Vancouver Seaplane / Boat Collision, who is at fault? 

the big issue i see with the "seaplane must give way" theory and this is more so with the rules themselves cause I've had friends who are ex fisherman give me rundowns of the hierarchy. seaplanes are really bad with manuverability on the water cause they're insanely unstable (top heavy with practically no draft mixed with really badly positioned power for a water craft makes they crazy prone to a bad time) , and they have ridiculously bad visibility. especially these old beavers. they're designed to originally be tail draggers. seeing below the horizon isn't something that comes easily. also the side the boat is coming from is the co-pilots side. which means, unless they had a passenger sitting in the co-pilots seat (cause most the single engine DHCs only require a single pilot and the seaplane operators operate them as such) there wouldve been a massive blindspot on the side the boats coming from. just seems kinda braindead the vessel with one of the worst visibilities and abilities to avoid a collision in the water has to be the evasive one in every scenario according to the hierarchy. altho, personally i feel they really need to change how ops are done cause having boats seemingly from what i can tell just pass through the zone and have atc have to dodge them sounds like the dumbest way under the sun to run it. especially with how busy that seaplane port is. it really should be run like a land based airport impo. make boaters call atc to get permission to cross, and have atc actually tell pilots when its clear to take off instead of leaving it up to thier discretion. after all the atc cab has the best view of that harbour anyone could ask for. i also question the boaters speed, granted im not a boater but it is stated on the website for that area that boats are restricted to 5kts cause its a no wake zone (which is understandable, expensive fragile craft that barely handle water at the best of times are pretty sensitive to wakes). that boat looks like it was going over 5kts tho (correct me if im wrong boaters, cause again im not a boater im just going off what i feel 5kts should look like) which if is the case it begs the question, did the pilot see the boater, think they werent gonna be in the way during the takeoff roll and the boater sped up to "beat the plane"? or was it just a case of the pilot didnt hear the warning about the boat? and inturn couldnt see the boat cause of the blindspot and bad visability on that side of the aircraft? cause the end of the readback from the pilot in the atc clip we have isnt very clear but the ATC didnt pressure for a proper readback or acknowledgement of the traffic like they probably should have and to me it doesnt sound like the pilots saying any standardised term to acknowledge the traffic like ive seen some claim. however, where was the boaters attention during the incident?. because impo if youre passing through a high risk zone like that you should probably be paying extra attention to your surroundings (like all the port officials that have been interviewed have said) and be prepared to take evasive action regardless of if you have "right of way" or not, especially when youre in a far more manuverable craft. cause one of the clips ive seen showed the boat made zero attempt to save themselves till like 2-5 seconds before impact. which granted hierarchy and all that but once the plane starts its roll the pilot has zero chance of seeing anything infront of them. the attitude those planes sit at on a takeoff run leaves the the pilot staring at nothing but sky praying to whatever higher power they believe in that they dont hit a rogue wave, or anything else for that matter. all this being said, i've got nothing against you or your analysis. it pointed out some stuff i didnt even realise when i was looking into this stuff. its just as someone whos more into the aviation side of things, it kinda seems braindead to me everything in the laws/regulations is geared toward to seaplanes being at fault 100% of the time in incidents like this when the odds are always stacked in thier disadvantage when it comes to avoiding these types of incidents. see what your thoughts were. because back in the days of flying boats these rules would've made a bit more sense to me. flying boats were designed for water use and were able to play nicely with other watercraft. they were also seemingly alot safer than float planes because of it. floatplanes like the DHC involved tho really arent designed like that. theyre high off the ground, being on water is a massive afterthought and not really all that standardised. also i apologies for the atrocious spelling and grammar mistakes that are likely in this, i suck at that stuff.

The boat that got hit, it looks like they weren't disabled, and went to assist the occupants of the plane.