Dear Editor,

No one can ever imagine the trauma experienced by any air crash survivor. My thoughts and prayers remain with all 148 passengers on board AA flight 331, especially the injured.

Though local authorities were quick to state that the emergency response was not only satisfactory, but within the standard aviation guidelines (I believe four minutes), there are still concerns, and many survivors have complained openly about the slow response and their ordeal afterwards.

Of course, to any injured, a few seconds, or one passing minute, could seem like forever, but still there are some lingering concerns. General emergency response should be part of any national system where human life is involved, knowing that quick and adequate response is there when needed most. At the same time, all those who participated in this emergency, at the scene, hospitals and elsewhere should be highly commended. However, one cannot avoid reality. This particular situation could’ve been much worse and raises some serious concerns:

1) When planes land/take off, aren’t emergency vehicles on immediate standby on the runway, (fire, security, paramedics) to deal with any unexpected situation until the plane comes to a complete halt? Since the accident occurred on the runway, it seemed odd that an unmarked van was first on the scene.

2) Are local ambulance services all private, or is there a national service paid for by taxpayers? Are paramedic teams part of this service to deal with emergencies? Paramedics are not normally nurses, but trained individuals who can provide quick first aid and help stabilise injuries at the scene before getting them quickly to medical facilities. Hopefully, the authorities aren’t thinking of emergencies as security issues only, involving the police and army, but what else is there as part of the response policy?

4) Was it even necessary to transport the injured from the crash site back to the airport terminal? Some passengers, many injured, stated that they still had to be processed by somewhat dazed and perplexed immigration and customs officials. Did anyone consider this secondary, given the emergency and fact that many were actually injured? One would think that emergency posts would’ve been immediately set up at the accident site, the terminal, and the major hospitals, to account for all passengers and keep track of the process. Communication between these posts would be better served.

5) What if, God forbid, this crash was worse, perhaps the plane ended up in the sea. Would there have been any water response? Or, what if the plane had later been engulfed in flames? At what time did fire trucks arrive, and if so, were they even equipped?

6) Have the airline and local authorities been providing professional counselling to the passengers to deal with the trauma of this incident? Many of these passengers were naturally badly shaken up, many also have to fly again within days. One would imagine passengers are given the option to use a different carrier. The sight of an airline logo, uniforms can also be psychologically traumatic for recent victims.

7) We haven’t heard any report about air traffic during this emergency, presumably this is still being investigated, but one would think they would’ve been the first to trigger a response to the crash.

If emergency facilities are not up to scratch at airports, authorities should perhaps consider restricting flights arriving/departing late night when visibility and emergency response could be of concern. Worse that the Palisadoes is such a narrow strip in the middle of the sea. It has always been mind-boggling that planes continue to land/take off or even fly through what might be considered ‘bad’ weather.

We know planes are designed to withstand danger encountered by weather, but to the layman, it may seem like a delay in a flight, or landing in another nearby airport simply to avoid a risky situation might be a better option. Hopefully some answers can come out of all this.

P Chin

Canada

chin_p@yahoo.com