I'm hoping that this story is leaving something out that would explain why the authorities consider a helicopter crash suspicious. According to the article, a helicopter crashed near Abbotsford, British Columbia and the only occupant was a woman, who died at the scene.
There is a "suspicious element" to the accident, said Kirk because police are not sure who was the pilot of the copter or if the [sic] left the scene.
If an aircraft crashes and there is one person on board, doesn't one start by assuming that that person was flying it? It isn't uncommon for men to assume that a woman on board an aircraft is a passenger or a flight attendant, instead of a pilot, but when she's the only occupant? Possibly she was belted in a seat without access to the flight controls, but the story implies that the police arrived on scene after the woman had been removed from the aircraft. Or the "copter" as the article puts it.
[Edit 8 March 2005: It turns out that the suspicious part was one of the two men assisting at the scene had been on board the helicopter and the police suspect that yet another who left the scene had been piloting.]
That reminds me of a riddle that I (ashamedly) fell for:
A father and son are each driving their own cars and have a head-on collision. The father dies at the scene but the son is rushed to hospital. The doctor says "I cannot operate on this patient: he is my son"
The answer is obvious enough in this context but is surprisingly hard to come by when the riddle is put on its own.
oops that last comment was me but I can't work blogger
Post a Comment