news Canadian News
Good Morning Guest | login or register
  • Home
    • Canadian News
    • Popular News
    • News Voting Log
    • News Images
  • Forums
    • Recent Topics Scroll
    •  
    • Politics Forums
    • Sports Forums
    • Regional Forums
  • Content
    • Achievements
    • Canadian Content
    • Famous Canadians
    • Famous Quotes
    • Jokes
    • Canadian Maps
  • Photos
    • Picture Gallery
    • Wallpapers
    • Recent Activity
  • About
    • About
    • Contact
    • Link to Us
    • Points
    • Statistics
  • Shop
  • Register
    • Gold Membership
  • Archive
    • Canadian TV
    • Canadian Webcams
    • Groups
    • Links
    • Top 10's
    • Reviews
    • CKA Radio
    • Video
    • Weather

Drunk passengers likely caused deadly plane cra

Canadian Content
20718news upnews down

Drunk passengers likely caused deadly plane crash off Vancouver Island: report


Health | 207183 hits | Jun 24 1:35 pm | Posted by: andyt
13 Comment

Comments

  1. by avatar andyt
    Fri Jun 24, 2011 8:36 pm
    According to the report, toxicology tests showed all three passengers were highly intoxicated and were so drunk that they likely didn't realize the seriousness of the situation in time to allow the pilot to regain control of the plane.

  2. by Regina  Gold Member
    Fri Jun 24, 2011 8:42 pm
    Yup........that's what it said.

  3. by avatar andyt
    Fri Jun 24, 2011 8:45 pm
    I was going to make a racist remark till I remembered that there have been plenty of non-native drunks who have caused trouble on planes. Still, if these people were so drunk, they shouldn't have been allowed on the plane. And I bet the native band will come out with a statement that it's racist to mention that they were drunk.

  4. by avatar PostFactum
    Sat Jun 25, 2011 7:59 am
    Alcohol kills.

  5. by Barilko
    Sat Jun 25, 2011 7:03 pm
    "andyt" said
    ...if these people were so drunk, they shouldn't have been allowed on the plane......

    That's what I wonder about-the pilot's judgement.

    I mean if a cab driver can legally refuse to drive someone who's drunk or abusive surely an airplane pilot has the same power-why didn't he say No?

  6. by avatar andyt
    Sat Jun 25, 2011 7:48 pm
    "Barilko" said
    ...if these people were so drunk, they shouldn't have been allowed on the plane......

    That's what I wonder about-the pilot's judgement.

    I mean if a cab driver can legally refuse to drive someone who's drunk or abusive surely an airplane pilot has the same power-why didn't he say No?

    They were already turned away by a water taxi for being too drunk. If a boat won't take them, what's airline flying them for? Apparently the excuse what that they were still able to walk and argue about the price of the charter.

  7. by Thanos
    Sat Jun 25, 2011 7:59 pm
    The fun part is that if the pilot had refused to take them because they were too pissed-up then they would have started screaming racism at him. I assume that Natives in the area probably made up a sizable portion of his typical customers so if they hit him up with the racism accusation then it would have done some significant damage to his business income if other Natives stopped using his services as a form of backlash. He probably also figured that the worst that would happen with some drunks would be that he'd have had to hose some puke off of the cabin floor. And I'm fairly certain that most pilots usually operate with bit of confidence that their passengers probably aren't going to go insane and attack them while they're flying.

    No way this guy could have won with customers like that. His dying because of them was unfortunately the worst of all possible outcomes that were created the moment three useless drunken assholes entered into his life. Terribly sad of course but, with this being Canada and all, there's no way the ones who deserve all the blame in this are going to receive it. They just don't have the same rights as the rest of us, remember, they also have "special" rights just because of their ancestry and skin pigmentation.

  8. by avatar andyt
    Sat Jun 25, 2011 8:18 pm
    Good point.

  9. by avatar raydan
    Sat Jun 25, 2011 8:31 pm
    I'm not convinced by this report, myself. They reached this by process of elimination and there seems to be no proof.
    Drunken passengers likely interfered...
    Yearwood confirmed nobody really knows what happened before the crash...

  10. by avatar andyt
    Sat Jun 25, 2011 8:34 pm
    Well, maybe you should write your own report.

  11. by avatar raydan
    Sat Jun 25, 2011 8:43 pm
    "andyt" said
    Well, maybe you should write your own report.

    Wow... where did that one come from.

    You in a pissy mood, Andyt?
    If so, don't take it out on others.

    That was an opinion.
    If you don't agree, no problem... but stay nice, if you can.

  12. by avatar andyt
    Sat Jun 25, 2011 8:47 pm
    "raydan" said
    Well, maybe you should write your own report.

    Wow... where did that one come from.

    You in a pissy mood, Andyt?
    If so, don't take it out on others.

    That was an opinion.
    If you don't agree, no problem... but stay nice, if you can.

    Feeling thenthitive today?

    The report is the best guess of what happened. You're not convinced, that's fine, but you have no evidence that anything else occurred.

    "We found that if the pilot in front was not expecting it, and you pushed him forward, and their elbows bent, they didn't have the strength to overcome the push from a leg that's extended," said Yearwood.
    "That was the last remaining possibility."

  13. by avatar raydan
    Sat Jun 25, 2011 8:54 pm
    "andyt" said
    The report is the best guess of what happened. You're not convinced, that's fine, but you have no evidence that anything else occurred.

    And they have no evidence that's what happened.

    We can go around this circle for awhile, but no, I'm done.

  14. by avatar andyt
    Sat Jun 25, 2011 8:55 pm
    "raydan" said

    And they have no evidence that's what happened.


    Nor did they claim to. Just gave their best guess because they eliminated every other possibility they could think of. So what does it mean you're not convinced? If you have no contrary evidence, then the best guess seems to be the one to go with, no?



view comments in forum
Page 1

You need to be a member of CKA and be logged into the site, to comment on news.

  • Login
  • Register (free)
 Share  Digg It Bookmark to del.icio.us Share on Facebook


Share on Facebook Submit page to Reddit
CKA About |  Legal |  Advertise |  Sitemap |  Contact   canadian mobile newsMobile

All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner.
The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © 2025 by Canadaka.net