Pilot faced critical choice

[dude65]

Over the past 2-3 years, the pilot involved in this accident has been hung out to dry by the media. This Courier Mail article may at least give his family a peaceful Christmes.




Pilot faced critical choice
Amanda Watt
21dec05
THE chief investigator who probed 2002's fatal plane crash on Hamilton Island expressed sympathy for the pilot yesterday, telling a coronial hearing the young aviator was under enormous pressure to correct a problem largely out of his control.

Australian Transport Safety Bureau investigator-in-charge Ian Sangston said Andrew Morris, 27, had to make a split-second decision whether to ditch the plane in water or try to get safely back to land after the engine of his light plane suffered an "intermittent abnormality" seconds after takeoff from the airstrip.

The Piper Cherokee – which was about to make the regular five-minute shuttle to Lindeman Island – crashed into the mountainside near the Hamilton Island airport on September 26, killing Morris and his five tourist passengers.

The dead passengers were New Zealand couple Kevin and Joanne Bowles and their two young children, and American honeymooner Christopher Le Gallo.

Mr Sangston told the court the partial engine failure mid-air, the pilot's steep right-hand turn while trying to return it to safety, and the fact the aircraft stalled during the risky manoeuvre were all contributing factors to the crash.

The investigation was unable to conclude there had been a problem with the engine prior to takeoff, and it was believed that if Morris was aware of such a problem while he was taxiing down the runway, he would have aborted the flight.

Mr Sangston said Morris had to make an immediate decision about what evasive action he would take. He said the pilot knew there were many risk factors involved in ditching a plane in the water. "It's a very invidious situation for this young chap to find himself in," he told Coroner Michael Barnes.

"It was a split-second decision – he's worried about himself, he's worried about his passengers including young children (and he's worried about the plane).

"There was a lot of psychological pressures (on him)."

He said when Morris realised the plane was in trouble, he would have looked to his left and seen an expanse of water and land to his right, and probably chose to turn right to find an appropriate place to recover the aircraft.

That decision was complicated by the fact most of his vision of the land during the turn would have been cut out because of the restricted view from the plane's cockpit at that angle.

Mr Sangston said it was true that if the pilot had not made such a steep right-hand turn, the accident would not have happened but he wouldn't class it as an "error".

"I would suggest there are so many imponderables . . . error is probably a strong word I wouldn't use," he said.

In other evidence, the court was told Morris had been out drinking the night before the accident and had turned up late for work.

Former police officer Mark Anderson – who was involved in the initial police response to the crash – told the inquest that police had also found cannabis and a smoking utensil in Morris's parked car after the crash.

Lawyer Martin Burns, for the Morris family, successfully argued that Anderson could not be cross-examined about the drug find because he was not involved in the search.

The court was told the police officer who oversaw that side of the investigation was expected to give evidence in February.

[ibr]

I have watched with dispair over the last three years as pilots and the media alike have said terrible things about this accident and this person.
I was a close friend of Andrew's, so obviously react with a lot of emotion, however I just wanted to say that it's great to read that someone has finally recognised this for what it was - an accident. Andrew didn't wake up that day and decide he was going to crash and take with him 5 peoples lives. He was faced with one of those situations that as pilots we hope never happen to us. Knowing him as I did, he would have made the best decision available to him at the time. With 20/20 hindsight it may not have been the best decision, but all that proves is he was human. There is not a pilot who has existed that has ever not made a mistake, luckily for most of us we live to talk about it over some beers that night.

Edited W

His name and reputation have been dragged through the mud with very little regard for the truth. I hope this enquiry can put to end some of this and bring some peace to his family and many friends.
A day doesn't go by when I don't think of Andrew and now hopefully we can remember him for the beautiful person he was.

ibr, I would put a little more thought into exactly what you post here. It does nothing for the gentleman's reputation

Woomera (Eastern States)

[DeBurcs]

My sympathies to the families of all who died in the accident.

Edited to maintain continuity

Woomera (Eastern States)

[Tail_Wheel]

Not to mention the aircraft was crap, ex NT via Bamaga, with a very dubious history and dubious previous owner.

Time CASA set minimum standards for commercial operations.

[pakeha-boy]

ibr........I have followed this sagarso also.....and Ilike the rest of this forum give our whole hearted sympathys to those who have lost their lives....Ihave also lost several mates in flying accidents.
Ido not want to get into a pissing and bashing match with you over this sad story...but I,ve got news for you....We as pilots,small or big A/C are held to a very high standard,for obvious reasons,there is no room in this buiness for that type of activity,and your mate did not deserve to hold a pilots priviledge.....these are choices that are made, not forced on anybody and it was his responsibilty to uphold the integrity of this aviation proffession.....the choice was his..... :(

[ToPocHi]

My condolences to the families of all whose lives were lost as well. A very depressing read indeed. In the aviation sector, regardless of whether private or commercial has one main emphasis; safety. Mr. Andrew probably did his best to avert the situation but unfortunately, was quite unsuccessful. Having being accused an irresponsible pilot may be extremely unjust for Mr. Andrew. He's an aviator, well worthy of his licence otherwise, he wouldn't be holding onto one, no? However, in my personal opinion, most air crashes are due to compounded errors (both technical and mechanical), and Mr. Andrew happen to be caught in a predicament which was obviously quite invidious. I believe his name should be cleared and that the general public should understand that we pilots do not wish for this as well, and that includes Mr. Andrew as well.

[Pass-A-Frozo]

I remember someone once told me: Before anyone goes off giving a hard time to a pilot who has crashed they should remember that with all their experience, all their training and instructor's advice, they made a decision at the time in a split second. Who's to say anyone else wouldn't have made the same decision?

[MOR]

Well I'm afraid the investigator is thoroughly wrong. Not only were the actions of the pilot incorrect, the fact is that he didn't do "the best he could", or "make the best decision available to him at the time". That would have been to keep the aircraft under control until contact with ground or water was inevitable. He broke the most fundamental disciplines of flying.

He may have been "under stress", but pursuing a career as a pilot is an acknowledgement that you not only understand that there will be moments of severe stress, but also have trained and prepared yourself to the point where you are up to the task.

There is a standard, and if you can't cut it you shouldn't be flying with passengers. Having met that standard is an acknowledgement that you are prepared to answer for your actions if you fail to exercise the care and responsibility expected of you.

It is not an "accident" that this guy chose perform a steep turn, at low altitude, towards high ground. That was a deliberate action, and as the investigator said, was the reason the accident happened.

It is bad enough when friends and colleagues try to sugar-coat the actions of their peers, but when investigators do it, you might as well forget about improving flight safety. The message from this investigator is "it could happen to anyone", which is patently untrue.

Nobody likes it when people die in air accidents, but if we also refuse to call a spade a spade, we are only deluding ourselves, the loved ones of those who died, and the entire pilot community.

[Cloud Cutter]

It is often difficult to apply reason under emotive circumstances, but I agree 100% with MOR. I disagree with the investigator that a ditching was as dangerous as the attempted maneuver. There are many statistics that back this up.

[Gateway Customer]

I think it is fair to say that there was a number of seconds that no one will ever know waht happened. That is where the investigation is lacking knowledge and it is impossible to ever find these answers.

Another point that seems to not be mentioned is that the American sitting next to Andrew was a pilot.

GC

[Arm out the window]

Turnbacks are always going to be a bone of contention - in some circumstances they work and some (a lot) they don't.
However, it's interesting that the current issue of Flight Safety Aust discusses a ditching accident, and the stats used in the analysis (comparison of 179 ditchings and 216 forced landings) comes up with 97% survivability (ie no fatalaties) for landings v. 88% for ditchings.
Going on that (and yes, stats are of course rubbery) a punt for the land is better; of course, the turnback aspect is the bogey here.
Anyway, RIP to the poor individuals, and may we never have to make the decision for real ourselves.

[MOR]

That statistic is irrevant to this accident, as he didn't attempt a forced landing - which by definition implies a significant amount of control over the aircrafts flight path. He stalled in whilst attempting a steep turn at extremely low altitude.

As we (should) all know, if you have an EFATO seconds after rotation, you land within 30 degrees of straight ahead.

A turn back is NEVER going to work unless you have at least a few hundred feet to play with, and even then, it's risky - but obviously a justifiable risk if the alternative ahead is more dangerous. However, a controlled ditching in a Cherokee Six is unlikely to be fatal.

I have always been glad that my first instructor demonstrated to me the folly of a turn back with less than 500' AGL on the clock.

I doubt that alcohol or drugs had anything to do with this accident (as the report implied), it was just poor judgement.

[Arm out the window]

Yes MOR, I agree that the 'seconds after takeoff' issue is the telling point; it would be hoped that every pilot has the folly of a turnback in such circumstances drummed into them.
The other, less black-and-white, issue is, to my mind, the critical differences between what we are used to seeing in training and what we might really attempt in the real case, given the fear, pressure and probable disbelief factors.
All very well to say that it's an obvious error of judgement; maybe so, but suffice it to say that some of us would make the right decision on the day, others would not, and there's likely no way to tell which would be which.
Practice and good instruction are great things to have, but this young bloke was there in the hot seat and did what he did.

[MOR]

Yeah, sure, but what he did was WRONG and almost certainly contrary to his training.

Pilots carrying pax for money are expected to exercise some self-discipline and do the things they were trained to do, particularly when the obvious choice isn't fundamentally suicidal.

Some pilots, faced with this situation, choose to place the preservation of their jobs, and possibly a congratulary pat on the back and "well done" from a grateful employer, over the safer but more personally costly choice of losing the aircraft.

I know that when I was a young CPL and was faced with a rough-running engine on a night VFR cross-country, I just wanted to get back to the airport and not be the subject of an accident enquiry. I was well aware that I was on the verge of compromising all the training I had received, and I had to really be firm with myself and prepare for a ditching. Luckily for me, I was high enough and close enough to the airport to get back... but I was ready to ditch (pretty scary at night).

My point is that when you get to the airlines (surely where this guy wanted to get to), it is drummed into you that just saying "Oh sh*t" and reacting is the worst possible thing to do. You absolutely HAVE to be disciplined and you absolutely MUST exercise self-control. It's called professionalism, and should exist at every level of commercial aviation. It is also the minimum standard that a pilot should maintain, and if he can't, there are possibly some issues with both checking and training. It is worth saying also, that this self-discipline should extend to the use of intoxicating substances.

Anyway, my beef isn't with the poor young guy that chose to ignore his training, and paid for it with his life. My real problem is with the investigator who tries to excuse the actions of the pilot, and the guys' friends who try and do the same thing, on the basis that he was a nice guy.

[assymetric]

Hi all,

I did not know Andrew. I have however (as most of us have) had friends killed in aircraft accidents.

Yes he may have made errors of judgement in one way or another.

What caused this accident?

I'm sure most of you would have heard of the swiss cheese theory.

Let's leave it at that and let this young man RIP.



"Safe flying to all"

[ibr]

There seems to be a pretty obvious divide here - pilot's who can recognise that he faced an awful situation and did what he could, and those pilot's who tell themselves after every accident report they read that they would have done things differently. MOR, if that what you need to tell yourself so that you can turn up to work each day and convince yourself you will be coming home again that night, then that's fine - just don't inflict that ''í would always make the right decision in a split second'' crap on the rest of us.

[2B1ASK1]

MOR

Just a quick question, have you ever had a real EFATO and been faced with the problem at similar heights?

I note how quick you are to judge.

How would you face the horror given the same conditions?

I think your perfect world may have some flaws, history has shown that split second decisions can work both ways.

I agree with the teaching practice but the real event should we be faced with it is more often than not unexpected and even the correct course of action can and has proved fatal.

I am sure the pilot if he was still alive and had the chance to reflect on the accident, he would of decided against his actions on the day.

Sadly he is not and the rest of us may learn something from the event. He done what he thought was right at the time, one thing we can all be sure of is, he believed he was going home at the end of his working day, just like the rest of us.

For all on board RIP

[Gnd Power]

Mor

I am not sure that your several posts on this matter are made in any serious attempt at discourse on the incident or are just posted in an attempt of some sort of self fulfilment of how good you are, and that you wish to enlighten us all to that premise.

With regards the first, you are not doing such a good job and in regards to the latter, I suggest you are doing an extremely great job.

You not only criticise the PIC in charge of the crash aircraft, but you lambast the investigator who presented the results of his investigation and his considered opinion to the Court.

Since the investigator gave his name, evidence and opinions on oath, (and attended the scene) I shall give him more credence than someone that appears to be just an armchair critic, has investigated the incident via the net, and posted his opinions under nothing more than a pseudonym.

This was a sad incident, but should now be studied at a level of what can happen, not of who we can blame.

In closing may I offer the following quote, (which whilst it may not apply to Mor, should be considered by those that emulate his attitude).............

"Let He Who is Without Sin Cast the First Stone" John 8:7

[dude65]

QUOTE : I have always been glad that my first instructor demonstrated to me the folly of a turn back with less than 500' AGL on the clock.

MOR

What exactly did that entail. It sounds bloody dangerous to me.

[MOR]

ibr

Sad that you let your friendship delude you when it comes to the facts.

When I turn up for work, I have plan A, B and C - because in the real commercial world, that is how you operate. We have a set of SOPs and we stick to them. We do 12 hours in the sim every six months to make SURE we know what to do, and how to do it. I know that I can make a mistake, but I also know that if I stick ot the plan, the chances of my not making it home are very, very slim.

2B1ASK1

have you ever had a real EFATO and been faced with the problem at similar heights?

Yes. Twice in a single and once in a twin that wasn't going anywhere on the second engine (a Piper Apache). I have also experienced several cable breaks when launching gliders by winch - and that calls for reactions a lot quicker than an engine failure.

And there is no "horror" involved if you know what you are doing. The whole point is that you shouldn't make a split-second decision - do what your training told you to do. if he had done that, he would probably be alive now.

Gnd Power

Leaving aside your dubious summary of my motives, everybody is entitled to read the report and arrive at a conclusion. My conclusion is different to that of the investigator, however we are both working from the same basic information - the investigator was not an eyewitness.

If you want to give credence to the different arguments based on who is named and who isn't, you have simply decided to accept the report of the investigator without question, which is at best a little naive.

If you had read what I have written carefully, you would see that I am not so much apportioning blame (the investigator did that), I am criticising the statements of the investigator and his interpretation of the facts.

And if you want to swap out-of-context scriptures, I suggest you read Proverbs 14:25.

dude65

Not dangerous at all. Find a nice, flat piece of scattered cloud at no more than 2000 feet. Aim to hit the top of it. As you pass it, start a climb and after 500 feet, chop the power and try to turn back and hit the cloud. Let me know how you get on. The slightly diminished performance that you would get at 2000 feet is compensated for by the higher speed at the commencement of the climb (if you start from a cruise speed).

[Gnd Power]

Mor

THE chief investigator who probed 2002's fatal plane crash on Hamilton Island expressed sympathy for the pilot yesterday, telling a coronial hearing the young aviator was under enormous pressure to correct a problem largely out of his control

This paragraph indicates that the Investigator gave his opinion to an open court with that opinion being tested by the Coroner, Counsel assisting him and the various Counsels acting for interested parties.

As such I envisage that his opinion has been subjected to more strenuous testing than given to your opinion.

My conclusion is different to that of the investigator, however we are both working from the same basic information - the investigator was not an eyewitness

I guess you may be right in that the investigator was not an eyewitness, but I gather that he may have attended the scene, spoken first hand to witnesses, examined the wreck, etc.

Did you follow the same procedure or was your investigation run by virtue of newspaper reports, bulletin board rumours and your own supposition.

Perhaps you may like to enlighten us to that small matter.

[MOR]

Certainly.

As such I envisage that his opinion has been subjected to more strenuous testing than given to your opinion.

Sure, but his opinion is still just an opinion, and he can be wrong, particularly when it comes to professional aviation matters - it depends who he talks to. About the substantive facts, there is no argument, and that is what the inquest is designed to establish. One of the bits that concerns me is:

"Mr Sangston said it was true that if the pilot had not made such a steep right-hand turn, the accident would not have happened but he wouldn't class it as an "error".

"I would suggest there are so many imponderables . . . error is probably a strong word I wouldn't use," he said."

So here he is saying that the pilot attempted a manouever that directly resulted in a crash, and yet it isn't an "error". What the hell is it then?

but I gather that he may have attended the scene, spoken first hand to witnesses, examined the wreck, etc.

The scene may be helpful, but then so are photos of the scene. There really wasn't much to look at, was there? He did speak to witnesses, and reproduced their testimony in full, so no advantage there. I'm sure he examined the wreck, but what do you think he learned from that? An aircraft crashed after an engine problem. He himself tells you that the wreck is irrelevant, as the cause of the accident was an attempted steep turn towards rising ground - nothing to do with the aircraft, other than in a secondary sense.

If the pilot had done what he was trained to do, there is a 95% chance that he would be alive and we wouldn't be having this discussion.

So, no, my procedure was to read his report, where he clearly states that the cause of the accident was an attempted steep turn towards rising ground following an engine problem.

The point of contention is that he, presumably not a professional pilot, is prepared to excuse and sugar-coat the actions of the pilot, and I am not. It is that simple.

[Cloud Cutter]

With all due respect to those jumping to the defense of the pilot, I have read nothing in MOR’s posts other than disagreement with the comments of the INVESTIGATOR.

The pilot was under stress and he did what he did, that is accepted. Non of us can say for sure what we would have done in the same situation. On the other hand, the investigator, who has the benefit of hindsight and time to digest the factors involved, has made incorrect commentary by all accounts.

[bilbert]

A couple of seconds of engine power and he would be touted a hero for saving people from certain drowning. Thats the spin that the press would've been put on it.
Instead his flying skill is in question and the press have fastened onto a dubious alcohol & drug question.
I believe the ATSB investigator got it right.
Who's to judge a dead pilots actions without CVR and FDR?. Certainly not you MOR.

[gaunty]

Hang in there MOR I have seen nothing in your posts but common sense, it may have upset some, but you simply cant argue with CDF.

an attempted steep turn towards rising ground following an engine problem. is NOT taught in EFATO 101 any more than "split second decisions" have any place in the cockpit, you have, under those circumstances, a 50/50 chance at the very best, of getting it right. :rolleyes:

If you think you have to apply that as a decision making process then the ONLY answer is straight ahead and finding the least worst alighting place and alighting as slow as it is possible WHILST RETAINING CONTROL UNTIL THE NOISE STOPS. The insurance company owns the sircraft your ONLY responsibility from then on is to do the best for your pax.

2B1ASK1 welcome back from your 3 month sojourn, last we heard from you, you were enroute to Mascot at high speed for a 3 month overseas "consultancy" sojourn. I hope the rest has helped, but it still hasn't cured your propensity for non sequiturs. You should get your ghost writer, you know, the one who penned your going overseas exit speech, to edit it for you.

Horror indeed.:rolleyes:
The whole point is that you shouldn't make a split-second decision - do what your training told you to do. if he had done that, he would probably be alive now. :ok:

Personally I cant see what was the "Critical Choice". ?

[Pass-A-Frozo]

Do many civvy training operations teach Pre-takeoff briefs ?

e.g. engine failure from brakes release till gear retraction - land ahead, from gear retraction to xxx feet land ahead, above xxx feet turn back.. etc"... so the decision is made when you aren't stressed and have had time to think about it?



Welcome to the debate!!!

:}

Woomera

[Woomera]

Impartially re-reading this thread and with out expressing any view on the accident or ATSB Report, I feel MOR is conducting a professional debate within the confines of this professional aviation forum.

Perhaps, if one considers all views, there just may be lessons here for others who read this thread?

Woomera

[Pass-A-Frozo]

Thanks Woomera - was a bit boring in that sin-bin :p

[Air Ace]

Grnd Power

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE chief investigator who probed 2002's fatal plane crash on Hamilton Island expressed sympathy for the pilot yesterday, telling a coronial hearing the young aviator was under enormous pressure to correct a problem largely out of his control
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This paragraph indicates that the Investigator gave his opinion to an open court with that opinion being tested by the Coroner, Counsel assisting him and the various Counsels acting for interested parties.

As such I envisage that his opinion has been subjected to more strenuous testing than given to your opinion.

Was that opinion "tested" or simply accepted without further explanation?

I wonder whether the investigator formed his opinion solely in light of all the all circumstances that existed on that particular day and under all the circumstances that existed at that time, or whether had the question been phrased differently, would he have given a different response?

I suspect his response may have been different. Maybe we'll never know.

[MOR]

Who's to judge a dead pilots actions without CVR and FDR?. Certainly not you MOR.

You know, some of you lighty drivers need to think a little more before you post.

You don't need a CVR or an FDR for this. It is an elementary error. You learn it from the beginning of your flying training, and it gets re-inforced at each subsequent check (hopefully). Of the situations that kill pilots with great regularity, one of the common ones is attempting a steep turn near the ground, particularly when airspeed is decaying. Think about it. If you are attempting a steep turn at any altitude, what do you add as you enter the turn? POWER and BACK PRESSURE. What is the one thing you can't add with a sick engine? POWER. What do you really not want to apply with decaying airspeed? BACK PRESSURE. Now try the same exercise near the ground. Steep turn + no power = decaying airspeed and increased stall speed. This is all basic stuff. That is why any instructor worthy of the name will always teach DON'T TURN BACK - land straight ahead, under control, as gaunty said.

The fate of this aircraft and its occupants was sealed the second the pilot decided to try something he was trained NOT to do.

I just find it incredible that so many people seem to want to ignore these fundamentals. Even worse, the fact that some of you find his actions excusable tells me you will likely make the same error one day.

When it was decided that the standard teaching for an EFATO should be "land straight ahead", it wasn't done from a theoretical standpoint. It was done because so many people had died trying to turn back.

Some of you are saying, more or less, that the pilot can be excused as, after all, he is only human, he was under stress, he had to make a split-second decision, and he was just unlucky that it didn't work out.

I say that, as a professional pilot, he should have been able to handle the stress, he should never have made a split-second decision, and luck has nothing to do with it IF YOU CHOOSE TO FOLLOW YOUR TRAINING.

[gaunty]

MOR :ok: :ok:

Dunno where Sam Whittleson is now, but he and I spent an hour or so of my money one fine sunny day in a Decathlon, at a safe altitude, trying to see if it was possible to get around and back, under control from 500ft.

The 180HP Decathlon is a fine aerobatic aircraft and both of us quite current, having just come back from some serious inverted routines.

Tandem configuration, nominating the hard deck, taking turns to "fail" the engine in a TO climb config so no anticipation available.

I'm here to tell you that if you hold your mouth exactly the right way, after a lot of practice and some fairly radical manouevers it is just possible to get around from 500ft........... maybe. :eek: recovering 180 degrees, max concentration, accurate flying, with max alpha, concentrating on keeping the ball dead in the centre, nibbling at the stall all the way round to 0 ft AGL stall warning braying. Flat runway.....maybe untidy and a bit of a hard landing if you are real lucky.
Rising terrain??? don't even think about it you are fresh out of alpha.
And either way if you screw it up, which you will, you will lose control, the aircraft will flick over and rotate in the opposite direction, which gets you totally disoriented as the aircraft goes vertical and starts spinning and you'll still be pulling, which might just flick you over the other way, as you hit the ground.:ouch: :{

So if you want to roll the dice, go ahead, just check with your pax first to see how they feel about backing your skill against those odds.

Better still as PAF says just do it the way you were, hopefully, trained and make all your decisions before you leave the ground.

Geeez I just cant believe this "horror" crapola.:rolleyes: and the guy runs a flight school yet. :{

[haughtney1]

Lets separate emotion from this arguement. It seems pretty clear this poor chap was well liked by those who knew him and were his friends.
Simple fact..EFATO at low altitude=land ahead within a 30 degree arc of the extended centre-line, no time for split second thinking, just a practised and professional response to the situation as presented.
MOR has it right, this fellow didn't, the rest is history.
I dont personally believe that findings like these are likely to contribute in any effective way to improving flight safety unless they are presented in a rational rather than emotive context.

[Bashinabout]

It seems that some of you folk are forgetting that Mr. Morris was not the only one killed in this accident. FIVE other folks lost their lives as a result of this tragedy. I’d like to stick up for the deceased passengers just as much as you’d like to stick up for Mr. Morris!

I’m very sad that this young man lost his life, but I am just as sad that the others died too. And, I bet if one of the passengers was your loved one the shoe would be on the other foot!

I totally agree that Mr. Morris was in a terrible situation. And yes, a few of us may too have made the wrong decision. That doesn’t warrant defending him with total abandonment of the reality. He made a decision that was fatal, and that is a fact.

It was stated that Mr. Morris may have been under the influence of drugs and/or alcohol? Could this have caused judgment errors? If this was the case (which I acknowledge it may not have been) he doesn’t deserve defending! Please correct me if this possibility has been ruled out. Flying under the influence of substances is irresponsible and plain STUPID!

IBR, can I ask you a question? How would you feel if it was your loved one/mate sitting in the back, not in the front left-hand seat?

[Pass-A-Frozo]

Mr. Morris may have been under the influence of drugs and/or alcohol?

MAY. Best left at the may statement. :(

Gaunty:

It\'s a good point . I remember seeing some military / maybe news footage of a military ejection. The reporter asked :
\"When did you make the decision to eject\"

Pilot: \"10 years ago\".

[bushy]

Was this young man one of those who had never experienced a fully developed spin? Had he learnt how to prevent spins, and recover from them?
Did he really understand the danger of what he did? Or was he expected to just blindly follow the teaching of a "silly old CFI", merely because he was told to?

[Bashinabout]

Pass-A-Frozo, if you are going to quote me, at least make the effort to quote me correctly.

I did NOT simply say "Mr. Morris may have been under the influence......." as if it that was MY personal opinion.

There were many reports (based on toxicology results) indicating this may have been the case.

To clarify, I said "It was stated that Mr. Morris may have been under the influence of drugs and/or alcohol"

It's fair to leave the substance subject alone, just don't twist my words...

[Pass-A-Frozo]

It was stated yes. I think think it should be left at "MAY".

[GOATRIDER]

Everyone knows that the MEDIA have a tendency to get things wrong, perhaps we should spend a bit more time educating them.

:) W