Plane crash caused by drunken passengers

How not to survive:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/story/2011/06/23/tofino-plane-crash.html

"Drunken passengers aboard a floatplane that crashed near Tofino, B.C. last year likely interfered with the pilot during the short flight, causing him to lose control, according to a report released on Wednesday.

The report said it was possible that one of the passengers seated behind the pilot kicked the pilot's seat forward and held it there. This could have pushed the pilot into the instrument panel and the controls forward, inducing a dive.

"It is likely that passenger interference caused the pilot to lose control of the aircraft whereupon it descended in a steep nose-down attitude until it struck the water," the report said.

The report also said the passengers' may not have recognized the seriousness of the situation because of their level of intoxication and didn't stop interfering with the pilot in time for him to regain control of the aircraft before impact."

I am just speechless. Darwin Awards doesn't cover this one. If the Transportation Safety Board conclusions are correct, it's essentially a multiple homicide. Fuelled by utter, incomprehensible stupidity on the part of people who couldn't hold their liquor and therefore should not drink, but did so anyway.

Design of pilot seat now a concern.

As long as they allow unrestrained drunks on board there isn't much a pilot in a small plane can do if a passenger acts up. Short of fitting each passenger with a pain collar, buxom drill thralls with big hair and wearing silver outfits are extra, I'm not sure there is any easy answer.

A blast from the past, A nice picture of those pain collars. And, entirely incidentally, Angelique Pettyjohn as drill thrall Shahna, who made quite an impression in my youth:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Gamesters_of_Triskelion

I suspect that the practical answer is empowering the pilots to decline inebriated passengers without the exclusion being considered a violation of any agreement or contract.

The only other alternative to come to mind is that the dunks might be hog tied, or stuffed in a sack, and carried as cargo. Perhaps lashed to one of the floats.

Keep in mind that the report is hypothesizing by the investigators. There is no 100% proof of what actually occurred and caused the aircraft to crash as the keywords in the report are: "What was happening in the cabin moments before the pilot lost control cannot be accurately determined"

Here is the link to the official report.

Alcohol is the great randomizer isn't it. Keep drunks distanced from cockpits. In small cockpits, just keep them off the plane. That's a fail here.

And hate to say it, but is the next headline a lawsuit by the deceased families, against Cessna for design failure on the cockpit seat, for not having a locking mechanism? The law can be cruel.

A closer look at this shows that he flight was between two
indian reservations,
the passengers where young drunken indians;
empty beer cans where found inside the wreck;
the flight time would have been 6 (!!) minutes;
two of them where not weraing seat belts.

Obviously, what's needed here is a secure barrier door between the cockpit and the passenger compartment.































I kid, I kid!

Not sure pointing out the ethnicity of these individuals benefits the analysis of their poor decision making.

Pete

It should be known what ethnic group was involved in that crash
because the non-indian Canadian taxpayer not only had to pay for the charter, but also for the recovery and investigation.

It certainly isn't critical; I have been on lots of operations where the inebriated (as determined by their posthumous BACs) of all ethnicities came to an untimely end. The taxpayers did have to pay whatever costs were involved.

I really don't understand your post, unless you are simply trying to be as negative as possible.

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.