|
Author
|
Topic: seaplane crashes into powerboat
|
Skypickle
|
posted June 09, 2024 01:10 PM
https://www.cbc.ca/player/play/video/9.6417666
Im sure David knows about this since it happened in his backyard.
Technically, both vehicles are powered watercraft (since the seaplane is not in the air) so the powerboat is stand on. But the seaplane is restricted ability to maneuver so maybe it is the powerboat's fault.
|
|
David Burch
|
posted June 09, 2024 03:32 PM
This is a simple case of Rule 18 (e):
(e) 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 Rules 4-19.
The Rule 4-19 citation does not affect this.
Plus of course we have to look at Canadian Inland rules that include several notable modifications. But checking them there is no mod to Rule 18(e)
The only factor could be local laws in that waterway that give the planes right of way. We would have to see an official chart of the Bay to confirm that....
Remember Rule 2(b)
(b) Nothing in these Rules shall interfere with the operation of special rules made by an appropriate authority for roadsteads, harbors, rivers, lakes, or inland waterways connected with the high seas and navigable by seagoing vessels. Such special rules shall conform as closely as possible to these Rules.
in short, not only can the gov of Canada have modifications, BC can have them, and the City of Vancouver can have them.
Thanks for posting this rare incident.
From: Starpath, Seattle, WA
|
|
David Burch
|
posted June 10, 2024 06:57 AM
Just noticed that this is in the public discussion forum, but I suspect it was intended for the Student Discussion forum. I will add a comment here, and then move this to the other forum.
______
I think I might have been too quick on a full analysis of this. The reminder that Rule 4-19 (Section II of the NavRules, on actions of vessels in sight of one another) also applies to the powerboat.
Those rules can be summarized to say it is illegal to have a collision if hyou can avoid it. Here we have a case of clear weather in essentially open water with no other distractions and a powerboat, even though it has the right of way, drove right into a collision with a very large and indeed very loud airplane.
This seems to imply that both parties were not obeying the Sec II rules and thus each will gain a bit of the liability.
From: Starpath, Seattle, WA
|
|
Albatrossf
|
posted June 11, 2024 09:56 AM
In the US, the FAA regulations for seaplane right-of-way rules are specified in FAR 91.115
|
|
Albatrossf
|
posted June 11, 2024 10:04 AM
Let's try this again....
SECTION: Sec. 91.115
Amendment Number: Initial, Effective Date: 09/30/1963
TITLE: Right-of-way rules: Water operations.
SECTION RULE: (a) General. Each person operating an aircraft on the water shall, insofar as possible, keep clear of all vessels and avoid impeding their navigation, and shall give way to any vessel or other aircraft that is given the right-of-way by any rule of this section.
(b) Crossing. When aircraft, or an aircraft and a vessel, are on crossing courses, the aircraft or vessel to the other's right has the right-of-way.
(c) Approaching head-on. When aircraft, or an aircraft and a vessel, are approaching head-on, or nearly so, each shall alter its course to the right to keep well clear.
(d) Overtaking. Each aircraft or vessel that is being overtaken has the right-of-way, and the one overtaking shall alter course to keep well clear.
(e) Special circumstances. When aircraft, or an aircraft and a vessel, approach so as to involve risk of collision, each aircraft or vessel shall proceed with careful regard to existing circumstances, including the limitations of the respective craft.
|
|
David Burch
|
posted June 11, 2024 10:11 AM
Thanks for that, which can be seen at
https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/91.115
It is essentially a repeat of Nav Rule 18e, but the wording is a bit different.
I think in court it would be the Nav Rules that dominate.
But definitely interesting to see this written out in another CFR. It is also interesting to see cases where every single word matters in a court case to have the wording differ at all.
But we will get the answer to this one in a few months i would guess when it goes to court.
Thanks again for posting this.
From: Starpath, Seattle, WA
|
|
Albatrossf
|
posted June 12, 2024 10:44 AM
From the FAA Advisory Circular 91-69A Seaplane Safety for Part 91 Operators
b. Status of Seaplanes as Vessels. The U.S. Coast Guard Navigation Rules and Regulations Handbook provides the following definition: “The word ‘vessel’ includes every description of water craft, including nondisplacement craft, WIG craft and seaplanes, used or capable of being used as a means of transportation on water.” Therefore, a seaplane is a vessel once it lands on the water and, as such, is required to comply with the USCG navigation rules applicable to vessels. Adherence to § 91.115 should ensure compliance with the USCG rules.
When a seaplane is taking off or touching down on the water, they are usually considered the "least maneuverable" vessel for right-of-way purposes. Almost no boaters understand this. I've never seen a marine right-of-way definition/explanation that includes seaplanes. However the seaplane pilot needs to consider existing boating traffic prior to picking their landing area or takeoff run. I need approximately 2500' of clear water in front of me for takeoff and landing. But if a boat cuts in front of me, there's only a limited number of things I can do.
Jetskis are worst offenders...
|
|
David Burch
|
posted June 12, 2024 03:24 PM
Thanks for pointing out another document that addresses this issue, though I suspect that in the courts the dominating factor will be the (maritime) Navigation Rules
Seaplane right of way is covered in COLREGS and US Inland Navigation Rule 18, Responsibilities between vessels.
18(e) 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 Rules 4-19.
Most of Rule 18 (the pecking order) on right of way instructs the giveway vessel to "keep out of the way of," whereas the instruction for seaplanes to "keep clear of" is a more compelling requirement... typically meaning earlier and more prominent.
"Do not impede" means do not cause them to change course or speed... at least that is its meaning in other rules, and we might assume it applies here as well. Luckily we do not have many such collisions so there is little case law on it.
With that said, the "in general" qualification reminds us that special circumstances may be at hand. For example, on take off the seaplane may not have good visibility dead ahead, but this is a factor more for the plane to address than the boat.
Of course if the boat does "cut in front of the seaplane" that is another issue completely, and then the cited Rules 4-19 come into play for both vessels.
It's not clear from the picture, but the boat may or may not have been turning into the path of the plane. We have to wait for the court case.
You are of course right that we all have to be logical and reasonable when sailing the the presence of seaplanes taking off or landing, but I might just note that in the Navigation Rules, "maneuverability of a vessel" is not part of the right of way rules — other than its application to "vessels restricted in their ability to maneuver" (Rule 3g), which has a very specific defintion in the Rules, and seaplanes and motor boats to not quality.
There are related noted above about jurisdiction that might apply... and it is still not clear (as noted) if the motor boat might pick up some liability as well.
From: Starpath, Seattle, WA
|
|
Albatrossf
|
posted June 13, 2024 10:31 AM
I did watch a couple of videos of the crash. It occurred at the end of the seaplane's takeoff run, almost at the exact point the plane was lifting off the water. The boat did not come in view until near the end but was on a crossing course traveling toward the seaplane. Whether the boat changed course significantly prior to the crash, if the pilot saw the boat and didn't leave enough room to takeoff, or never saw it needs to be determined by the crash investigators. I haven't flown a beaver on floats but they don't have the greatest visibility to start with, and will be about 10 to 15 deg nose high at liftoff further complicating seeing a small boat.
|
|
TolaMarts
|
posted June 23, 2024 01:43 PM
It is a little hard to tell from the camera angles, but it looked to me from this and other videos (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N4eH_YaNw9o) that the seaplane was noticeably abaft the beam of the powerboat. Wouldn't that mean the seaplane was overtaking the power boat? Not saying the powerboat skipped didn't bear some of the responsibility? And doesn't overtaking sort of trump everything else in terms of the stand-on hierarchy?
|
|
David Burch
|
posted June 23, 2024 02:16 PM
Normally so, but in this case it is Rule 18, seaplane stays clear of everyone.
That is the basis, then we have to learn more to see how much liability the motor boat might earn from driving into a collision in clear weather with no apparent effort or sound signal given to avoid it... right of way or not.
From: Starpath, Seattle, WA
|
|
|
|
|
