Seaplane vessel collision, Vancouver Harbour

I see there has been a vessel/float plane collision in Vancouver harbour.


The video was taken near Brockton Point. There is a zone marked “Seaplane Landing” on the chart. However it would seem to me given the location and size of this designated area, vessels would need to transit through to leave/approach their mooring areas in Coal Harbour.

The Colregs state:

“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.”



Jim

OUCH! That's hard to watch.

I've stayed at Coal Harbor. With the primary seaplane port there it is very busy. You need to keep your head on a swivel at all times. And yes, you do need to transit though their landing area. It looks like someone wasn't watching where they were going.

Here in Boston, they don't always call out on 13 and 16 before taking off or landing. One took off beside me with no warning at all. I was about 200 to 300 ft away running parallel with him.

I’ve not heard a/c call on 16. In Victoria inner harbour, the chart is clearly marked and vessels are assigned to lanes in the area. It’s a busy place, and as Seadog says, you need to keep your head on a swivel at all times. I’ve not been in Coal harbour on Phoenix Hunter and cannot comment on that area.

Edit: The sailing directions note that south of Burnaby Shoal, a speed limit of 5 kts is strictly enforced.

Jim

Amazing that no-one was hurt. We heard the call on Ch16 when it happened and listened to the rest.

As stated above, the rules call for the seaplane to avoid all other vessels.

Amazing nobody was killed. It looked like neither the pilot or boat driver made any attempt to avoid the crash.

Iggy said:

Here in Boston, they don't always call out on 13 and 16 before taking off or landing. One took off beside me with no warning at all. I was about 200 to 300 ft away running parallel with him.

Click to expand...

I’ve never seen an airplane equipped with a marine vhf radio.

Can't really tell from the video whether the boat had just changed course or not, but based on my aviation knowledge, I think the pilot lost sight of the boat as he looked like he was throttling up for takeoff and that big radial engine is tough to see around. That doesn't make him right, but if the boat wasn't clear on it's intentions, at some point the pilot had to do what he has to do. The boat guy really has no excuse.

Would surprise me if those seaplanes didn't have VHF capabilities. The newer USCG helos had radios that could tune into the VHF-FM frequency range for vessel conversation.... don't know if they were MILSPEC radios or just civilian model avionics.

HopCar said:

I’ve never seen an airplane equipped with a marine vhf radio.

Click to expand...

I have. There was an old retired CG amphibian that used to land on one of the Arizona lakes that we patrolled on. They were quite dangerous since they would come in from down wind with a low throttle setting. You couldn’t hear them. We were on patrol when they were doing landings and takeoffs. They just about stalled on takeoff. I wasn’t sure how to exactly respond to an airplane crash but they struggled and finally got it up in the air.

They would do landings on the weekends when the lake was crowded. This was a NPS lake so the rangers had jurisdiction. They asked us to go tell the plane to leave and not come back. The pilot told us to take a hike. So the ranger asked us to take him out to the plane. He told them either get in the air within 2 minutes or he would have us tow the airplane to shore and he could truck it out. Now this was a very large airplane and the lake was very remote so he decided to takeoff immediately. They did have a VHF radio aboard.

I’m not surprised that Coast Guard aircraft have marine vhf radios but I don’t think it’s normal for non CG aircraft to have them.

The whole thing seems fraught with peril. Yes, sea planes are lowest on the pecking order, but at some point I'm sure there are only so many things they can do if things start to go tits up. And similarly for boaters. How many know the pecking order anyway, and even if they do, mostly only know about who's stand-on and who's give-way, and forget/overlook that the stand-on vessel has an obligation to maintain course and speed and can't just do whatever they want. Sail boaters in particular seem to have a genetic blind spot in this regard.

One question - I don't think a designated landing area changes any of the rules, and is just cautionary. Is that correct?

HopCar said:

I’m not surprised that Coast Guard aircraft have marine vhf radios but I don’t think it’s normal for non CG aircraft to have them.

Click to expand...

I don't know, but would guess the opposite. As soon as they are on the water, they are a boat and I would think required to monitor 16 just like all the rest of us.

“….I think the pilot lost sight of the boat as he looked like he was throttling up for takeoff and that big radial engine is tough to see around.”
The pilot only looses forward visibility for a few seconds while the plane is still traveling very slowly. In the video the plane was already on step. In fact it looked to me it almost had flying speed.

This link dicusses backcountry pilots and different radio usage.....

Re: HF and Marine Radios in Seaplanes​

I have a programmable FM VHF radio which I use for talking to marinas, etc when on floats. It is extremely useful.

It can be programmed for almost any FM VHF frequencies, not just the marine channels, although that’s all I use it for. It also is a more powerful transmitter than most aircraft radios which might come in handy in some situations.

It is hooked into the audio panel COM3 selector through a Northern Airborne Technology NAT AA34 interface box. I’m not sure if they’re still around, but someone else must make something similar.

Chris

If I saw a sea plane obviously on take off and on a collision course I'd do something to avoid the collision. Just as I would in any other situation. Rule #2. I can understand the sea plane pilot not seeing the boat. The boat on the other hand should have been able to see the sea plane.

I've been in and out of Victoria harbor many times. It can be nerve wracking and some of the sea plane pilots, from my point of view, take unnecessary risks.

twistedtree said:

I don't know, but would guess the opposite. As soon as they are on the water, they are a boat and I would think required to monitor 16 just like all the rest of us.

Click to expand...

It may be more common than I think but non of the three or four seaplanes I’ve flown had them. One was a commercial airliner that I got to land in the main ship channel in Miami. Actually it might have had one but I didn’t notice it and no radio calls were made on approach or on the water.

HopCar said:

It may be more common than I think but non of the three or four seaplanes I’ve flown had them. One was a commercial airliner that I got to land in the main ship channel in Miami. Actually it might have had one but I didn’t notice it and no radio calls were made on approach or on the water.

Click to expand...

Well, that's more knowledge than I have on the subject...

twistedtree said:

The whole thing seems fraught with peril. Yes, sea planes are lowest on the pecking order, but at some point I'm sure there are only so many things they can do if things start to go tits up. And similarly for boaters. How many know the pecking order anyway, and even if they do, mostly only know about who's stand-on and who's give-way, and forget/overlook that the stand-on vessel has an obligation to maintain course and speed and can't just do whatever they want. Sail boaters in particular seem to have a genetic blind spot in this regard.

One question - I don't think a designated landing area changes any of the rules, and is just cautionary. Is that correct?

Click to expand...

Designated area does not give the aircraft any privileges.

In the end the Airplane will be given 75% of the blame since the boat was on his starboard. The Boat will be given 25% of the blame for failing to avoid a collision. From the video it is clear that both Captains failed to maintain situational awareness. Even if the pilot can prove that the boat changed course there was still time to shut things down or change course enough to avoid the collision. Meaning he might get it changed to 60/40 but he/she is not getting out of being found at fault.

There is currently a very active campaign in Seattle to educate boaters to get out of the designated landing zone on Lake Union when ever the landing lights go on. The campaign very sternly says "IT'S THE RIGHT THING TO DO". Naturally it never uses the words "its the law" or "boats are required" because in fact there are no special privileges being granted to the float planes.

I don't now every rule. Here in Boston they general warn on 13 and 16 that they are landing or taking off. As mentioned, once on the water the same rules apply as for us.

Regarding my close call from my last post. I did call the firm up and the apologized. Saying that a warning should have gone out. Lets face it, were not looking up. Imagine a sea plane landing beside you in the same direction.

The Global TV news had a better view which showed the plane leave the water before collision. Coincidence or last minute pilot move. The boat maintained course and speed, an open speedboat with easy view in all directions made no effort to avoid. It looked like the plane expected to get ahead of the boat. From what I saw the boat caused the accident and should be 100% at fault, there was no sudden course change or stopping.

I just find it comical the boat didn't alter course. Small boats are so maneuverable if the operator has any sort of a clue. Aircraft not so much...much more to think about when deciding in seconds as to turning a sport boat or chopping the throttle. I get that many boat operators are really bad at driving....especially in crowded situations.... but the huge noise of an aircraft taking off in front of you and you freeze?

Again, doesn't mean the pilot isn't at fault..... but I would love to see what both were doing over the last 2 minutes or so.

The other footage to which Steve refers.


Jim

SteveK said:

The Global TV news had a better view which showed the plane leave the water before collision. Coincidence or last minute pilot move. The boat maintained course and speed, an open speedboat with easy view in all directions made no effort to avoid. It looked like the plane expected to get ahead of the boat. From what I saw the boat caused the accident and should be 100% at fault, there was no sudden course change or stopping.

Click to expand...

While there seems to be ample blame on both sides, I'll just note that in all respect the power boat was the stand-on vessel, not the plane. The power boat was to stbd of the plane, so the plane was give-way even if they were the same priority. And the plane is lower priority anyway to always give-way.

That said, there certainly seemed to be a major loss of awareness by both parties, and little to no effort to avoid the collision until the very last minute when the plane attemtped to get airborne to clear the boat.

But we should never forget Inland Rule 2.... and part of Rule 8 (which partially refers to rule 2)

RULE 2 Responsibility(a) Nothing in these Rules shall exonerate any vessel, or the owner, master, or crew thereof, from the consequences of any neglect to comply with these Rules or of the neglect of any precaution which may be required by the ordinary practice of seamen, or by the special circumstances of the case.(b) In construing and complying with these Rules due regard shall be had to all dangers of navigation and collision and to any special circumstances, including the limitations of the vessels involved, which may make a departure from these Rules necessary to avoid immediate danger

RULE 8 Action to Avoid Collision (a) Any action taken to avoid collision shall be taken in accordance with the Rules of this Part and shall, if the circumstances of the case admit, be positive, made in ample time and with due regard to the observance of good seamanship.

While any ONE rule in the rules is a rule....taken by itself does not tell the whole story. So I say Rule 15 (vessel to starboard) is really only part of the story and only for a bit of time in the whole incident.

I wasn't there so there's more to the story...but just based on the video.... and both the pilot and skipper were of normal faculties.... I lean way to the side the boat guy should have never been allowed to operate a boat. Rules? Heck he probably didn't even know them or try and understand them.

Again...that is based on the thin air of a 30 second video clip and ashamed that I posted this before waiting for the whole investigation.....

Ok, I’ve got to tell a story. Many years ago two friends and I decided to get our seaplane ratings. We went to Brown’s Seaplane Base in central Florida. They flew Piper Cubs and I flew a Cessna 172. I spotted one of my friends down on a lake so of course I had to buzz him. Later I was down on the water when one of the Cubs flew by. The window opened and the door dropped open and a very white ass stuck out at me! I got mooned from a flying airplane!

I used to fly Beavers in the area.
When you are accelerating the nose rises and there is no forward visibility at all. Then on the step like he was you have more, until you rotate. Technically the boat had right of way which is unfair as the seaplane has no maneuverability in that situation. We are a very bad boat. The pilots option would be to throttle down but once he saw him as he came onto the step there wasn’t time.

It’s frustrating landing in crowded areas like Lake Union in Seattle - all sorts of boats come over for a closer look.

bowball said:

I used to fly Beavers in the area.
When you are accelerating the nose rises and there is no forward visibility at all. Then on the step like he was you have more, until you rotate. Technically the boat had right of way which is unfair as the seaplane has no maneuverability in that situation. We are a very bad boat. The pilots option would be to throttle down but once he saw him as he came onto the step there wasn’t time.

It’s frustrating landing in crowded areas like Lake Union in Seattle - all sorts of boats come over for a closer look.

Click to expand...

Apparently there is a control tower in that area and they warned the pilot that a west bound boat was in the area and then gave the pilot clearance to take off. The pilot acknowledged the takeoff clearance but not the warning of a boat in the area. Watch the following video. The guy agrees with you about the visibility problem. Watching the video closely it looks like there was a short break in the wake made by the plane some distance from the boat. Attempted take off? Bounce?

HopCar said:

Ok, I’ve got to tell a story. Many years ago two friends and I decided to get our seaplane ratings. We went to Brown’s Seaplane Base in central Florida. They flew Piper Cubs and I flew a Cessna 172. I spotted one of my friends down on a lake so of course I had to buzz him. Later I was down on the water when one of the Cubs flew by. The window opened and the door dropped open and a very white ass stuck out at me! I got mooned from a flying airplane!

Click to expand...

Did it look like this? Must be a Florida thing. This was another US agency aircraft buzzing a USCG cutter. Fortunately no animosity as we were good friends...otherwise, not sure he was aware of how many weapons or cameras the cutter carried. Photo (probably copyrighted) from a book a friend of mine wrote about his experiences in the USCG ...he and I still laugh over this and many of our travels together.