Drunk passengers implicated in B.C. plane crash

[privateer]

Re: CBC

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 Transportation Safety Board report.

"What was happening in the cabin moments before the pilot lost control cannot be accurately determined," according to the TSB report released Wednesday. "However, it can be concluded that this probably involved activity by the unsecured passengers that interfered with the pilot and his control of the aircraft."

The Cessna 185 operated by Atleo River Air Services crashed during a six-minute trip to the community of Ahousat in May 2010, killing all four people on board.

Katrina English, 22, her brother Edward Sam, 28, and their cousin Samantha Mattersdorfer, 24, all from the small coastal First Nations community of Ahousat on Flores Island, were killed in the crash, along with pilot Damon York, 33, of Tofino.

The aircraft struck the water at an angle and speed consistent with a deliberate dive, or a loss of control, the report said.

"There is no operational reason why the pilot would perform such a manoeuvre," it said.

The TSB reported that passengers were intoxicated at the time they boarded the aircraft, and had previously been argumentative.

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.

The absence of a locking mechanism on the pilot's seatback, and the fact the pilot was not wearing his shoulder strap, meant "he would have been unable to prevent his upper body from being forced onto the instrument panel," the report said.

[Beefitarian]

[SuperchargedRS]

There is drunk and there is what these morons pax did, No matter how drunk I could get, kicking the back of a pilots seat (ESPECIALLY at low level) would never even cross my mind. I hope TSB has any survivors of the dead pax spayed or neutered

All I can say is wow

[Beefitarian]

I think the mere thought of this kind of thing potentially happening lead to the rule about not letting people that are intoxocated onboard.

[200hr Wonder]

That is common sense, they are drunk you don't go. The big airlines do it all the time. However in this case, single pilot, all 3 pax drunk, so you cx the trip and now have to explain to the boss why the trip is off and the lost revenue. I can see the pressure to just let em go. Well I think this tragically proves it aint worth letting drunks on the plane.

[TeePeeCreeper]

There is drunk and there is what these morons pax did, No matter how drunk I could get, kicking the back of a pilots seat (ESPECIALLY at low level) would never even cross my mind.

What actual proof do we have that a pax kicked the pilot's seat? Sure the passengers were denied ferry boarding but that does not prove that an intoxicated passenger caused any of this....

We all know that when there's no proof of what caused an accident that the TSB blames it on the pilot... (bloody shame) but what's even more saddening is the TSB suggesting that since the passengers were intoxicated they must have been to blame... (must have been the native kid on board ya?)

How many times have you found yourself in seat 46 B drunk/having a few too many? How would you feel if your family was told ''well SuperchargedRS was to blame... ''you see we only have proof that he'd been drinking, and there's no other reason we can find that the aircraft he was in went down... must have been his fault!''

I know (having flown into many reserves in the past) the ills and issues that some of these reserves face, but to blame an individual on circumstancial evidence is appauling.

Shame on the TSB, and shame on those of you who believe what may or may not be the truth.

[Trematode]

Was just about to sign in and post something similar.

I seems like an awful leap to actually proclaim this as the cause of the crash. Perhaps the actual report is a bit more cautious about assigning blame, and just mentions the drunk passengers as a contravention to the regs that may have played a part in the accident -- while still acknowledging it is utterly impossible to know for sure.

I suspect maybe the media seized on that one aspect and ran with it.

[privateer]

TeepeeCreeper wrote

Shame on the TSB, and shame on those of you who believe what may or may not be the truth.

So you're a TSB specialist now?

[Cat Driver]

I can see this thread ending up locked real soon.

[trey kule]

Well, as we playing the shaming game.

Teepeecreaper...Have you read the actual TSB report? Or are you shaming them without actually having the facts in front of you? Kind of like you making the claim they were coming to a conclusion without solid facts , is it not? Or are you allowed to do that?

Perhaps this was media misrepresentation. Perhaps the TSB report has more detail on this.
It is to bad when so many people are willing to pass judgement on others for jumping to conclusions, by ..well, jumping to conclusions themselves.

So, tpcreaper, unless you have actually read the TSB report..Shame on you for doing exactly what you are criticizing others for doing.

I find it so amusing that everyone is so quick to critcize others without having all the facts in front of them....

[iflyforpie]

The TSB didn't say that that is what happened. Read it again.

With the absence of other causes (bad weather, mechanical failure) and (I assume) a toxicology report from the autopsies, they are drawing the most likely conclusion.

I refused to take a camera crew on a flight after they cracked some beers just before we were going to go flying. They quickly stopped when they realized their flight was in jeopardy, but their cavalier attitude towards drinking, me not knowing if they were starting or continuing to drink, and the massive steady-cam that they were going to have to control convinced me to scrub the trip and cancel them completely.

Not worth it IMHO. I am just glad I work for good people who not only didn't question my judgement, but appreciated it as well.

[robertsailor1]

The human species just can't seem to accept that some things are unknown. We make up all kinds of stories to make us feel better by producing answers when in fact there weren't any. In my mind the TSB has no right to speculate without evidence and it shouldn't be allowed in this day and age.

[TeePeeCreeper]

TeepeeCreeper wrote

Shame on the TSB, and shame on those of you who believe what may or may not be the truth.

So you're a TSB specialist now?

No I am not. However you don't need to be a "specialist" to know that there is no way to know if any of those passengers were in fact to blame.

[TeePeeCreeper]

Well, as we playing the shaming game.

Teepeecreaper...Have you read the actual TSB report? Or are you shaming them without actually having the facts in front of you? Kind of like you making the claim they were coming to a conclusion without solid facts , is it not? Or are you allowed to do that?

Perhaps this was media misrepresentation. Perhaps the TSB report has more detail on this.
It is to bad when so many people are willing to pass judgement on others for jumping to conclusions, by ..well, jumping to conclusions themselves.

So, tpcreaper, unless you have actually read the TSB report..Shame on you for doing exactly what you are criticizing others for doing.

I find it so amusing that everyone is so quick to critcize others without having all the facts in front of them....

One does not need to read a report to know that the media has made assumptions which imho is not my idea of journalistic integrity.

As for the TSB, it is fact that when they cannot find a cause to an accident that the blame falls on the pilot in command. It has always bothered me that this happens time and time again.

In response to your question, no I have not read any official report (and will agree that I did not articulate my original post as well as I intended to) However they are either going to blame the passengers, or the pilot without really determining a factual cause for this accident. Shame on them for passing the "buck" to those whom are not here to explain what occured.

[Cat Driver]

How many pilots here would take passengers we deemed to be drunk in a small airplane like the one in this topic?

I would not have nor will I in the future.

[ArcticKat]

Shrug, maybe there were a pair of size 10 boot prints on the back of the pilot's seat?

Personally, I'm with Cat Driver.

[azimuthaviation]

http://www.tsb.gc.ca/eng/rapports-repor ... 0p0147.pdf

[ahramin]

I came across this report yesterday and read through most of it. I agree that the TSB's probable version of events is by no means certain and has some contradictory evidence.

What you people need to understand though is that the TSB does not assign BLAME. To say that the TSB shouldn't be allowed to blame the passengers is rediculous. The TSB isn't blaming anyone or anything. The TSB comes up with PROBABLE CAUSE. They try to figure out what COULD have brought the plane down and then try to determine which one of those things was most likely. Not in an effort to put blame on anyone but in order to PREVENT FURTHER RECURRENCES. This is the only purpose of the investigation. It's not to establish who was at fault, it's not give peace of mind to relatives, it's strictly to help TC figure out what rules are necessary to insure safe transportation. Sometimes they recommend specific rule changes, sometimes they just report probable cause.

Their experts have gone through the aircraft wreck and determined that mechanical failure was not the cause. They found that the pilot did not have a medical event. They did find injuries on the pilot and the left rear seat passenger consistent with their theory. So of all the POSSIBLE causes, interference by the passengers was found to be the MOST PROBABLE CAUSE. End of story and exactly what they get paid to do, regardless of how the proles feel about it.

[jpilot77]

I came across this report yesterday and read through most of it. I agree that the TSB's probable version of events is by no means certain and has some contradictory evidence.

What you people need to understand though is that the TSB does not assign BLAME. To say that the TSB shouldn't be allowed to blame the passengers is rediculous. The TSB isn't blaming anyone or anything. The TSB comes up with PROBABLE CAUSE. They try to figure out what COULD have brought the plane down and then try to determine which one of those things was most likely. Not in an effort to put blame on anyone but in order to PREVENT FURTHER RECURRENCES. This is the only purpose of the investigation. It's not to establish who was at fault, it's not give peace of mind to relatives, it's strictly to help TC figure out what rules are necessary to insure safe transportation. Sometimes they recommend specific rule changes, sometimes they just report probable cause.

Their experts have gone through the aircraft wreck and determined that mechanical failure was not the cause. They found that the pilot did not have a medical event. They did find injuries on the pilot and the left rear seat passenger consistent with their theory. So of all the POSSIBLE causes, interference by the passengers was found to be the MOST PROBABLE CAUSE. End of story and exactly what they get paid to do, regardless of how the proles feel about it.

+1

[KAG]

I have personally stopped a person during a medivac that was intoxicated and going for the door. Anything is possible when alcohol is envolved.

[SeptRepair]

I came across this report yesterday and read through most of it. I agree that the TSB's probable version of events is by no means certain and has some contradictory evidence.

What you people need to understand though is that the TSB does not assign BLAME. To say that the TSB shouldn't be allowed to blame the passengers is rediculous. The TSB isn't blaming anyone or anything. The TSB comes up with PROBABLE CAUSE. They try to figure out what COULD have brought the plane down and then try to determine which one of those things was most likely. Not in an effort to put blame on anyone but in order to PREVENT FURTHER RECURRENCES. This is the only purpose of the investigation. It's not to establish who was at fault, it's not give peace of mind to relatives, it's strictly to help TC figure out what rules are necessary to insure safe transportation. Sometimes they recommend specific rule changes, sometimes they just report probable cause.

Their experts have gone through the aircraft wreck and determined that mechanical failure was not the cause. They found that the pilot did not have a medical event. They did find injuries on the pilot and the left rear seat passenger consistent with their theory. So of all the POSSIBLE causes, interference by the passengers was found to be the MOST PROBABLE CAUSE. End of story and exactly what they get paid to do, regardless of how the proles feel about it.

Well said Ahramin. From what I have been told, the injuries to the pilot that helped draw up the theory of intervention of the passengers, was that the pilots face had finger nail scratches raked across his cheek. Most likely from someone behind him. The scratches were determined to have not been caused by the accident itself.

[robertsailor1]

So the pilot allows drunk people aboard and doesn't ensure they are belted in and he himself doesn't wear a shoulder belt...seems like some poor judgement but I'm sure everyone that's flown the backwoods has had his/her share of poor judgement but in this case the laws of average just caught up with him, too bad for sure.

[Beefitarian]

I'm probably not going to kick the seat but if you leave me behind because I've been drinking I understand the rule. I got to enjoy some drunk woman dancing on the back of my seat on a commercial flight once because she was squirming, it was terrific.

I'm also wondering what's up with the seat that it didn't lock and why wasn't the pilot wearing a shoulder harness?

[AJV]

TSB:
What was happening in the cabin moments before the pilot lost control cannot be accurately
determined. However, it can be concluded that this probably involved activity by the unsecured
passengers that interfered with the pilot and his control of the aircraft.
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.
Because there was no locking mechanism on the pilot’s seatback, and because the pilot was not
wearing his shoulder strap, he would have been unable to prevent his upper body from being
forced onto the instrument panel.

[azimuthaviation]

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?