Drunk passengers implicated in B.C. plane crash

[Moose47]

"How much you wanna bet that the relatives are going to use this information to sue the airline saying "they were at fault because they shouldnt have let them board in that drunken state". And how much do you wanna bet theyll probably win?"

About the same amount that the relatives would have screamed racial discrimination if their drunken family members had been denied boarding.

[iflyforpie]

Yes, but PC aside there is a law in place giving the pilot in command the right to refuse passage.

[azimuthaviation]

I dont think the reason the pilot didnt refuse them to board was to be PC or afraid of a human rights lawsuit.

[Sidebar]

We all know that when there's no proof of what caused an accident that the TSB blames it on the pilot...

Don't include me in "we all know ..." Here's an example disproving your assertion: http://www.tsb.gc.ca/eng/rapports-repor ... 9c0120.asp

[oldncold]

I can remember back in the 'day' had a pax wnated to fly the bird halfway between cyvq and fort franklin // low time me and a boss that pleased the indigeious population so what a gut=y to do lol so i said sure provided i could f.. ur wife he said no so i said no you cant fly the plane had no intension of folllowing through on my request ;;;;;;;;;;;but the anology fit the circumstance.

[nutbutter]

FYI there's lots of float pilots that don't wear shoulder straps for safety reasons. The shoulder strap can entangle you while exiting the aircraft during docking causing horrible falls that can cause very serious injuries at a very inopportune time when the aircraft is being pushed by a combination of momentum, and wind/wave action. Also, when overturned, or attempting to escape after a forced approach the shoulder strap can again ensnare the occupant preventing evacuation on a sinking ship. Not wearing the strap is usually considered the lesser of two evils.

[Redneck_pilot86]

FYI there's lots of float pilots that don't wear shoulder straps for safety reasons. The shoulder strap can entangle you while exiting the aircraft during docking causing horrible falls that can cause very serious injuries at a very inopportune time when the aircraft is being pushed by a combination of momentum, and wind/wave action. Also, when overturned, or attempting to escape after a forced approach the shoulder strap can again ensnare the occupant preventing evacuation on a sinking ship. Not wearing the strap is usually considered the lesser of two evils.

I think anyone operating under that principle is an idiot. It happens over and over, a totally survivable crash results in fatalities because the pilot/passenger wasn't wearing the shoulder straps and knocked themselves out on the dash, then drowned.

[Big Pistons Forever]

Early in my career I had a particularly horrifying experience with a plane load of drunken passengers and it was only good luck that a potentially very bad situation was averted. After that I vowed never again......

Nothing can bring back this pilot......all we can do is learn from this tragedy. This is ultimately like refusing to fly in unsuitable weather or over gross....... you just have to say No.

[Lurch]

FYI there's lots of float pilots that don't wear shoulder straps for safety reasons. The shoulder strap can entangle you while exiting the aircraft during docking causing horrible falls that can cause very serious injuries at a very inopportune time when the aircraft is being pushed by a combination of momentum, and wind/wave action. Also, when overturned, or attempting to escape after a forced approach the shoulder strap can again ensnare the occupant preventing evacuation on a sinking ship. Not wearing the strap is usually considered the lesser of two evils.

Ask Rowdy his opinion of this.

Lurch

[privateer]

Rowdy Rowdy Rowdy!

[TeePeeCreeper]

We all know that when there's no proof of what caused an accident that the TSB blames it on the pilot...

Don't include me in "we all know ..." Here's an example disproving your assertion: http://www.tsb.gc.ca/eng/rapports-repor ... 9c0120.asp

How does that report disprove my ''assertion''? 1)There were survivors whom filled in some of the blanks in the report you quoted 2) One lonely example of the TSB not laying the blame on the pilot (in this case with the suspicion of AP/FLT control issues) does not prove a thing.


The bottom line is that this accident is a tragic one, and may have been preventable.
The reports findings (broken wrist, bent V-brace for example) do not prove or disprove that the rear passenger was to blame imho. There are other possibilities which would explain the injuries (hand on throttle at time of impact for example...)

As for the shoulder harness debate... I personally always wear mine. I would rather be concious and have the straps (which saved my head from hitting the dash, probably knocking me out) to deal with than be unconcious in the first place. I also ask that my passengers in the cabin wear them as well....

[mbav8r]

Had a drunk passenger, get up and punch another passenger in the head without provocation. This was after he had repeatedly been pushing and punching the seatback, in an apparent attempt to provoke the other passenger into a fight. Some people just get ornary when they've been drinking.

[AJV]

The bottom line is that this accident is a tragic one, and may have been preventable.
The reports findings (broken wrist, bent V-brace for example) do not prove or disprove that the rear passenger was to blame imho. There are other possibilities which would explain the injuries (hand on throttle at time of impact for example...)

..

what about the passenger behind him with both ankles broken? they can tell nowadays which way the force was applied to break a bone and that would tell them what position the person was in and they also know how the A/C hit the water. They must have taken that into account in their findings, this is what they do for a living.

[TeePeeCreeper]

what about the passenger behind him with both ankles broken? they can tell nowadays which way the force was applied to break a bone and that would tell them what position the person was in and they also know how the A/C hit the water.

True, however is it not also possible that the rear pax could have "freaked out" and used his feet to "brace for impact" right before hitting the water?

Remember, I'm just playing devils advocate here...

If I were related to any of the passengers or to the pilot I would be devastated by the findings...

[CpnCrunch]

True, however is it not also possible that the rear pax could have "freaked out" and used his feet to "brace for impact" right before hitting the water?

But then you have to ask why the plane hit the water. The control cables were intact and working, and planes don't just suddenly nose down 45 degrees in good weather.

The TSB is just determining the most probable cause. The sad fact is that pilot error causes about 70% of fatal accidents. Denying that fact is simply going to cause further fatal accidents in the future.

Following your argument, if the TSB didn't look for probable causes then there would be a lot more fatal accidents because pilots would not know that it's a bad idea to fly VFR in IMC, fly through thunderstorms, ..-run 50 feet above the ground, etc.

[Cat Driver]

We should not need regulations as a determining factor in making a decision not to accept passengers who appear to be drunk or are obviously drunk.

Common sense and the survival instinct should be the primary reason to refuse the flight.

[Pat Richard]

Agree totally, Cat.

Reading through the report was pretty tough though, as I knew the pilot, and he was a very intelligent guy. Very hard to understand why he made the decisions he did, and the only thing that seems possible is that he was trying to impress, as he had had his commercial license for only a short time.
I hope everyone can reflect on this event in future when faced with a similar scenario and choose differently.

RIP Damon

[J31]

We should not need regulations as a determining factor in making a decision not to accept passengers who appear to be drunk or are obviously drunk.

Common sense and the survival instinct should be the primary reason to refuse the flight.

True Cat, but consider that the regulation gives the PIC the legal right to deny boarding, thus giving some backup to the PIC's decision.

I think it is reasonable to believe that this pilot did not feel there was a threat by allowing these folks aboard. It is tragic that he lost his life in a plausible scenario that the passengers interfered with the flight controls. Even more alarming is that by not using the shoulder harness possibly put him in a position that he lost control of the aircraft.

I really feel for everyone who was affected by the tragic crash. I really hope future pilots take heed of the lessons presented in the TSB report.

[CpnCrunch]

I never feel comfortable flying in the front seat of a plane wearing only a lap-belt. A shoulder harness gives much greater protection in the event of a crash. You'll walk away from a crash wearing a shoulder harness that would kill you wearing a lap-belt.

[swordfish]

It's a big deal to deny boarding on the basis of intoxication. You have to face the barrage from all sides when you do, so most of us have to be quite careful about what you observe, ALL you observe, your experience with the ramifications of your observations, and the ramifications of your decisions.

Document everything as soon as you've executed the dirty deed, and be proactive with your decisions and the reasons there for.

If you follow this discipline, you will normally avert a tragedy on the ground, and certainly one in the air.

Recently, a drunk passenger assaulted the pilot & copilot of a Summit Air flight - in flight. The ramifications of this are beyond the imagination of many of you, unless you've been faced with this problem. Fortunately, that flight ended up ok.

You cannot depend on other passengers to 'control' an unruly or drunk passenger. It HAS TO BE nipped in the bud, on the ground, before departure. Remember that if you climb the cabin, the effects of alcohol become aggravated by the loss of oxygen, and the greater the ratio between alcohol & oxygen, the higher you go. If another passenger tells you he will look after the intoxicated subject, tell that individual that your insurance does not permit that kind of liability, and stick to your guns.

It's not just the in-flight hazards that are your concern. Even if the intox pax trips on the stairs and breaks his wrist, nose, sprains an ankle, YOU and your airline can easily become the subject of a litigious lawsuit - and the unwelcome media publicity - that everyone can do without.

Some other poster has suggested this previously...it is so very true.

[snoopy]

Another interesting consideration is the drunk passenger's capability to follow instructions in the event of an emergency. The last thing a crew and passengers need in a critical emergency situation is a drunk passenger impeding egress or otherwise risking the lives of fellow passengers. At the very least the pilot(s) could suddenly find himself/herself and the company liable for accepting the passenger in the first place. At the worst...

Most of us have had occasion to fly passengers in various stages of intoxication without incident, but one day I had a front seat passenger, more intoxicated than I had realized, reach over and grab the controls while on final. I immediately punched him in the arm - hard. As he let go he giggled and said he was just kidding. I didn't find it very funny.

Some years later I was requested to fly an intoxicated/unruly person out of a mine site - the person had been sent off shift for drinking and subsequently caused a significant disturbance. I replied that I would be pleased to fly the person out once they sobered up, and in the company of a security or police escort. The person was kept in custody overnight and I flew him out under escort the next day.

It's not worth the risk.

Cheers,
Kirsten B.

[180]

True, however is it not also possible that the rear pax could have "freaked out" and used his feet to "brace for impact" right before hitting the water?

Remember, I'm just playing devils advocate here...

There's devil's advocate and then there's just plain ridiculous. Have you ever sat in the back seat of a 185? Getting your feet up and into a brace position in the back of the pilot's seat would take some serious effort and flexibility!

Out of curiosity, did they mention in the report if it was the guy or one of the 2 girls in the back left seat?

Suicide is rampant at the reserve they were flying into...was it a coincidence that they didn't crash until they were directly in front of the reserve?

I feel horrible for the pilot's family and friends. No one wants to say it out loud, but it sure sounds like the poor bastard was murdered trying to help three young drunks out.

Beware flying agitated drunks people! Snoopy did it right in her post above...

[TeePeeCreeper]

There's devil's advocate and then there's just plain ridiculous. Have you ever sat in the back seat of a 185? Getting your feet up and into a brace position in the back of the pilot's seat would take some serious effort and flexibility!

Beware flying agitated drunks people! Snoopy did it right in her post above...

Actually, it's not that far fetched... The 180 I own and fly for fun is very "roomy" as far as leg room goes... That is compaired to the seaplane I fly for a living....
But I digress... This accident will make me think twice about flying anyone under the influence regardless of my playing devils advocate in this thread...

[MrWings]

We should not need regulations as a determining factor in making a decision not to accept passengers who appear to be drunk or are obviously drunk.

Common sense and the survival instinct should be the primary reason to refuse the flight.

Normally I would agree. But let me share a story.

In my first job, I was told to fly a walk-in drunk passenger who'd just paid cash. During the flight, the guy hopped from the back to the front seat during flight. I didn't feel the flight was in danger but I was constantly on edge not knowing what this guy would do.

I would not accept such a flight ever again. Yes, I had the right to refuse the flight when I was a 300hr wonder. But I did not have the experience to think that someone would act that stupidly in an aircraft. After all, we flew other guys who'd been drinking (rig pigs) with no problem.

In the end, I was more upset at my company for dispatching the flight. I felt they put my safety in danger for cash. If there was a regulation that forced them to turn people away at the door then potentially dangerous drunks would never make it to an aircraft.

[Sidebar]

When her brother's loss floods over her, his sister asks herself "Why, why, why did you fly them?" she said.

http://www.timescolonist.com/Innocent+p ... id=5005943