Joe's claim that difficult weather conditions make instrument landing safer demands a response.

The island airport, like all aerodromes, is there to provide for aircraft to land and take-off. The very nature of an aerodrome’s business requires it to do so under the safest possible circumstances. Unfortunately, the island airport’s location and some of its features work against it.

Its location subjects it to unfavourable weather conditions: fog and wind sheer, for example.

Its position near a bird sanctuary, the world’s largest ringed-neck gull colony and on a migratory bird flight path make its aircraft vulnerable to bird strikes.

Its 4,000-foot main runway can’t offer adequate safety margins unlike those at mainland airports can and are way short of the Canadian Transportation Safety Board's recommendation of a 300-metre safety zone at the end of Canadian runways. A 300-metre safety zone at each end of the airport's longest runway would reduce it from 4,000 to 2,032 feet – too short for the Q400.

The seven pilot cautions include tall-masted boats and the Hearn chimney on the runway approach from the east, to the CNE wind turbine on the runway approach from the west. The airport has its risks, more risks than Pearson with its two pilot cautions, one of which is communications related and none of which warns pilots not to fly in to things.

For Transport Canada, people working at the airport and pilots using the facility, the aerodrome is safe. It has runways with lines on them, a windsock, Instrument Landing Systems (ILS) that work when the weather is suitable and a control tower with NAVCAN air traffic controllers who do a remarkable job given the hazards. None of these groups seems to want to acknowledge that the airport’s risks make it an unsafe facility.

Joe says that difficult weather conditions make the instrument landing safer since the pilot has to be more aware of the risks. However, if the airport wasn’t in a hazardous location, pilots wouldn’t be required to deal with the risks.

An airport’s location and features which force pilots to act with the greatest caution do not contribute to air safety. To argue that they do is to imply that pilots who don’t face difficult conditions throw caution to the wind.

Study after study shows that pilot error and adverse weather conditions, often in combination with pilot error, are the greatest causes of aircraft crashes. Unfortunately, the island airport’s location and some of its features already make it a risk. Combine those risks and the chance of human error and we have an aerodrome waiting for accident to happen.

Nevertheless, its proponents will continue to claim it is safe. The Feds require it to be safe because it represents power. Businesses need it to be safe because it produces profits. Users want it to be safe because it means convenience. When an accident happens, they’ll all blame it on pilot error.

Bob Kotyk