too much about these finer points.

If there is a snap takeout here, it is surely for all water users to think carefully about and keep a watchful eye on what others are up to.

 

[awol]

Probably would not have made any difference but some form of VTS VHF message could have been useful. We get bombarded with navigation warning on Ch 16 with a follow up on Ch 12 from ferries which at least gives those listening a clue as to what is happening.

 

[wonkywinch]

- Air traffic controller for clearing for take-off with approaching potentially conflicting vessel

ATC would not have authority to issue clearances as I believe CYHC is a non controlled airport with a CTAF frequency (not ground/tower/approach) where pilots just announce their intentions.

Edited to add the ATC recording has been released and the controller says "take off your discretion" which is standard comms for uncontrolled airfields and means exactly what was said.

 

[benjenbav]

Probably would not have made any difference but some form of VTS VHF message could have been useful. We get bombarded with navigation warning on Ch 16 with a follow up on Ch 12 from ferries which at least gives those listening a clue as to what is happening

The float planes take off and land in that designated area from dawn to dusk every day.

Pleasure craft have to transit the zone (fuel and moorings).

Watching the video I wonder how effective any avoiding action by the boat could have been. There’s a big disparity in speed between the float plane and the boat and it might have been better to take the impact of the floats square on rather than at an angle that might have seen the plane’s propellor slicing up the boat and its occupants?

Hopefully none of those concerned will have suffered lasting harm and also that the authorities will investigate and reach a proper conclusion which helps prevent any recurrence.

 

[bedouin]

The power boat according to colregs is the stand on vessel.
It is not supposed to change course or speed unless it is obvious that the other vessel is not taking enough action to avoid a collision.

True - the the plane clearly wasn't taking enough action was he - in which case the boat was required to take action himself.

But irrespective of the rules, had he seen the plane he would have done something. Seems pretty clear to me that neither was aware of the other's presence

 

[westernman]

True - the the plane clearly wasn't taking enough action was he - in which case the boat was required to take action himself.

But irrespective of the rules, had he seen the plane he would have done something. Seems pretty clear to me that neither was aware of the other's presence

I.e. both are guilty of not keeping an adequate look-out.

 

[westernman]

Swerving at speed in a seaplane could be very dangerous indeed
Chopping throttle would initiate a fast deceleration but little steerage as windflow over rudder lost.

Sea planes usually have variable pitch propeller(s). They can slow down and stop very very quickly with no danger by reversing the pitch on the propeller.
I have seen it done and it is impressive how fast they can stop.

 

[[70521]]

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.

By that logic any vessel doing >50 knots would be 'restricted'

What would happen if Safehaven Marine's Thunder Child II was closing at >50 knots on your port side?

 

[Goldie]

What impressed me was how fast the sea-plane, which has just landed, actually stopped. So the windsurfer was actually in no danger at all.
But it was impressive.

Pedant warning! It’s a flying boat and not a seaplane - it lands on its hull not on floats. The wing floats are akin to stabilisers.

Someone else commented to the effect of why didn’t the aircraft (in the video) stop. This particular flying boat in the still (with the windsurfer) also has > 4700hp and can reverse thrust, something not available to the 1950s DHC Beaver in the video! That’s why it was able to stop so quickly - see how the nose has pitched down. If the Beaver pilot had tried to stop, I suspect the rotating propeller would have been slicing right through the boat. Also, the Beaver pilot will have been sitting on the left of the cockpit, with the nose pitched up, floats ‘on the step’ and a great big radial engine cowling obscuring the view - he may never have seen the boat approaching from his right.

It was reported that the boat was in a designated seaplane operating area but I’m not familiar with local regulations so maybe he shouldn’t have been there at all or, more likely, been required to keep clear of aircraft within the area?

For those quoting ‘stand on vessel’, don’t forget that ColRegs require BOTH parties to ensure that collision is avoided!