YM has 'right of way'

[bbg]

Re: YM has \'right of way\'

In principle I agree with you - must of us know and are probably not pedants normally. But in this case I think it shows a certain sloppiness and unproffesionalism on the part of a trade magazine - which leaves it open to the type of criticism the OP makes.

 

[flaming]

Re: YM has \'right of way\'

I do agree with you, BUT.

It's a bit like when there's a news subject that you know about - you instantly pick up on all errors. Then you wonder about the acuracy of the rest of the news about which you have no special knowledge.
YM is a magazine that has a history of attempting not only to entertain but to inform and educate as well. When mistakes of this type appear then you start to wonder about the rest of the advice within the magazine.

 

[nathanlee]

Re: YM has \'right of way\'

[ QUOTE ]
What's the take off speed of a seaplane? 100 knots? I have no idea. But anyway it's going to be a long way north of the speed your average cruiser can make in full "I'm about to be run down" mode.
Getting out of the way of one might actually be almost impossible if it decides to start a run pointing at you.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, I'd imagine 70 knots and above depending on the aircraft. The problem is though, they cannot deviate off the course much.

Ultimately this realistic onus is going to have to be on the pilot to check for traffic before commencing a takeoff run.

 

[jamesjermain]

Re: YM has \'right of way\'

[ QUOTE ]
I think the question is YM is poor, because it doesn't distunguish between whether the plane is taxiing - in which case it is quite reasonable to expect it to follow colregs - or taking off / landing - in which case the pilot should make sure it isn't anywhere near you.


[/ QUOTE ]

In defence of YM, Colregs does not make this distinction either. It only says 'A seaplane on 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 '(ie PArt B - Steering and Sailing Rules).

If YM had said yachts should get out of the way of seaplanes it could, quite rightly, be castigated for unilaterally changing Colregs.

HAving said that, I agree, like everyone else, we would be assinine in the extreme to maintain our stand-on rights in the face of a charging seaplane

Years ago, when seaplanes regularly took off from Southampton Water a range tender used to clear the take-off/landing waters and keep them clear until the seaplane/flyingboat had left. This was provided for under Port of Southampton bye-laws, I believe (I was too young to read the laws myself).

 

[bbg]

Re: YM has \'right of way\'

James,

I hear what you're saying about the Colregs not making a distinction, and I agree with that.

But.

If the seaplane is taxiing it is obliged to, and CAN keep clear. If it is charging on a take-off attempt it is the give way vessel BUT probably can't change course (although it could abort the take off), so there is (probably) an imminent risk of collision and Rule 17 kicks in.

So, in my view the distinction is important in that, if the plane is taking off, the optional [17(a)(ii)] or mandatory [17(b)] provisions of 17 probably kick in.

None of which excuses the sloppy use of "right of way".

 

[AHoy2]

Re: YM has \'right of way\'

Apart from the more remote areas I would expect local regulations to override COLREGS where flying boats were a regular feature.

As a lad (late 1950s) I was frequently an unofficial crew member on my father's small coaster and when visiting Southampton we used to berth at Town Quay, adjacent to the flying boat berths. I can clearly recall Southampton Water being used as the aircraft "runway" and all vessels being cleared from the channel for takeoff and landing, very spectacular at night for a young 'un to watch. I vaguely recall my father mentioning "special rules" re. flying boats. Bear in mind this was primarily for a scheduled passenger airline service. Not seen an operational flying boat since!

 

[graham]

Re: YM has \'right of way\'

[ QUOTE ]
Who cares?

[/ QUOTE ]

Spot on /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif In 40 odd years afloat I have never even seen a seaplane.If I do after grabbing a few photos to post up on here I think I will make damn sure I keep out of its way /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif

 

[tcm]

Re: YM has \'right of way\'

Usually, seaplane landing/take-off areas are given a "do not impede the seaplanes" notice. I wd definitely stay out of the way, partly cos your ears will bleed if he gets close.

 

[Salty John]

Re: YM has \'right of way\'

Maybe this film I shot at Allans Cay, Bahamas, a few years ago will help to illustrate some of the issues involved!

 

[blackbeard]

Re: YM has \'right of way\'

Years ago, I had the privilege of watching a Sunderland (I think) land (or should that be "sea"?). It was an overcast day but as it approached a shaft of sunlight illuminated the pure-white aircraft. Most spectacular.
This was on Southampton water. Before the landing, a launch approached us and asked us to keep clear, and of course we obliged.
(And yes, the piece in YM is, I think, misleading.)

 

[Harpsden]

Re: YM has \'right of way\'

You mean this close ..

I took that picture just after the landing. On the subsequent taxi prior to take-off the pilot did a 180 as he was the give way vessel to a yacht under power to his starboard.



Harpsden

 

[l'escargot]

Re: YM has \'right of way\'

[ QUOTE ]
Don't the ColRegs also state that, whatever any other rule might says, both parties have an obligation to take action to avoid collision? ...

[/ QUOTE ]
Only when it becomes apparent that the give way vessel is not giving way. Up until that point the stand on vessel must stand on. Rule 17.

 

[michael_w]

Re: YM has \'right of way\'

There is a regular seaplane service, Twin Otter IIRC, at Charlotte Amile in the US Virgin Islands. It usually circles round before landing to have a good look as there might be a cruise ship or two in the way!

 

[webcraft]

Re: YM has \'right of way\'

[ QUOTE ]
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Who cares?


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Spot on In 40 odd years afloat I have never even seen a seaplane.

[/ QUOTE ] There are daily flights into both Oban Bay and Tobermory Bay during the sailing season - Cessna 208 or Cessna 206, Lomond Seaplanes - so for sailors in this area this is a very relevant discussion.

Tobermory Seaplane Takeoff

- W

 

[Twister_Ken]

Re: YM has \'right of way\'

Is there nae a regular Clyde-Tobermory seaplane service the noo?

 

[jamesjermain]

Re: YM has \'right of way\'

[ QUOTE ]
Not seen an operational flying boat since!


[/ QUOTE ]

I was fortunate to be in Southampton Water when the last operational Princess flyingboat left Britain for the last time - for Hong Kong if I remember correctly. It was the most fantastic sight and sound - truly memorable

 

[Twister_Ken]

Re: YM has \'right of way\'

Helsinki-ish

 

[awol]

Re: YM has \'right of way\'

[ QUOTE ]
Spot on /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif In 40 odd years afloat I have never even seen a seaplane.If I do after grabbing a few photos to post up on here I think I will make damn sure I keep out of its way /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, here is one from this summer - a scheduled service too! Tried hard to get the Avon into a prime photo taking spot but the bu$$er avoided me.

All legal and moral rights will be asserted.

 

[boozhound]

Re: YM has \'right of way\'

I have been sailing in Rose Bay in Sydney Harbour when the seaplanes take off. It is quite fun as long as you remember where the "runway" is. I took this photo some years ago from the back of the jet cat ferry. I was only using a 200mm lens so it wasn't that far away!
http://www.airliners.net/photo/Sydney-Harbour-Seaplanes/De-Havilland-Canada/0634620/M/

Simon

 

[GruffT]

Re: YM has \'right of way\'

Would a plane on a take off run be considered restricted in her ability to manoeuvre, hence bringing rule 18 into play?