It's fair to say that the conclusions from the TSB are based on circumstantial evidence. But AFAIK the TSB tends to be thorough and methodical, and doesn't serve any political agenda. So it's probably pretty good circumstantial evidence -- which I grant isn't the same as positive proof.
[...]
Probably not a big margin in the business, and it's probably not that easy to turn down a fare. These guys are good fliers, but aren't making the big money; and there's no airport security establishment to screen passengers. It's the classic cabbie's dilemma, except at 500 ft. you can't hit the brakes and pull over. Very sad that this pilot lost his life over a 6.5 minute fare.
I tend to agree that the TSB tries pretty hard to avoid any overt bias. But, alas we live in a post-factual world where every factual statement is going to cast shadows that will discomfort someone's existing bias and all sides will fight back to discredit any uncomfortable conclusions and draw their own. Which will, entirely coincidentally, align quite nicely with their preferred POV and interests.
I also think you make a good point showing that he likelihood is that he bush pilots may not have a whole lot of financial and business leeway to work with. While, as I understand it, a pilot has the legal right to refuse a passenger making that call might sink such a lot margin business. Pilots likely have to work hard to keep the clients happy and maintain a reputation for being cooperative. Which means that financial viability, the ability to keep flying, is balanced against safety.
Perhaps what is needed is a law which allows a bush pilot to proactively restrain a client without risking assault, kidnapping, or other charges.
Previous Topic
Index
