Seaplane vessel collision, Vancouver Harbour

psneeld said:

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. View attachment 155457

Click to expand...

Yes ! Very much like that! Might be the same ass!

Juneau harbor has heavy floatplane traffic. They never make any kind of announcement on VHF, I’ve always assumed they don’t have marine radios. I’ve never had a close encounter but always try to give them a lot of room.

twistedtree said:

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.

Click to expand...

Many powerboaters forget that while they have complete discretion on what course to steer and what speed to travel at any instant, sailboats (under sail) do not. Seaplanes have some discretion, but not nearly as much as a powerboat, and their use of the water is momentary.

This is the reason for the pecking order specified by the colregs.

DDW said:

Many powerboaters forget that while they have complete discretion on what course to steer and what speed to travel at any instant, sailboats (under sail) do not. Seaplanes have some discretion, but not nearly as much as a powerboat, and their use of the water is momentary.

This is the reason for the pecking order specified by the colregs.

Click to expand...

BUT I am now aware that there is all these regulations but none give a floatplane during takeoff or landing the right of way over all other regs. Even though the location is inside a marked zone for seaplanes, there is no hard rules to give planes right of way.

Funny.... 100 years ago, there were a lot of floatplanes/seaplanes on the water (compared to pleasure boats)... now those aviation water hubs are being crowded by too many boaters whom I really don't think get their responsibility.... which includes knowing the NAVRULES but also understanding their real application.

While the rules are a bit sketchy in my mind compared to reality...hopefully something like this incident will clear up that up...whether as a NAVRULE adjustment or a restricted/prohibited section of water for flying craft.

HopCar said:

Yes ! Very much like that! Might be the same ass!

Click to expand...

I see what you did there.

The challenge is that there's a weak point in the regs. The float plane has to ensure things are clear for a takeoff or landing, but there's a point in each procedure where they're no longer really capable of giving way if a boat comes rocketing into their path.

That was an interesting video, Hopcar. I learned about the pilot’s limited visibility in an aircraft, particularly with a radial engine. However the narrator talked about the “prohibited zone”. The CHS charts identify this are as a seaplane landing zone. Vessels are not excluded.

But there are lessons to be learned. I now understand better the dangers of transiting seaplane landing areas, more now than previously. The vessel operator should have been much more aware and been monitoring the situation. And the pilot likewise should have been more aware of the circumstances, particularly as he is a professional pilot. PSNeeld cautions us about jumping to conclusions until the TCSB reaches their conclusions in the matter, but I gotta believe both need to share in the blame. Too many of these weekend speed boaters are clueless on the water. And that’s from my own personal experience.

Jim

Hopcar. Prior to his service in Bomber Command, Dad was an instructor at an Elementary Flying Training School during WWII. He and another instructor in their SH-82A Tiger Moth used to buzz the Free French officers with their red Kepis driving along in their open top staff cars and watch them dive out of the car for cover. All good fun!

These things always bring up all sorts of questions about the Nav Rules, and I have a question for the brain trust.

In some comments on the Broncolerio youtube channel, someone with good paper credentials was says that at some point during take off the plane would transition with respect to the pecking order from being a Seaplane to RAM. I think that's patently incorrect, but want to test that.

I think it's incorrect for a couple of reasons.

1) Seaplanes are explicitly called out, and from my read always are lowest on the pecking order

2) Unlike sail boats that clearly only enjoy that status when exclusively under sail, a seaplane is always a seaplane. If it were only a sea plane under certain circumstances, the rules would say so

3) RAM status is very clearly for boats that are restricted because of the nature of their work. It for dredges, salvage boats, buoy tenders, etc. And anyone claiming that status has to declare it with day shapes, lights, and AIS status. It specifically does NOT apply to boats that are slow to turn or stop, or otherwise confined to a certain course. That's all covered elsewhere under operation in narrow waterways, vessels constrained by draft, etc.

So by my read, a seaplane is always a seaplane, and is always at the bottom of the pecking order. Now none of this is meant to suggest that the boat operator shouldn't have seen the plan and taken action too, but I think primary give-way responsibility is clearly with the seaplane, at all times.

JDCAVE said:

That was an interesting video, Hopcar. I learned about the pilot’s limited visibility in an aircraft, particularly with a radial engine. However the narrator talked about the “prohibited zone”. The CHS charts identify this are as a seaplane landing zone. Vessels are not excluded.

But there are lessons to be learned. I now understand better the dangers of transiting seaplane landing areas, more now than previously. The vessel operator should have been much more aware and been monitoring the situation. And the pilot likewise should have been more aware of the circumstances, particularly as he is a professional pilot. PSNeeld cautions us about jumping to conclusions until the TCSB reaches their conclusions in the matter, but I gotta believe both need to share in the blame. Too many of these weekend speed boaters are clueless on the water. And that’s from my own personal experience.

Jim

Click to expand...

One of the comments was from someone who flies those planes and he said the visibility is actually OK at all times.

What would Sully have done?

To provide some context with respect to the location of the collision, Coal Harbour is located within the Port of Vancouver. The Port of Vancouver is the largest in Canada and 4th largest in North America. Within Vancouver Harbour are numerous marine terminals including facilities handling containers, wheat, coal, sulphur, potash, lumber and other bulk commodities.

Within Coal Harbour there are three marinas, two yacht clubs (one of which also has a rowing section), a floating fuel dock (used by both commercial and recreational boaters), the float-plane terminal (service inbound and outbound several times hourly), a foot passenger ferry terminal (service several times daily to Nanaimo), Canada Place Cruise Ship terminal (daily arrivals and departures) and a commuter foot passenger ferry terminal (service several times hourly to and from the North Shore). There are several commercial charter tour operations at the marinas in Coal Harbour. A busy spot, indeed.

All of the recreational and commercial vessels inbound or outbound of the marinas and yacht clubs in Coal Harbour transit through the designated sea-plane landing area. The designated sea-plane landing area is not in any way a restricted area for marine traffic. Marine traffic within Coal Harbour is restricted to 5 knots. There are no radio announcements of inbound or outbound sea-plane traffic on either VHF 16 or on VHF 12 (harbour operations channel).

Sea-plane landings are generally east-west and directly north of Canada Place and the Vancouver Convention Centre. Landings will occur west-east if wind conditions dictate that direction. There is generally little or no boat traffic where the planes land. Take-offs are generally to the north (as was the plane involved in the crash on Saturday). Take-off direction can also be dictated by wind direction. Take-offs are generally through the area where most of the boat traffic is. It isn't unusual to see a take-off west-east when there is a lot of transiting marine traffic.

At the busiest times of day, there can be upwards of twenty take-offs and landings within a twenty to thirty minute period - it is impressive to see.

My boat is moored at one of the marinas in Coal Harbour and we transit through regularly. At 5 knots, it takes me about 5 minutes to transit through the designated sea-plane landing area. It takes a sea-plane about 30 seconds to be airborne once they throttle-up. When the planes leave their dock at the terminal it is generally pretty easy to determine which direction they are lining up for take off and easy for me to provide some consideration to the departing plane.

Considering the conditions on Saturday (mid-day, light winds, calm seas and unlimited visibility), it is astonishing that this incident took place. Both parties have some questions to answer.

twistedtree said:

One of the comments was from someone who flies those planes and he said the visibility is actually OK at all times.

Click to expand...

I would disagree. At taxiing speed, in a level attitude, the visibility is "pretty good" At high speed, "on the step" it is OK. in the transitional speeds, when you are accelerating on the back of the floats, nose high, there is very little visibility from the left seat in the 12-to-2 o'clock area...just like in the video.

No one rule in the Navrules or any "pecking order" derived from the rules should be adhered to in a vacumm.

One very important part of Rule 2 .... ".....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."

Why is it important to me?

I think it relates to the legal standard "reasonable person" in some ways.

The first part of this paragraph discusses neglect in complying with the rules, this part discusses that sometimes the rules are only part of or maybe even secondary "to the ordinary practice of seaman, or by the special circumstance of the case." Reread this section carefully...consider it is Rule 2 (near the beginning) and it is the caveat rule that says always follow the rules except when to do so is more dangerous.

I think that one would have to be really out of it to not think a float plane starting to skip across the water is going to easily change its course at that point. Just seeing one in the distance that is pointing your way......rules be damned.... I think the "ordinary practice of seaman" would be for the guy in the little boat to make a nice turn away from the intended flight path. While I strongly disagree with the often misunderstood saying "the law of gross tonnage" the way most people understand it....I fully agree from avoiding dangerous areas for all sorts of reasons (a practice of ordinary seaman) such as aircraft taking off, large ships, rough waves, reefs....etc...etc.... That is "a practice of ordinary seaman"....

psneeld said:

…One very important part of Rule 2 .... ".....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."
…

Click to expand...

Which brings me back to the point that the regulatory agency in Canada the “Transport Safety Board of Canada” has the jurisdiction to consider the pilot’s role and the vessel operator’s role in this event. I.e. both aviation and maritime. As far as I can tell, both have responsibilities that were not followed. This is a professional pilot who hit a vessel. Clearly he didn’t take the necessary precautions to ensure the safety of his passengers. The vessel operator wasn’t paying due attention given a) the seaplane landing area is clearly marked on the chart and he should have been watching for seaplanes, and b) he wasn’t looking in the correct direction and c) needed to take action to avoid collision. There’s enough peanut butter to spread on both sides of the piece of toast.

Jim

tiltrider1 said:

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.

Click to expand...

I've never understood why they don't have a designated anchor area for boats on lake union to help create more space for the seaplanes to land. I can't believe there have not been more of these type of incidents. No one pays attention to the landing lights.

I agree that both have some responsibility, how much on both I would need more info.

My point about Rule 2 is exactly why in maritime accidents both parties can get assigned a portion of responsibility even though ONE rule seem to point the finger in only one direction.

Knowing or even just reading the Navrules/Colregs is no where near understanding them. Even lifelong pros, maritime lawyers and courts spend a lot of time interpreting them

A different perspective....regs aside. The plane Captain is a highly trained professional performing his duties for pay and toting Pax. The boater may be a new boater out for a Sunday stroll with barely a legal mandate for anything. IMO the plane Captain has to make up that difference with his professionalism, training and deference to safety. I also think his career will be what suffers. Really..with what we see out on the water on an average weekend, if I was a Sea Plane Captain I would have a very wide safety margin for this reason. I think how much responsibility each party bears is related to the variance in responsibility to required training and competence for the particular activity each captain was performing. They are not equal.

If I had a nickel for every boater that was instructed to do one thing and did just the opposite, I could have skipped my second on the water career and retired early.

In many cases, I as the "professional" would have been crucified by a tribunal (least of my worries) or flat out dead with other bodies strewn around because of many boaters inability to follow the most basic of instructions.

Yes, the pilot should have realized there was a weekend boater within 20 miles and held up his takeoff until the chucklehead was well out of sight. Unfortunately, the Navrules and the FAA somehow are missing that in aviation, changing your mind midstream in certain portions of aviation operations is a really bad idea and some better method of keeping the 2 drastically different operations apart is probably the best idea. Counting on professionals to be perfect and chuckleheads to give a dang is not in the current USA DNA.

A follow up thought..... I was qualified and did many an amphibious landing in the old H52 USCG helo. Water landings in a helo aren't a lot different than runway landings, but they did require a lot of extra vigilance for "other environmentals". Being a highly trained professional was important but then again, some operations tax even the highest of trained professionals and even the slightest deviation from the norm can spiral into disaster. Ensuring you have a wide safety margin is nice but not always possible...like pulling out in traffic on a road that never lets up....sometimes you just got to go before it gets worse again. Maybe the situation at hand put the pilot in a tough spot and he paid the price. My training places that blame on "the system that placed the pilot there" and that's hopefully what the accident investigation will determine. Was it mostly pilot error or how much of it was allowing this situation to even happen.

psneeld said:

some better method of keeping the 2 drastically different operations apart is probably the best idea.

Click to expand...

Yes...I think that sums it up. Thinking about the whole ordeal kind of leaves you shaking your head that it still works the way it does. For instance the Sea Planes at the Dry Tortugas. You know its just a matter of time. But at least those turbo props have reverse thrust....but still.

Too many people, not enough destinations and often too many toys all in one spot.

A Seaplane is first a plane and second a vessel. What this means is the Pilot must visually inspect the runway before attempting a take off or landing and determining that it is safe to proceed. This was his failure and the Canadian version of the NTSB will note this and list the cause of crash as Pilot Error for attempting a take off in unsafe conditions.

The question of RAM will never come up, it was either safe or in this case it wasn’t to take off. A potential fact that does not help the pilot, the aircraft was airborne at the time of collision. Clearly we are back to flying in an unsafe manner. This is the position the boat’s lawyers will take if this were to go to court. Now what do marine regulations say about collision at sea between vessels and objects in the air?

So now we are stuck arguing was the aircraft in the air or on the water? In any case we have pilot error. We might have a boat guilty of failing to avoid a collision or we might have a boat colliding with an airborne object. My guess is the insurance companies will want nothing to do with a court case and will agree to splitting the responsibility for the collision.

Hopcar posted "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. "

I wonder what classification the airspace is there and what exact authority does that tower have?

That could have a lot of bearing on who did what, why and when. Definitely will be interested in more facts or the final investigation.

psneeld said:

Hopcar posted "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. "

I wonder what classification the airspace is there and what exact authority does that tower have?

That could have a lot of bearing on who did what, why and when. Definitely will be interested in more facts or the final investigation.

Click to expand...

With the amount of boat traffic in that area there is always a boat in the area. Yes the air traffic should have watched the plane and boats and yelled out abort to the pilot. They are top of a hotel, 460' high and can see well.
But four people in a speedboat and they made no attempt to avoid. They had the right of way so there is what they thought.

SteveK said:

Yes the air traffic should have watched the plane and boats and yelled out abort to the pilot. They are on the 4th floor? and can see well.

Click to expand...

It is actually on top of a hotel, 460' high and quite a long distance from the area in which they have no actual control over who enters their area of responsibility. I have spent some time watching this operation from Coal Harbor and Stanley Park.

I have been rated in five control towers, including managing the world's busiest seadrome (Lake Hood, Anchorage). I can tell you this is one I would avoid like the plague.

I see both at fault also. Distracted, not paying attention.

Pilot should have looked before takeoff when he could see the boat and boat should have seen the plane coming and throttled back and changed course.

But neither saw anything it seems. Kinda like cars that "didn't see the motorcycle", how can you not see a motorcycle? Running over people in the street must also be on the agenda eh?

Yeah, watching this stuff hurts. People who are simply oblivious and careless. Got better things to do than pay attention.

I don’t care if I’m the “stand on vessel.” If I see a float plane coming at me in its takeoff run, I’m going to “give way.”

Interesting webpage.

It will likely turn out to be a rented or newly purchased boat, with a "skipper" that has no experience or any idea of Nav Rules or a chart or chart plotter use.

I doubt the boat had any idea of "stand on" vessel either.