Actually, I didn't write that, I quoted it from another poster. I highlighted the bit I supported.TreeBlender wrote:CP's should look at how accidents like this can be prevented but they should not be making blanket standards such as land at the first available field. In this scenario, landing at Pitt could have resulted in even less survivors.cncpc wrote: I also can understand how an experienced company man would want to land his machine with an issue at the most convenient location for a specific company's maintenance (like a machine based and maintained out of Calgary that has an issue Westbound over Banff might feel a "duty" to limp the plane back to Calgary where the mechanics are waiting inside a heated hangar with tool and parts at an arms reach rather than stranding the machine and passengers in Springbank) and I think this is where chief pilots, training captains and owners have to stand up and let their guys know it's not only OK, but it is preferred by them to first and foremost land at the closest/safest airport and worry about the passenger's and mechanic's convenience second.
Springbank does not have ARFF services and neither does Pitt Meadows.
Springbank and Pitt have municipal Fire Fighters that are the same as the fire hall in your neighborhood. Their firefighters may have some minor courses that pertain to Aircraft Rescue Fire Fighting but they are by no means ARFF. Their lack of training and equipment is a minor concern.
The major concern is that the firefighters at Springbank and Pitt, are not required to be at the station. I watched someone in a plane crash die while waiting a substantial amount of time for rescue services to arrive. The Fire Hall on the field was empty as they were attending a vehicular accident elsewhere. The pilot was pulled out of the plane by an airport maintenance worker and their summer student.
Take a balanced approach. If there are two suitable airports within reach and one has ARFF, take the one with ARFF. You can check if ARFF's are present at an airport and the type, by looking under services in the CFS. Abbotsford has limited hours.
I doubt that this aircraft would have crashed at either Pitt or Abbotsford, so the availability of emergency services is really a moot point. It does seem that the longer the aircraft flew, the closer it came to the point of failure. Conversely, the shorter time it flew, the more it remained within a period of safe and normal operation.
This is not a criticism of the crew. The crew proceeded as if they had a minor issue, not an emergency that would require any emergency vehicles at all. They stated that on final. There was another aircraft waiting to take their passengers to their destination in Vancouver. There was no apparent risk in going to Vancouver. I doubt that the quality of emergency services had anything to do with the choice of Vancouver as the point of return.
I think that we first have to wait to learn the sequence of events in the transition from safe flight to loss of control. That may lead to a conclusion that, in future, based on what we have learned from this accident, that the best choice in at least a King Air 100 with oil temp and pressure indications is to land as soon as possible. It may also suggest shut down and secure is a wise course. I don't know if there is a previous incident that would have added this wisdom to our knowledge pool, but perhaps this will be the one that does. I would be surprised if this accident does not result in those who pilot these aircraft, and their passengers, being better equipped and thus safer. It is too bad the cost was so high, and fortunate that it wasn't higher.
