Fatal crash pilot 'had taken pot'

[VH-BOX]

Silly boy, a heavily laden water bomber at low level with minimal water-drop experience, and marijuana thrown in for good measure.:ugh:

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,22182273-2,00.html

[Foyl]

Slightly off on a tangent - love the "dob in a pilot" scheme advertised in the article...:mad::ugh::hmm:

[sugarbirdlady]

BOX

As the pilot mentioned was a friend, i would like you to firstly establish the facts before you go mouthing off about experience levels.

secondly where else would you find a water bomber other than low level and heavily laden.

i get the impression you may be a plane spotter rather than a pilot

[wingover802]

Box ,you are obviously either a very unexperienced pilot or not one at all I flew 8 fire seasons with this guy he was the most experienced bomber pilot in Australia and an exceptional pilot all round if you new anything about aviation you would know that to be a bomber pilot you have to have the highest degree of experience and skill to satisfy the government standards, not many people make the grade even with the minimum requirements needed....

Do the memory of this pilot a favour and withdraw your comments!

[VH-BOX]

"BOX

As the pilot mentioned was a friend, i would like you to firstly establish the facts before you go mouthing off about experience levels.

secondly where else would you find a water bomber other than low level and heavily laden.

i get the impression you may be a plane spotter rather than a pilot"

I have said nothing that was not in the article, and for the record a water bomber is usually at low level for only a portion of the detail, it has to transit to the drop site and back. In this case the article states clearly that the pilot had minimal time on type, to compound this with narcotics is simply foolish. I'm sorry if you knew the individual concerned, but contrary to your unfounded and uninformed 'impression' I am indeed a pilot, and have been for over 30 years. In that time my tolerance for individuals who make an already hazardous occupation more so by poor personal decision making, has reduced with my exposure to the consequences. If emphasizing those consequences offends, I'm sorry, but if open discussion of blatant stupidity prevents just one life from being unnecessarily lost then so be it.

[divinesoul]

When it comes to aviation dont believe all that you read in the papers.

Wait for the official report from the CASA.

[VH-BOX]

"When it comes to aviation dont believe all that you read in the papers.

Wait for the official report from the CASA."


Now that I accept totally, although I think you mean the ATSB. In this case though, they did claim to quoting the already published ATSB report, not heresay, the actual incident was back in 2005.

[wingover802]

Box if you had the required info to comment on this you would know that this pilot had over 18000hrs in aerial agriculture and the only difference on aircraft type at the time of the crash to what he usually flew was the engine!

[VH-BOX]

Do I take it then that you are defending the use of recreational narcotics by pilots? I don't care if he had been flying since pontius was a pilot. And as to "only the engine was different", so what? accidents have been caused by unfamiliarity with individual aircraft of exactly the same type. I'm sorry, but I would never under any circumstanced condone drug or alcohol use by pilots, and I can only surmise that those who do are doing so from a sense of misguided loyalty. Since this seems to be the required response I will abort my comments here.

[Delay Approved]

While not taking sides in this debate your assertion that:
this pilot had over 18000hrs in aerial agricultureis either a typo or incorrect. The official ATSB report states the pilot had a total flying experience of 6,737 hrs of which only 1.0 was on type.

Report is available here
http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2005/AAIR/pdf/aair200505236_001.pdf

[sugarbirdlady]

BOX

good idea abort your comments, go and find some other thread to stir on

[Victa Bravo]

Get off ya high horse box (head).

The report proves absolutely nothing about what CAUSED the crash. There are some facts stated, yes, one of which was the pilot had drugs in his system.

There is absolutely no evidence that this crash was CAUSED or CONTRIBUTED TO from drugs in the pilots system.

IF the pilot was under the influence, AT THE TIME, then yes he deserves a bagging but you can't prove it so don't bag a dead bloke pal.

VB

[wingover802]

well said VB

[prospector]

"There is absolutely no evidence that this crash was CAUSED or CONTRIBUTED TO from drugs in the pilots system."

By the same token, there is not a lot of any other reasons why a serviceable aircraft pranged carrying out such a simple exercise, the amount of experience that the driver had accrued, this exercise, all other things being equal, was a piece of cake. How can you say the finding of pot in the system is not relevant???

[pakeha-boy]

Prospector Quote...."How can you say the finding of pot in the system is not relevant???"

Pros mate.....very relevant for sure.....Box has made his point.....even to the dismay of others here....what I think what irks most is that we all know the consequences of drugs/alcohol and flying.....there have been previous threads posted here before on this very subject......the rapp that pilots take, for the very few individuals that do not refrain from these activities is immense

Bottom line,the percentages are small,and most of us know these activities dont mix....there will always be a "few" that indulge......

Personally Box...youve made your point,its an obvious one.....we get the point....

[Towering Q]

Just read the article...if Mark Schliebs thinks Ballidu is "remote Western Australia" what would he call Kiwirrkurra?:yuk:

[Pappa Smurf]

The old smoking dope story.
Do people still smoke it.Seeing it shows up in your system for weeks ,most people have moved up the ladder to the hard stuff which gets out the system fast.
To say this was the main factor in the accident is utter bollocks,unless a saliva swab was taken to show he was "flying high" at the time ,like the law enforcements do these days.
How many of you drink--get smashed on your day off ,go flying next day when alcohol level is .00 ,but still feel like a bag of crap and wish you werent flying.
im not a drug user but have tried pot a few times back many years ago

[remoak]

Good for you, BOX.

Interesting to see the usual suspects trying to jump on your head.

As PB said, idiots that mix recreational drugs and flying thoroughly screw it up for the rest of us. Sad that this guy died, but it would appear to be entirely his own fault.

Whether the "recent ingestion" of drugs was a factor or not may be debatable, but the fact that they were present at all tells you a lot about the amount of professionalism on display.

Sadly, it isn't even slightly surprising.

As for "not bagging a dead guy" - if the dead guy was stupid, he deserves to be bagged. Hopefully others may learn something. Being dead doesn't make you a saint.

Bottom line - low-level flying in an unfamiliar type + drugs = stupid

Same goes for going on a bender and flying the next day whilst still suffering the effects. Really, really stupid.

[sugarbirdlady]

Get off your high horse you blokes

have a read of the report, the accident was most likely caused by an aerodynamic stall

but you people are as bad as the media, citing it was the cannabis that was responsible for the accident

i like the way all you weekend warriors are suddenly experts in air crash investigations, and you prefer the newspaper version rather than the one published by the ATSB

[pakeha-boy]

Quote..."citing it was the cannabis that was responsible for the accident"

...most of us are not saying that at all....read between the lines sugar...

...and as for the weekend warrior:yuk:...Ill bite my tounge...ILL send you a CV... and then you can fwd your apology to my e-mail address

There have been many valids points here.....the bottom line...drugs(of all kinds)alcohol and flying do not mix......most normal thinking people whether they be pilots or not,dont find that hard to accept or understand...reading the article,and hopefully the report is correct...they found THC in his body.....

I get drug tested(blood,urine,breath) about 3-4 times a year,random,before and after a flight....never tested positive....Ive made cockups,but never attributed it to substance abuse......cant understand that even if pot smoking never caused thiis accident,profesional pilots are held to a much higher standard than most.... smoking dope and flying is a bad combination:confused:

[wingover802]

did you guys see the guy on the day he was flying I dont think so!!!! so how can you comment on this beinging a factor in this crash we all know this stuff hangs in the system for months and is alot better the next day than a heavy night on the grog which takes days to recover from.

[wingover802]

also do you think the owner of this million dollar aircraft would let this pilot fly this aircraft if he had any concerns about his wellbeing when they had months to complete this training

[porch monkey]

Sure. Do YOU think he would have told the owner he smoked dope? Didn't think so. PB is right. Mixing the two is just stupid, regardless.

[BombsGone]

I'm not posting here with the intention of offending anyone or denegrating the incident pilot but this exert from the ATSB report makes sobering reading. I would suggest there is a lesson for all professional pilots here. If you disagree with the ATSB's findings in this case fine, but the message is still valid.
My condolences to those who lost an experienced and valued friend.

"In the context of this accident, specialist medical opinion was obtained regarding the significance of the toxicology results. That advice included that the presence of THC was consistent with the ingestion of cannabis by the pilot in the 24-hour period prior to the accident. On the basis of that evidence, the specialist commented that:
…the adverse effects on pilot performance of recent cannabis use must be considered a significant factor in the fatal accident involving VH-NIT.
In March 2004, the Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB) released a research report titled ‘Cannabis and its Effects on Pilot Performance and Flight Safety: A Review’ (available at www.atsb.gov.au). That report reviewed the scientific research on the use of cannabis and examined the manner in which the use of cannabis could affect the ability of a pilot to operate an aircraft.
The pharmacological effects of cannabis use include effects on cognitive and psychomotor function that can significantly impair the ability to perform complex tasks that require attention and mental coordination. Complex tasks requiring rapid responses and discriminations, such as the management of in-flight emergencies, are especially sensitive to cannabis impairment. "

[wingover802]

so porch monkey I take it that your an experienced pot smoker and know what sort of effects that it has on you the day after smoking

[currawong]

Thoughts to those that have obviously lost a friend/colleague.
Regardless of the reason, report release is a difficult time.
The ATSB findings may yet help someone.
If they are incorrect, perhaps someone should speak up.
Again, refer top line.

[pakeha-boy]

wingover82...your defensive attitude and comments regarding the use of pot and flying indicate (to me).....that you are in agreement or favour the use of recreational pot smoking and flying.....and if that s the case,(correct me if I,m wrong)because you havent said otherwise.....you are doing yourself,me and all other pilots a dis-service....if I,m wrong, then take this as an apology

This is not a game we are playing and it is prudent for those on this forum to make statements and stand up and be counted,when it comes to the use of Drugs and alcohol in the course of our professional duties...

I,m not pointing fingers,I get on the piss like most...no drugs,but on the piss and have had a couple of beauties......but in saying that,have never had to remove myself from a flight from the effects and have always adheared to the Reg rules and company rules(which are more conservative).......

The day is fast approaching(and its already here for some)that before you step onto the "property'...you will have to blow the bag!!!!!

This subject has always drawn debate......bottom line,I dont wanted some drugged-up,drunk a@#ehole flying me or my family around or have them flying around to where they cause havoc or death.....you do not have those rights...PB

[wingover802]

im saying that I dont think it was the cause of this crash I also think that pilots have more of an alcohol problem and maybe they should look at a ban on booze for pilots!!!:E

[Jabawocky]

I feel for the ones who are protesting the "bagging" here but seriously, put yourself on a B737/A320 or whatever else as a pax......then as the CSM announces over the PA during push back, sorry for the slow start, the cabin crew along with the Captain and F/O had a smashing party last night and we were stoned on grass till the wee hours.........:uhoh:

How many of you would be straight out of your seats and opening the rear doors, slides activated and vacate a taxiing aircraft? I know I would be, at least then the crew may not take off!.....well you would hope:uhoh:

So all those being defensive, I suggest you delete your posts!

There is no room for drugs and alcohol and their after effects in aviation, we all know this so what's the big deal.

If this guy was so experience or not experienced.....I do not believe it matters. End of Argument.:ugh:

J

[porch monkey]

Nope, you're right wingover, I'm not a pot smoker. I'm not that stupid. I've spent most of my working life dealing with the aftermath of dickheads who do smoke it. And I wouldn't disagree with you regarding the booze problem either.

[emu787]

Read this and ACT before 27th of August or forever be silent

DO YOU WANT 0.02% (UK limit) or 0.04% (FAA USA limit)
You have until 27th August to make a submission regarding the new Drug and Alcohol Regulations that will be passed into law and acted on immediately. The proposed start date is early 2008.

I urge all of the aviation industry participants to study the proposed regs(they will not be changed unless you comment).

You will find them as a PDF file top right corner at:

http://www.casa.gov.au/newrules/part...NPRM0703SS.asp (http://www.casa.gov.au/newrules/parts/099/NPRM0703SS.asp)

Drugs are zero tolerance and so they should be and once busted you will not be permitted to return to work until tested zero.....I understand some of this stuff take three months to get a zero reading and you may also face loss of licence and/or the courts.

However, RESPONSIBLE ALCOHOL consumption is generally an accepted way of life throughout most of the world but certainly in Australia.

BE WARNED !!!! the limit proposed is 0.02% BAC following the UK limit while they could adopt the US limit of 0.04% BAC as acceptable.

THEY WILL NOT CHANGE UNLESS THE INDUSTRY COMMENTS BEFORE 27TH AUGUST 2007!

In the proposal is to allow State Police to do random testing, airside is described as any area regardless of whether it is fenced, demerit point system and eventual revocation of your CASA Medical etc etc etc etc.

There are serious implications for all industry personnel. They are going to do a lot of random testing and not just targeting airline employees...the whole industry.

Get off your fat bums and hit the keyboard, make a responsible comment and DEMAND SAFEGUARDS be inserted into the regs to prevent overzealous, undertrained dickheads destroying your career.

YOU CANNOT REFUSE a test and you may not even be on duty and be asked to do a test......how will they determine who is on duty and who is not....etc etc etc...walking from one hangar to the next at a country aerodrome (like you have done for 30 years) after having a couple on Friday afternoon....how do you convince the man/lady that jumps out of the bushes that you are not on duty....make no mistake this will occur and you need safeguard legislation...YOU CANNOT REFUSE A TEST!

DO NOT come screaming next year that this long overdue system is flawed - its up to the industry to comment now!

[kiwiblue]

you may not even be on duty and be asked to do a test......how will they determine who is on duty and who is not....etc etc etc...walking from one hangar to the next at a country aerodrome (like you have done for 30 years) after having a couple on Friday afternoon....how do you convince the man/lady that jumps out of the bushes that you are not on duty....make no mistake this will occur and you need safeguard legislation...YOU CANNOT REFUSE A TEST!

Scare-mongering. The law may be an ass, but it's been at it a damn long time. No prosecution could proceed on the basis described. Simply ridiculous.

[emu787]

You obviously missed the WHOLE point mate.:=

Who wants to go to bloody court in the first place twit. You will be suspended from work, you will end up in the papers, you will have a stigmar attached forever, you will be blacklisted......on an on I could go mate.

Now I will say again....get the safeguards INTO the legislation NOW.

Thats what the post was about mate.....have a think about it before you mouth off like so many replies.:ugh:

[pakeha-boy]

Quote emu".....YOU CANNOT REFUSE a test and you may not even be on duty and be asked to do a test......how will they determine who is on duty and who is not....etc etc etc...walking from one hangar to the next at a country aerodrome (like you have done for 30 years) after having a couple on Friday afternoon....how do you convince the man/lady that jumps out of the bushes that you are not on duty....make no mistake this will occur and you need safeguard legislation...YOU CANNOT REFUSE A TEST!"

Mate,Ihave to use the same quote,and hopefuly you dont regard it as "mouthing off"

I use your example for my situation,and as an expat flying in the states these rules apply here only and have no bearing downunder...currently......but the thinking still remains similar...

What constitutes a test here whilst being on "duty" is that ...even if you are not on "duty",you are NOT a required crew-member on "duty",BUT if you are in a restricted area,if you are on airport property,if you are engaged in activities for your company,even if not in uniform,even if you are going to the hanger,even if you are on staff travel displaying your ID .....IF YOU ARE WEARING AN I.D....on your person that is displayed FOR ALL TO SEE....you technically can be tested.....and prosecuted under those laws....

I have heard of cases whereby,individuals(wearing I.D.) have been held because of their behaviour....not sure of the consequences,and by the sounds of it,youd have to be a right w@#ker for it to happen.......

I can see this happening all over.....due to the sensitive and security nature of todays aviation scene,these types of laws,whether you agree or not ,will be inacted to presumambly,"protect" all those concernred.....

theres a big difference between doing the "right thing" and arguing the point because you think your individual rights are being taken away,just because it doesnt involve you personally......these laws are designed for the good of the "game" and the" individual."........and the "game" is always bigger than the "individual."..

[kiwiblue]

emu787: whatever...

I've been around long enough to know ****-stirring 1/2-truths when I see 'em, and I'll continue to call 'em as I see 'em. The scenario you post is a toss and I suspect you know it.

[bushy]

I remember an occasion where two RFDS pilots who had finished their day's flying on a very hot day, consumed a can of beer while completing their paperwork in the office. But the job was still not completed. The aircraft were still on the tarmac, and the routine was for pilots to make sure the aircraft were prepared for an immediate departure, and secured before they went home.
Then the phone rang, and we were told that the CEO was in town, and was about to visit us. Those aircraft were put to bed in record time, and the pilots disappeared.
There was never any time when any of the pilots would ever consider flying after drinking, but it could have appeared that way, and been very hard to explain, on this occasion.
Perceptions are important.
I believe there should not be alcohol at any premises where pilots are during their duty times.
One of the pilots I worked with was sentenced to four months in an overseas prison for being on duty with a high blood alcohol level. I don't think he actually flew.
It is real.

[remoak]

I believe there should not be alcohol at any premises where pilots are during their duty times.

Nice idea, but sadly unrealistic at virtually every aero club... and of course in most airline aircraft, the only thing separating the crew from the booze is the cockpit door. Amazing how much of that booze seems to end up in crew bags after flying has finished for the day... hotel booze being sooooo expensive...