Drunk passengers implicated in B.C. plane crash

[All Sides]

Trey Kule

The danger of the "Quote" function is that it takes a select portion of what was said to suit your position.

So I will try and make my point of view clear. Perhaps it wasn't worded properly, perhaps it was taken out of context. So to be crystal clear, the pilot made a poor decision and definitely should not have taken the intoxicated passengers! I assume we totally agree on that?
For that decision he paid the ultimate price, along with his partner, family and friends. Very sad indeed...... And yes he definitely would have to accept a large portion of the blame for the outcome.

The point that I was trying to make is that (WRONGLY) in the past, in remote areas it had become the norm to fly passengers that had been intoxicated. Pretty much everyone in this thread (that has flown in the bush) has admitted that at one time or another they had done so, including yourself. Again to be crystal clear, this is poor decision making on all (including myself) of those that have done it. Fortunately for us we got a mulligan, or in some cases several. Admittingly I haven't flown floats in remote areas in many years, so I don't know how prevalent the practice is anymore. I sincerely hope that it doesn't happen anymore, but I have my doubts. I hope everyone in this industry hears of this accident and the impending results of it, and I hope that an accident like this never happens again. Ever!

Now that I have cleared that up (hopefully), the passengers were a huge factor in the outcome of the accident. There are some tough lessons for everyone involved in the accident. To sue the estate and company after all this IMHO is shameful, it implies that the passengers were victims of the pilots poor decision making and that they were completely not responsible for the outcome.

I think the only thing we disagree on is the launching of the lawsuit over this accident? I am done with posting anymore on this thread, hopefully I have made my point. But I hope there are a lot more opinions posted (constructive ones), it is a very important subject.
I also sincerely hope the case is retracted!

[trey kule]

Actually , Allsides, I did not think I was quoting you at all, unless you and Apollo are one in the same.

I have not flown in the bush for many many years either, but as this accident happened only two years, I think, then it appears that at least there, it was still being practiced.

The good thing of this whole lawsuit is I hope it will give some pilots pause to think before they join the we all did it crowd.
And that is not going to happen as long as the pilot's actions can be rationalized or excused..

And simple as it must seem. If you dont want drunk pax suing you or your estate, then dont let them on board...

Now I too, will end posting on the subject.

[lilflyboy262]

At what point will people start standing up and accepting some of the blame?

Yes, the pilot made a poor decision. A very bad one in fact.
If had not accepted them, then the accident would never have happened.

BUT. And this is a very big but.

If the passenger in question hadn't kicked the seat in front of him, then the accident would also have never happened. The family of the pilot should be able to turn around and sue the estate of the person who kicked the seat.

The cause of the accident is not only the pilots, therefore he should not be held solely responsible for the accident.

[Cat Driver]

First of all is there undeniable proof the passenger caused the accident by pushing the seat forward?

But an even more interesting question is who is paying the lawyer/'s on the plain·tiff
side, them, the government or is it on contingency?

[azimuthaviation]

It's the victims right to sue whoever they want. If several people are possibly liable the plaintiff does not have to pursue each individual party for their share. They can just sue one. After that if found liable the defendant can sue the others for their share of the damages. However he has until 5 pm today to do so, its the two year anniversary of the crash.

[azimuthaviation]

First of all is there undeniable proof the passenger caused the accident by pushing the seat forward?

But an even more interesting question is who is paying the lawyer/'s on the plain·tiff
side, them, the government or is it on contingency?

Civil court doesn't require that high a burden of proof.

I wonder about the lawyers too. If the families are impoverished they can utilize all kinds of free legal services. Or a lawyer could work on a contingency basis. Or he could have been paid in empties.

[Cat Driver]

If the families are impoverished

Yes, for sure the inhabitants of Ahousaht could be considered as impoverished much like the inhabitants of Sewato South Africa.

However South Africa moved into the modern world some years ago and abolished apartheid.

[azimuthaviation]

Well yes and no. The south Africans took a brave step by dismantling the apartheid system but it wasn't as a result of a change of heart or coming tol their senses. There was considerable international pressure to give up the system which the south Africans resisted for a long time until it became impossible to maintain.

I am quite sympathetic to the plight of the natives however this isn't a human rights case. It wasn't Rosa parks who boarded that plane but rather a group of drunks who brought about their own demise as well as someone who didn't deserve to go down that way. I don't care what their prior cimrcumstances were, they should be regarded in only that light, not as martyrs.

[Cat Driver]

The last thing on earth I would suggest is they are martyrs.

I am making the connection between the social similaraties in Soweto and Ahousaht based on my own obversations of the two having lived in South Africa, and flown to countless reserves here in Canada.

Oh, and I am part native North American Indian so that also gives me a different view of the subject, and from my slant on this subject it is hard for me to not feel there are societal issues involved.

We all have different opinions on these things and those are mine.

[rubberboot]

First of all is there undeniable proof the passenger caused the accident by pushing the seat forward?

Wouldn't this make it murder - suicide? Wrongful death? Manslaughter?

It's the victims right to sue whoever they want.

Who's the victim - the passengers or the pilot? I think the pilots family would have every right to counter sue too.

[grimey]

It'd be difficult to prove anything as being solely the fault of the pilot, due to the lack of evidence. Most likely, if any finding is found against the pilot for allowing intoxicated passengers to board his plane, the passengers will also be found to be contributorially negligent for their drunk and stupid actions, minimizing the possible awards of damages.

http://canlii.ca/t/1d8jw

[All Sides]

I know I said I would not post on this thread anymore, but it occurred to me that what if the person that was suspected of jamming the pilot into the controls lived and the rest were killed.

Would the plaintiffs still sue the pilots estate and the company?

[BverLuver]

Widow sues dead pilot for plane crash allegedly caused by drunken passenger
By Todd Sperry, CNN
updated 4:38 PM EDT, Fri June 1, 2012
(CNN) -- A Canadian woman whose common-law husband died in a plane crash after a drunken passenger allegedly kicked the pilot's seat forward, jamming him into the instrument panel, is suing the estate of the dead pilot in a British Columbia court.
The lawsuit alleges Damon York, 33, pilot of the Cessna plane, violated Canadian aviation regulations by allowing the drunken passenger to board his flight. In a Transportation Safety Board of Canada accident report, investigators said the intoxicated passenger most likely "kicked the pilot's seatback forward and held it there" until the plane hit the water.
An autopsy found the passenger's ankles were broken on impact, suggesting she was kicking the pilot's seat forward, the board said. The Transportation Safety Board is the Canadian equivalent of the United States' National Transportation Safety Board.
York had a broken wrist and other injuries that investigators believe resulted from the pilot trying to free himself to regain control of the plane as it plummeted, according to the report.
Killed were passengers Edward Sam, 28, his sister Katrina Sam-English, 22, his cousin Samantha Mattersdorfer, 24, who allegedly kicked the pilot's seat, and York.
In the lawsuit, Sam's widow, Melissa Schram, alleges York and the company he worked for were grossly negligent because the pilot's seat was so easily shoved forward when Mattersdorfer kicked it. Additionally, Schram's suit claims that because of improper training the pilot failed to maintain calm during an emergency situation.
Schram is seeking compensation for loss of support, loss of inheritance, loss of companionship and loss of household assistance.
The Cessna-185F floatplane nose-dived into the ocean near Vancouver Island in May 2010. Floatplanes look like traditional aircraft but are modified with pontoons allowing water landings.
Investigators say all three passengers had been drinking heavily on the day of the crash when they chartered York's flight to return home.
The three passengers were members of the Ahousaht First Nation and the reservation they lived on doesn't permit alcohol. The passengers attempted to make their trip via boat, but a water taxi operator refused to take them to the reservation because they had alcohol in their baggage.
When investigators located the floatplane wreckage on the ocean floor, beer cans were found near the passenger seats. Schram's attorneys claim York hadn't properly stowed the luggage, allowing the passengers to gain access to the alcohol they brought on board.
Witnesses told investigators that prior to departing, all three were able to walk and were coherent enough to argue about the price of the charter, according to the safety board's accident report.
According to CNN affiliate CTV, Vancouver has one of the largest floatplane flotillas in the world. Sixty-seven percent of victims killed in floatplane accidents die from drowning because they cannot exit the plane as it sinks, a CTV report said.
Canadian officials have recommended installing pop-out windows and quick-release doors on floatplanes, but those recommendations have never been enforced. The lawsuit targets the plane operator for failing to make the necessary changes to the floatplane.
Also named in the lawsuit are the company the pilot worked for, Atleo River Air Services, and the estate of Mattersdorfer.

[lilflyboy262]

I'm pretty sure a half decent lawyer could get that thrown out?

The seat folding is a safety mechanism so back seat passengers can evacuate, if anything, they will have to go after Cessna or TC for the regs on that one, and how on earth is a pilot to remain calm while pinned to the dash and fighting for his life? How can the say that he wasn't calm in the emergency?

[trey kule]

I'm pretty sure a half decent lawyer could get that thrown out

?

Ya...right....Where in the world are you going to find a half decent lawyer?

Jaded as I am, lawyers dont make money by having civil suits thrown out.. They make money by dragging them out forever and forever, until their clients money runs out..Those that work on contingency like to settle for far less...quick buck. But the defendent lawyer, who is not on contingency wont always agree...they need to eat too.

I am a bit surpirsed that the company's insurers have not been named as defendents...but maybe they will be joined in the action later by the defendents themselves..

[grimey]

I'm pretty sure a half decent lawyer could get that thrown out?

The seat folding is a safety mechanism so back seat passengers can evacuate, if anything, they will have to go after Cessna or TC for the regs on that one, and how on earth is a pilot to remain calm while pinned to the dash and fighting for his life? How can the say that he wasn't calm in the emergency?

No way this is getting tossed, unfortunately. Want a laugh? Go down to the courthouse and sit in on civil court. The shit some people go to court over, and don't settle over, is un-fucking-believable. Sad thing is, the family probably has a case. I'm not saying it's fair, but given the policies of most airlines towards drunk passengers (I'm unsure if it's a TC reg), it'd be fairly easy to show that the pilot was negligent for allowing them aboard if they were significantly impaired. He's not solely at fault, the drunk assholes are too, but the degree of blame would be decided in court, not tossed out completely.

There's simply too much that's claimed that may be true for this to get tossed. Between the CARs violations (probably easy to prove), the claims of the pilots incompetence (bullshit, IMO, if the defence can show that the seat folding impaired his abilities), the claims that the seat doesn't meet the recommended standard (somewhere in the middle), there's too many questions that need answered for the judge to simply disallow the case by the defense requesting a summary judgement.

['effin hippie]

WHAT CAR's violations???????

ef

[CD]

Perhaps these are the two that grimey might be referring to:

602.04 Alcohol or Drugs - Passengers

(4) Subject to subsection (5), no operator of an aircraft shall allow a person to board the aircraft, where there are reasonable grounds to believe that the person's faculties are impaired by alcohol or a drug to an extent that may present a hazard to the aircraft or to persons on board the aircraft.

(5) The operator of an aircraft may allow a person whose faculties are impaired by a drug to board an aircraft, where the drug was administered in accordance with a medical authorization and the person is under the supervision of an attendant.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

602.46 Refusal to Transport
No air operator or private operator shall transport a person if at the time of check-in or at boarding the actions or statements of the person indicate that the person may present a risk to the safety of the aircraft, persons or property.

[lilflyboy262]

Going from what is quoted there, the CAR's do not state that you cannot allow intoxicated people on board your aircraft. Just intoxicated people that may present a hazard to those onboard.

Also hard to argue the grounds that they may have presented a hazard if while boarding the aircraft, they were fine.
We have all seen people that are drunk and happy go to aggressive and angry in the blink of an eye.

[CD]

From the original discussion thread:

A terrible loss, but with interesting timing. This may punctuate the newspaper series being printed about BC floatplane operations.


http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/TopStories/20 ... sh-100530/

Banned from taking a water taxi because they were too INTOXICATED...BUT, its ok to put them on a 4 seat seaplane? Yup, that makes sense. Are you kidding me????? What a shame.

On a side note.. I agreed to fly an intoxicated passenger ONCE...only because he had a security escort from the prison he had just been released from. When he grabbed the yoke, and myself and the officer in the back had to struggle with him for almost 45 secs to regain control of my ship... that was the LAST time for me.

[2R]

I refused to fly a drunk one sunny day.The dispatcher assured me the pax was not drunk even though he smelled like a beer parlour pisswall.The dispatcher claimed the pax was only hungover.The pax's drinking buddy was the same dispatcher.
Eleven minutes into an eighteen minute flight the "hungover" guy drops his pants and takes a huge shit in the middle of the plane.The other pax beat into him until we landed.I flew with the windows open and gave the plane to the dispatcher to clean and I went home for the day.
One aggresive drunk who attempted to get control of my aircraft got a bad flight when he scared the other pax and they hit him so hard i could hear his screams through my headset.I had to mop the blood of the walls and floor after that flight.
Same shit, different day, one slightly hungover guy sprayed projectile vomit all over the floor seats and ceiling making the airplane unservicable for the rest of the day.

The effects of alcohol are increased with altitude and flying a drunk might kill them as you gain altitude or cannot maintain cabin altitude.

[BTyyj]

But an even more interesting question is who is paying the lawyer/'s on the plain·tiff
side, them, the government or is it on contingency?

This suit may have just been filed by the insurance company of the passengers, against the estate, and thus probably the pilot's insurance company. Just large multinational corporations getting their money back, while further devastating all those involved in the process.

[JBI]

I'm pretty sure a half decent lawyer could get that thrown out

?

Ya...right....Where in the world are you going to find a half decent lawyer?

Jaded as I am, lawyers dont make money by having civil suits thrown out.. They make money by dragging them out forever and forever, until their clients money runs out..Those that work on contingency like to settle for far less...quick buck. But the defendent lawyer, who is not on contingency wont always agree...they need to eat too.

I am a bit surpirsed that the company's insurers have not been named as defendents...but maybe they will be joined in the action later by the defendents themselves..

If you've ever read an insurance contract, the insurers cover the defence of these types of claims and do not need to be named separately. Though, there are situations where insurers do not have a duty to defend.

The insurer then instructs the defence lawyer on the best way to proceed. The insurers are generally repeat clients and it is in both the lawyer's and insurer's best interests to come to an economical resolution to a matter.