Seaplane vessel collision, Vancouver Harbour

[twistedtree]

COLREGS, but not NAVRULES (US)

OK, poor terminology on my part. COLREGS (International) I believe apply. Inland Navrules are a US inland thing, and do not apply.

 

[psneeld]

Navrules are the US adoption of the Colregs. Both i ternational and inland. It is what binds US boaters by law to an international treaty.

 

[JDCAVE]

But don't the intenational colregs still apply?

In this case, yes they do. However there are modifications in the Canadian COLREGS that pertain to various sections of same. The Canadian COLREGS can be found here:

https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/PDF/C.R.C.,_c._1416.pdf

 

[klee wyck]

I am not familiar with Coal Harbor, and it sound like traffic is much heavier, but it would appear that Victoria Harbor does a better job of providing for some segregation of the traffic patterns of boats and planes.
Under current circumstances, is this accident bound to be repeated In Coal Harbor?

 

[Delta Riverat]

The first responsibility is always to avoid a collision.

That's what all the rules are about. All the right of ways, stand on, signals, observations are all about avoiding a collision

 

[AlaskaProf]

I am not familiar with Coal Harbor, and it sound like traffic is much heavier, but it would appear that Victoria Harbor does a better job of providing for some segregation of the traffic patterns of boats and planes.
Under current circumstances, is this accident bound to be repeated In Coal Harbor?

Somewhat different geography, and dramatically different solutions:
In Victoria, where the traffic is, in fact, similarly heavy, and the available space more limited, there are not only charted lanes for the aircraft, there are signs, lights and a constant presence of enforcing patrol boats nudging boaters aside, particularly in the bottleneck at Laurel Point. Note the arrows and bouys south of the charted seadrome. Causes some interesting interaction between opposing vessels, but clearly attacks the potential for aircraft conflict. I can't address the probabilities, but Vancouver, by allowing free access to the "movement area" (an ATC term of art) is leaving themselves open, as so vividly demonstrated in the video above.

 

[klee wyck]

Somewhat different geography, and dramatically different solutions:
In Victoria, where the traffic is, in fact, similarly heavy, and the available space more limited, there are not only charted lanes for the aircraft, there are signs, lights and a constant presence of enforcing patrol boats nudging boaters aside, particularly in the bottleneck at Laurel Point. Note the arrows and bouys south of the charted seadrome. Causes some interesting interaction between opposing vessels, but clearly attacks the aircraft issue. I can't address the probabilities, but clearly Vancouver, by allowing free access to the "movement area" (an ATC term of art) is leaving themselves open.

Yes. I visit Victoria on occasion and while it is a bit nerve-wracking, it seems like that solution is much more likely to reduce the risk of boat v plane interactions than what has been described here for Coal Harbor.

 

[AlaskaProf]

Yes. I visit Victoria on occasion and while it is a bit nerve-wracking, it seems like that solution is much more likely to reduce the risk of boat v plane interactions than what has been described here for Coal Harbor.

Yes, I have frequented both...when I had boat(s)...sigh...and I can tell you, drawing on 40 years of air traffic control experience, the contrast is striking.

 

[soin2la]

Most significant is the lack of cross traffic in Victoria Harbour. Almost all marine and air traffic run parallel and have very clearly marked, separate lanes.

 

[SteveK]

In the congested coal harbour, which I have transited, I am now surprised there are no in water buoy and no channel 16 broadcast for landing/takeoff by the tower.
The boat involved did not appear to have an antenna, nor would I expect they would be listening.
But a few buoy with flashing lights could not hurt. I saw those in Nanaimo. When flashing, pull to the curb (side of channel)

 

[bowball]

Victoria is quite different. It is actually a water airport and boaters are restricted on the “runways.” I think for instance they have a tower and flashing lights during take off and landing (I'm pretty sure of this but in fact, I have never landed there as you must be a commercial operator licensed to operate there).

Coal Harbour may establish more regulations now after they examine the accident.

 

[twistedtree]

Victoria is quite different. It is actually a water airport and boaters are restricted on the “runways.” I think for instance they have a tower and flashing lights during take off and landing (I'm pretty sure of this but in fact, I have never landed there as you must be a commercial operator licensed to operate there).

Coal Harbour may establish more regulations now after they examine the accident.

On the CHS charts I'm only seeing the same cautionary note in Victoria as in Coal Harbour. Same for Ganges. I have no idea what the aviation rules are in these places, but the marine rules all seem to be the same.

 

[AlaskaProf]

Not sure how the regulations differ, but what is dramatically different is the charting, signage and the uniformed constables out there in their menacing black boats constantly herding us boaters out of the "movement area", as they should!

 

[ksanders]

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.

You are 100% correct. I am a Seaplane pilot, and have over a thousand hours flying my float plane in Alaska.

The plane could not see the boat until he was up on step (plane). But... The plane had the opportunity to turn to starboard once he was up on step, which he did not do to pass behind the boat, which would have been the safe maneuver. Planes need a fairly long run up on plane to build speed for takeoff. During that time the plane is about as manuverable as a large boat up on plane.

My opinion, the plane being that close to take off speed has plenty of time, and could have easily turned to starboard and avoided the accident. I think the pilot of the seaplane mis-calculated the boats velocity, and thought he would pass in front of the boat, which we all know is a dangerous gamble.

 

[psneeld]

Good point Kevin.

Not a seaplane pilot so I wasn't sure about maneuverability when the plane looked as if it was skipping on the water and was closer to rotation just before impact.

 

[JDCAVE]

Kevin: Can you provide an educated guess of the closing speed of the a/c during the run up before the accident? I would have thought in excess of 50 kts, but that’s a guess on my part.

Jim

 

[Cold Duck]

Generally speaking, some aircraft are not required to have any radios including aircraft freqs. I flew an ultralight on floats with no radios, aircraft or marine. For that matter, there is no requirement for most small boats to have a radio onboard. That said, in a complex area such as this, it is prudent to have as many safety items onboard as possible including ADIS-B, transponders, radios, etc. If i flew in an environment like this, I would at least have a marine handheld but chances are the small boat hit didn't have a radio so not sure it would have done any good. Small boats tend to not have radios. Aircraft fly by the "see and be seen" theory. While on the water they must adhere to marine "rules of the road" so it is the same as two boats colliding. Not an attorney, but my guess is the fast boat (plane) running over the slow boat will be at fault regardless of a posted aircraft landing area.

 

[ksanders]

Kevin: Can you provide an educated guess of the closing speed of the a/c during the run up before the accident? I would have thought in excess of 50 kts, but that’s a guess on my part.

Jim

Your guess of 50 kn is probably pretty close.