There usually isn't unless there's a running video camera. But I would say the investigators provided a pretty sound estimate.

From the report:
"The pilot's broken right wrist and the bent V brace suggest that the pilot was bracing or trying to resist a force imposed from behind. The broken ankles of the passenger behind the pilot are consistent with that person bracing with both feet, or pushing forward with both feet, at the time of impact. It is possible the passenger seated behind the pilot kicked the pilot's seatback forward and held it there, pushing the pilot into the instrument panel and the controls forward thereby inducing a dive."

Drunks are drunks. They're stupid beyond all comprehension. They killed almost 11,000 people in cars last year, and I doubt that they suspend their idiocies while in the air.

Art's suggestion that drunks "be hog tied, or stuffed in a sack, and carried as cargo. Perhaps lashed to one of the floats" certainly works for me. And in cars, buses, and trains, too.

Sue

Drunks don't just kill in planes or in cars. Most of the fatalities I have dealt with over the years (SAR) have involved alcohol and falls from height, or drowning. I am lucky; I was a founding member of a group known as the Roma Ramblers (so named from the Roma Zinfandel we consumed when we had attained the summit) and I did my share of stupid things. Now I am basically a teetotaler.

"I'm sorry guys, you are too drunk to fly"

The airlines refuse to board drunk passengers. This pilot should have refused to fly. Hindsight is 20/20, but even on a 6 min flight, stuff can happen.

No, I agree. The investigation team did a thorough job . The point I meant to make is that no one will never know exactly what caused the crash in the absence of any technology that small aircraft do not carry and that could of aided the investigation.

From Yahoo News, June 24th, pm

*article snipped*

Posting complete articles is in violation of USA copyright laws. To avoid getting the Equipped to Survive Foundation sued please just post a link to the article along with a 1-2 sentence synopsis.

Thank you kindly.
-Blast

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.

Here are a few more articles worth reading (some from a while ago) for anyone who is interested:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/nati...article2073129/
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/nati...article1587446/
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/story/2011/06/24/bc-tofino-plane-crash-drunk.html

I know that float planes are essentially sky taxis around the West Coast islands. (And as I recall, it's pretty impressive when those big props wind up.) 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.

P.S., Apologies, Mods, I quoted too much in the OP.

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.

Some military planes have (or used to have) 'bomb bays', where the bombs lay in the belly of the bomber. To drop the bomb, the door the bomb rested on was opened and the bomb dropped out.

Maybe 'drunk bays' would be appropriate. Hasta la vista, baby!

Sue

I just finished rereading "Bush Flying, The Romance of the North" by Robert S. Grant. If half of what's in that book is accurate, then inebrieted passemgers are a common problem. The solution is to take them to high elevation and let them pass out.