ANNEX E

Time for Another Cleansweep?

Subject: Why does the FAA continue to reject EVAS (FAA approved) as a solution to dense continuous smoke in the cockpit?

TRANSCRIPT OF CONVERSATION (26/1/93):

Werjefelt Hello

Broderick Hi Tony Broderick here returning your call

Werjefelt Yes, Bert Werjefelt here.. emm.. I still have.. I don’t know if you

have seen the latest letter I sent back to the Administrator in regard to the letter

we received of .. I think your letter January 14..

Broderick Er.. I think I’ve seen it-

Werjefelt   O.K. The question still remains unanswered on your part:.. Are Pilots

supposed to be able to see during conditions of dense continuous smoke.

Broderick If smoke is so dense and continuous that they can’t see – they won’t be able to see.

Werjefelt Well are they supposed to be able to see ?

Broderick We have never applied the regulations so as to require that to be demonstrated

Werjefelt  In your proposed Advisory Circular you are recognizing the problem

Broderick  We have never applied the regulations to require that the pilots be able

to see in conditions of dense smoke

Werjefelt And you’re saying that’s not the intent of the regulation ? Is that it?

 

Broderick I’m saying we’ve never applied them to achieve that intent. That’s correct.

Werjefelt Well, we all recognize that you haven't done that. - We have said that from the outset …

Broderick Ok

Werjefelt ….that doesn’t excuse you from not doing so now, the way we interpret

the Federal Aviation Act and the (existing) regulation and the reason for the regulation.

[Comment: The existing regulation, FAR 25.831(d), reads in part "If accumulation of

hazardous quantities of smoke in the cockpit area is reasonably probable, smoke

evacuation must be readily accomplished..." The FAA Administrator has stated, in

writing, that the purpose of this regulation is "...that there be a means or procedure

to evacuate smoke that may be present in the cockpit, thereby providing an adequate

view of the instruments and the outside world." FAA Advisory Circular 25-9 provides

information on how to comply with the regulation and dearly delineates the need to

address "hazardous quantities" of "continuous" smoke. Which, incidentally is what the

pilots believe is now being done and which is what ALPA petitioned the government for.]

Broderick You’re correct. If we in fact decided that it was a safety problem of

sufficient magnitude that it needed correction, we could in fact enact a, or propose

through the normal Administrative Procedure Act process, a regulation. And, if the

evaluation of that regulation was that it was a cost that was worth the benefit to be

obtained, we could enact that regulation.

Werjefelt Well you could also enforce the (existing) regulation, and issue an

Airworthiness Directive, right ?

(Comment: There is a world of difference between enforcing an existing regulation and

establishing a new regulation. - The average time to establish a new regulation is on

the order of 6 (!) years. In our case the regulation already exists and all that is

needed is an Airworthiness Directive to enforce it properly!]

Broderick No, no sir, no we..

Werjefelt Why can’t you do that?

Broderick To do an Airworthiness Directive you have to have an unsafe condition,

as determined by the Administrator, which exists in an aircraft and which you have

reason to believe would exist as an unsafe condition on other aircraft of that type design

(Comment.- Indisputable and totally independent accident reports and information of

"unsafe conditions" is clearly evidenced in the list of some smoke related accidents

we have provided to Mr. Broderick et al.( recited earlier). It is repeatedly shown

that the because of inadequate design or procedures of not being able to evacuate

smoke adequately, from the pilots critical field of vision, "unsafe conditions" where

pilots are unable to see to safely control and land the planes have repeatedly

occurred. The law, FAR 39.1, strictly and simply requires that regardless whether

"unsafe conditions" are discovered on U.S. or foreign owned aircraft, certified by the

FAA, if the unsafe condition is inherent to the design or operation of the aircraft it

must be eliminated on all types of the same type design certified and operated in the

U.S. and, the foreign aviation authorities must be notified of the unsafe condition

! In fact, the record shows, especially when there have been sensational and highly

publicized catastrophes with foreign owned U.S. planes, the FAA has acted in

accordance with FAR 39.1 and issued Airworthiness Directives. Such has been the case

with unsafe conditions involving icing, thrust reversers etc. Furthermore, it is not

a requirement that there must be fatal accidents involving airline passengers (or for

that matter) in order to issue Airworthiness Directives to eliminate unsafe

conditions. It is not even necessary that there be an accident or that it be an

airline - it also applies to private and cargo planes - all FAA certified aircraft. -

The same unsafe conditions, where pilots are unable to see, that are apparent from the

list of some smoke accidents we have provided to Mr. Broderick, exist as unsafe

conditions on every single airliner in this country and on 99% of the corporate

aircraft. (A few corporate operators have taken steps to eliminate the unsafe

conditions.)

Werjefelt Well that's what your Advisory Circular says exist and you haven’t addressed it.

Broderick Well I ..I mean I certainly don’t read the Advisory Circular that way

and we would not issue an Advisory Circular if we had an unsafe condition that needed correction.

Werjefelt Well you sort of have portrayed that you have cured the problem by the

procedures called for in the Advisory Circular. You state the problem in the

beginning, but then you don’t proceed to cure it.

(Comment: -FAA experts and FAA documents clearly recognize continuous smoke as a

serious safety problem. In fact, FAA Advisory Circular 25-9, which is FAA’s statement

of how to comply with the regulation, states "accidents of fire or smoke that cannot

be extinguished continue to occur. Smoke and fire procedures should, therefore, be

formulated considering that the fire or smoke exposure may be continuous. Smoke from

fires in cargo or equipment located in inaccessible locations, should be considered to

be in particular. Continuous smoke from equipment bays, equipment cooling systems,

the cockpit, and cargo compartments should be considered reasonably probable because

these compartments have so many potential sources of smoke or have a history of fire

or smoke occurrences (Emphasis Added]." The safety deficiency is that the FAA

certification procedures do not include the well recognized hazard of continuous dense

smoke. This is in clear contradiction to the FAA statement that "...Smoke and fire

procedures should, therefore, be formulated considering that the fire or smoke

exposure may be continuous.")

Broderick Well, I mean I’m not..I’m not sure what you’re…what your getting at. I

mean we wrote the Advisory Circular. We make recommendations in it. We have in fact

conducted tests.. had tests conducted in accordance with it. I recognize that you

don’t believe that our requirements go far enough and that’s..I mean that’s a reasonable disagreement.

Werjefelt No, its not a disagreement. I think you guys have agreed that they

didn’t go far enough because you now propose a change to the Advisory Circular which

incorporates continuous smoke (for the test procedure) in the cockpit and that pilots

need to see. You just don’t want to put it in effect, into real effect, for another 20 – 30 years.

(Comment: After this conversation it, appears Mr. Broderick had this new test

procedure to deal with continuous smoke removed because it does not appear in the

final revised version !!! Any change to an Advisory Circular does not make it

retroactively mandatory. Nor is an Advisory Circular in itself mandatory. And any

change to the actual certification requirements do not affect any of the planes

presently used, nor does it affect those types that are now certified and which may

continue to be manufactured for another 20 or 30 years ! In contrast, an

Airworthiness Directive (AD) is an immediate action whereby the FAA can promptly

eliminate an unsafe condition.]

Broderick Er, Mr. Werjefelt, there are a lot of things that we do, that we think

are better than what we used to do. If we required all improvements to be

incorporated to be retroactively incorporated...ah, no one would ever able to build an airplane.

Werjefelt Naw, thats not true, I mean this is a unsafe condition, has brought

down a number of planes which you guys are falsely disputing and….

Broderick Well what airplanes ?

Werjefelt Well look ... we've given you a list and you just choose to ignore it.

Broderick I’ve seen it. The only airplane I know of that I would agree is an

airplane accident that occurred because of smoke in the cockpit, and resulted m any

kind of fatalities, is the freighter accident in Boston in 1974.

(Comment: Even if he limits the discussion to accidents in America only, his

statement is absolutely false. For example, the accident that occurred on December

31, 1985 occurred in the U.S. This is the accident that killed singer Ricky Nelson!

In any event, the list provided to Mr. Broderick et al was only intended to

indisputably prove the existence of the unsafe conditions. By no means is it a

complete list of all the smoke related accident here in the US or world wide. With

the exception of Mr. Broderick et al, we, and all others we have conferred with,

consider this list alone to be overwhelming proof of the unsafe conditions. Most

importantly however, the law does not allow Mr.Broderick to exclude or ignore the

indisputable evidence of the unsafe conditions from foreign accidents with FAA

certified planes, as he proceeds to do)

Werjefelt Well, huh? What about the one in 1970? 'What about the South African

one that went down? One of the suspected causes was smoke in the cockpit.

Broderick Our regulations don’t have anything to do with airplanes that are operated outside this country.

Werjefelt How untrue - you certified it.

Broderick Airworthiness Directives as you may know are not applicable outside of this country.

(Comment: This is true. All we are asking is that they be applied in this country,

as the law requires, so that the unsafe conditions are eliminated in the US. What

foreign countries or operators do is their business. However, most western countries

follow the US on safety matters such as these.)

Werjefelt Hold it a minute, you say an unsafe condition exists on one plane an

American made certified plane so you’re supposed to stick your head in the sand and

ignore the fact that the same (unsafe) condition exists on planes in this country ?

Broderick Mr. Werjefelt, we just don’t agree with you.

(Comment-. Mr. Broderick's irresponsible stonewalling is unbelievable. He is

required by law to act to eliminate the unsafe conditions. This unsafe condition

exists on virtually every plane in the US - and elsewhere, for that matter.)

Werjefelt Well, that's obvious. But, you know your situation on addressing this

issue - not going after the airworthiness directive, like the law requires is akin to

having telephone fraud being perpetrated and then when the FCC or the phone companies

figure out a way to catch the perpetrators you’re saying "Oh, we haven’t done that

before so were not going to do it now"… Its the same difference. Its a ludicrous

argument on your part. And its not in the interest of safety. So.. were still back to square one, huh?

Broderick Well, I mean, I don’t know what else to say. We don’t agree with

your statement that the possibility of continuous smoke in an airplane ahh..results

in an unsafe condition. (!)

(Comment: Mr. Broderick’s ludicrous stonewalling defies the imagination. Just look at

the list of smoke related accidents! When smoke is continuous and can’t be stopped

(which we have shown happens time and time again) and, by Mr. Broderick’s own admission

earlier, pilots have no way of coping with dense continuous smoke, the small cockpit

area will quickly be so full of smoke pilots can’t see. The accident record we have

provided shows this can occur in a matter of seconds. Clearly, to any reasonable

person, this is an unsafe condition. The accident record proves it. FAA’s own

documents say it must be addressed. Information we have provided to Mr. Broderick

shows Accident Investigation Boards have concluded that the unsafe condition must be

eliminated. The Airline Pilots Association have written to the FAA and stated: ALPA

is very concerned that aircraft cockpits must be able to evacuate smoke effectively,

so that the crew can safely land the aircraft." ALPA goes on to say "It is important

to be able to evacuate continuous smoke if the source cannot be immediately

identified." Moreover ALPA also states regarding their review of a number of smoke in

the cockpit incidents that: "...there appeared to be several failure modes (which

would cause smoke generation] where it was not possible to disconnect the damaged

system. Therefore, there is a need for the continuous smoke evacuation capability."]

Werjefelt Well.. Come on. You stated it by yourself in the Advisory Circular…on

the second page of your Advisory Circular you go on at length to describe how unsafe

the conditions are when there is smoke in the plane... and continuous smoke. I can’t

believe what you’re saying.

Broderick Umm, The measures that are used every day in the United States are quite

clearly able to cope with the hundreds of in flight fires that occur every year.

Ahm.. and it is not a problem. Nineteen years ago we had one accident in a freighter.

(Comment: The same or even stronger safety measures are used in many other

countries. They also have many in flight fires annually, which luckily, as in the US,

are mostly minor or manageable. But, that’s not what we are talking about - the issue

concerns serious smoke emergencies As I pointed out earlier, it is absolutely false

for Mr. Broderick to say that there has only been one smoke accident in the US in the

last 19 years. For example, Ricky Nelson was killed in a smoke accident in the US in

85. And, there have been others, which we are sure Mr. Broderick is also well aware

of. The same unsafe condition as with the freighter mentioned by Mr. Broderick, of

pilots not being able to see, still exists on almost every single plane in the US, and

overseas - on freighters as well as passenger planes. Mr. Broderick has continually,

argued that there have not been enough smoke accidents in the US to warrant that he

eliminate the unsafe condition. How many accidents and American fatalities does he

need in order to do his job? The law says that his job is "to prevent the occurrence

or recurrence of accidents". His job is not to wait for more tragic accidents in the

US which he is so blatantly doing. However, as pointed out in a recent

letter to Secretary of Transportation, Mr. Pena, this may have changed last year with

the crash of USAir 427 in Pittsburgh which, as is so typical in smoke accidents, was

trailing smoke and flying out of control prior to the tragic accident crash.

Investigators still don’t know what caused the crash. But, one thing is for certain,

if there was dense continuous smoke in the cockpit, which the record shows can occur

in seconds, the pilots would not be able to see to control and safely land the plane

because Mr. Broderick refuses to enforce the existing safety regulations ! We may

never know the cause of that accident. However, it is inexcusable that blind pilots

is even a possibility as a cause or a factor in this terrible tragedy. Especially so,

when Mr. Broderick has had almost five years to eliminate this unsafe condition.)

Werjefelt Aah.. I’ve given you the list. You are choosing to ignore it because

you’re forced to act if you acknowledge it. I just find your position so contrary to

your duties under the Federal Aviation Act that its…

Broderick ..you've made that quite clear in your letter.

Werjefelt ….unbelievable (pause) So, my question remains then: Are pilots

supposed to see when there are conditions of dense continuous smoke

Broderick Not if its so dense that they can’t see..

Werjefelt Then they’re not supposed to see?

Broderick We don’t expect people to see through smoke that is so dense that they can’t see.

Werjefelt Well the pilots expect it. You guys have conned them into believing that

the systems can cope with dense continuous smoke. Now you finally agreed that they

can’t. And, your not going to do anything about it.

Broderick What have we ever said could cope with dense continuous smoke?

Werjefelt Why don’t you look through your correspondence.

Broderick Well that’s Your correspondence not ours.

Werjefelt Yours too.

Broderick OK

(Comment: As noted earlier, right in the beginning of the FAA advisory circular it

clearly and conspicuously delineates the reason for the regulation, one of them being

to eliminate the unsafe conditions of "hazardous quantities" of "continuous smoke" in

the cockpit. Anyone would clearly be led to believe that is being addressed. But,

hidden in one sentence in the very back of the document one discovers such is not the

case. "Hazardous quantities" of "continuous smoke" is not addressed! Early in the

dispute the FAA was telling us in ?its? correspondence that continuous smoke is addressed.

They have since changed. The point I was making is that virtually all pilots have

been led to believe that the present systems can cope with continuous heavy dense

smoke. It has even gone so far that FAA has approved flight manuals, where pilots are

clearly, but falsely led to believe that they will be able to see to control and land

the plane when smoke is "persistent" and "severe"!!! What is of additional

importance to know is that, in the aftermath of other recent smoke accidents, the NTSB

again asked the FAA to address the smoke issue. In short, the FAA’s response was that

there was nothing more the FAA could do to cope with continuous smoke than to revise

the flight manuals and instruct the pilots that, instead of landing at the nearest

suitable airport, they be instructed to land at the first available landing site - in

other words crash land the plane ! It appears the NTSB finally gave up. Needless to

say, the flight manuals were never revised to tell the pilots to crash land nor were

they revised to inform the pilots that when smoke is persistent and severe (dense and

continuous) they will in all likely hood not be able to see to even be able to

accomplish a controlled crash landing! Clearly the message from the FAA to the pilots

is that they can cope with continuous smoke. - ask any pilot.)

Werjefelt And the pilots petitioned you to put the rule into place for heavy dense

smoke and your documents acknowledge the continuous aspect of it. I mean any brain

dead pawn would acknowledge it.

(Comment: The cockpit smoke regulations has been in place since the mid-1960's. The

AirLine Pilots Association (ALPA) petitioned the FAA for such a regulation after

several smoke related accidents to eliminate the unsafe conditions of "heavy dense"

smoke. Because the technology did not exist to cope with heavy dense continuous

smoke, essentially nothing has changed in terms of assuring pilot vision during such

emergencies. In fact, the record shows there are planes, now flying, certified before

the regulation went into effect, which have far better capability to cope with smoke

(even though it is totally inadequate) than ones that have been certified in recent

years)

Broderick I gather you put me in another class then.

Werjefelt Well, I think we both consider each other in the wrong class for some

ungodly reason. And I’d like to believe it’s that your not doing your duty and you

think you are.

Broderick That’s right

Werjefelt Well I think the vast majority of pilots and the American population would

disagree if they knew the issues at hand here. I mean you are saying outright that

pilots are not supposed to be able to see in dense continuous smoke.

Broderick I am saying that we don’t expect pilots to see in smoke that is so dense

and so continuous that they cannot see.

(Comment: So why does he approve flight manuals that tell pilots they will be able to

see to land when there is "persistent" and "severe" smoke. Why doesn’t he warn the

pilots that there are known and documented circumstances when they won’t be able to

see and they will therefore in all likelihood have a fatal crash? Why doesn’t he tell

them the plane has not been certified to assure they can see when smoke is

"persistent" and "severe"??)

Werjefelt Well there are ways for them see now.

Broderick Changing the design of the aircraft

Werjefelt This is not changing the design of the aircraft. You’re making it a big

complicated thing. It doesn’t even have to change one squat on the plane.

(Comment: The equipment to enable pilots to see regardless how much smoke there is has

a self contained power supply and is completely portable and can be used for its

intended purpose without any changes to the aircraft. It is the size of a small book

and is as simple to use as a fire extinguisher. As I said earlier, pilots have

successfully used it in simulated smoke emergencies with less than a minute of

training.)

Broderick It costs money to do – to effect that change

(Comment: Mr. Broderick has repeatedly been informed that the cost, estimated by one

major airline, is on the order of 1 (one) cent per ticked passenger.)

Werjefelt No kidding! What do your changes cost from the roofs blowing off planes

and all the other neglect that has been going on for years, cargo door flying off etc.

etc. What do they cost?

(Comment: Again, these are typical examples of the FAA, under Mr. Broderick’s

direction, not acting to prevent such accidents until after there have been

sensational tragedies. The record is full of these types of examples.)

Broderick Well they are spending billions to correct that problem. But, that’s

because it is a true problem that has consensus agreement in the expert community. I

frankly know of no one besides you and your company who think this is a problem

(Comment: The consensus he is talking about wasn’t hard to arrive at after you have

half a dozen people sucked out through the fuselage and slaughtered in the jet engine,

because of a faulty cargo door or after a flight attendant is sucked up through the

roof of a plane after part of the roof is lost in flight because of years of neglect

and corrosion. Contrary to Mr. Broderick’s false statement that he knows of no one

else who thinks there is a safety problem, in our case there is tremendous consensus

of the smoke in the cockpit "problem". And he knows it. (1) There is a regulation

because of the problem. The pilots petitioned for the regulation. The record shows

they did this because they know it is a problem. (2) ALPA has recently written a

letter to the FAA reminding them that the regulation is to be enforced for conditions

with dense continuous smoke. Obviously they wouldn’t write such a letter if they

didn’t believe it is an ongoing problem. (3) FAA’s own documents state it is a

problem. (4) The problem, and the need to correct these unsafe conditions, has even

been noted by independent accident investigation boards in the accident reports we

have provided to Mr. Broderick. But he doesn’t want to acknowledge them. (5) Above

all, anyone with common sense knows that blind pilots is an obvious fatal problem !)

Werjefelt You say its a problem in your Advisory Circular but you’re ignoring it

Broderick A problem that should be by Federal Action ?

(Comment: Yes, that’s what the law requires, without any discretion whatsoever.)

Werjefelt Have you read the Advisory Circular ? ….let me just read that section

for you. Hang on a second........(pause)…..Mr. Broderick..?

Broderick Yes.

Werjefelt OK. Hang on here

Broderick I have to get to a meeting in about 5 minutes.

Werjefelt OK Section .. under subjects and definition right? It was in my

letter. You have a section: "Smoke Sources and Duration (continuous smoke source)" –

That’s how you guys label it in your Advisory Circular. ‘Reasonably probable sources

of smoke include fires caused by cigarettes etc. etc. - may produce hazardous

quantties of smoke... You go on to say "..Incidents of fire or smoke that cannot be

extinguished continue to occur, smoke and fire procedures should therefore be

formulated considering that the fire or smoke may be continuous." It is your

specific instruction. And your arguing about it. And it says .."a long history of

fire and smoke among other places in the cockpit...."

Broderick Mr. Werjefelt. If in fact we thought that problem was serious enough

to require retroactive action, we would have taken it. We don’t believe that is the case.

(Comment: This is the essence of the dispute. It is mind boggling that Mr. Broderick

has the audacity to say these unsafe conditions, with blinded pilots and no way to

cope with the smoke, where many hundreds of people have already been killed, isn’t

"serious enough" to warrant the elimination of the unsafe conditions !!! It is a

simple case of stonewalling. Regardless of what he thinks, he is required by law to

act, to "..prevent the occurrence or recurrence of accidents..". He does not have

any other legal choice. The unsafe conditions are overwhelmingly obvious. However,

unless there is wide spread public awareness about a safety problem, which usually

only comes about in the course of well publicized tragedies, nothing seems to be

done. Sadly, as his long record shows, time and again, he does not act until after

there are sensational accidents on his front doorstep.)

Werjefelt No, not until the next accident occurs. And then you scurry around

and say, oh we've been working on it. We've been working on it. We’ll fix it. Just

like the icing problems on the planes. - You knew about it for 10 years and never did

anything about it. Why is it instructed in here to address it? Why do you lead

pilots and everybody to believe its being addressed? And then you don’t address it?

(Comment: There was no technology to address it in the past. But that, as you see,

he does not want to admit)

Broderick Mr. Werjefelt jet engine maintenance is addressed in other advisory

material, it doesn’t mean every body has to put a jet engine on their airplane.

(Comment: What has that got to do with it? Why doesn’t he answer the question?)

Werjefelt Ohhh... Come on... Give me a break ! We are talking about an unsafe

condition which is acknowledged by the FAA. And then, the FAA, hidden in the back of

the document, doesn’t address it. And, it’s the cause of numerous accidents, which

you are disputing.

Broderick Not in the United States.

(Comment: As I have explained before, what Mr. Broderick says is false. And besides

it is not relevant under the law. He is required by law to act to eliminate the

unsafe conditions on US certified planes regardless in which country the unsafe

condition is discovered. To wait for more preventable accidents to occur in the US is

unconscionable and in violation of the law.)

Werjefelt Not in the United States ! On American made planes ! Certified in

America ! Operated in accordance with American standards…or better in many cases.

(Comment: The reason some planes are crashing and 'burning up" is because he is not

enforcing the safety regulation for design/operation of the American planes they are

using. Because of that, pilots cannot see to safely control and land the plane.

Therefore they crash and burn and lives are needlessly lost

Werjefelt 0HHH…..You know you are doing such a disservice to this country.

Broderick Sorry you think that.

Werjefelt Well, its not just what I think. The facts are clear….well….

Broderick Well, I need to go. Uhm, I wish we could reach agreement. But, it is

apparent that we can’t.

Werjefelt Well, obviously we can’t. If you guys are lying through your teeth

its a little hard to find agreement. I mean every issue we've brought up are lying about.

Broderick Its kind of hard to make any progress if one side is calling the other side a liar.

Werjefelt Well your calling me a liar - This is an outright case of restraint of

trade at this point - our customers call up the FAA to ask about the problem. You’re

denying it exists. They are asking if there is a need for our device …No there’s no

need for the device…for pilots to see. You’ve now said you don’t want the pilots to

see when there is dense continuous smoke!

Broderick Well as I have said, I have got to go. I have a fairly large meeting about to start.

Werjfelt Uh huh, Well. you run along to your meeting. And... we will pursue this.

Broderick OK, Thank you very much.

Werjefelt You are very welcome Mr. Broderick.

Broderick OK

 

END OF- CONVERSATION

-----------------------------------------

 

Subject: Same argument over why the FAA will not adopt the EVAS device abd thereby comply with the FAR requiring it to solve the problem of dense continuous smoke-in-the-cockpit.

TRANSCRIPT OF PHONE CONVERSATION

March 5, 1992

10:00 am (HST)

Anthony Broderick of FAA

Returning Vision Safe's Call

Werjefelt- This is Bert Werjefelt... and I'm trying to get some information here. Hang on just a second, let me get some

information...

Okay, Mr. Broderick, your letter to Hugh Waterman on January 23rd in response to his letter to President Bush that he

wrote in early December. Are you familiar with that letter?

Broderick- Ah, I don’t have it in front of me....

Werjefelt- I've had some discussions with McSweeny and it doesn't seem that we are really getting a resolution to the

problem. It seems mostly that ... (interrupted) it seem that - well first of all let me ask you this. He was saying the

response was near immediately going out to the.. on the appropriations bill issue. Has that gone out at this point or ?

Broderick- I think so. It is in the final coordination process. It takes a while to get reports out to Congress.

There is lots of people who have to review it.

Werjefelt- Uh-huh. Well, I assume you also review it before it goes out.

Broderick- Usually, yea.

Werjefelt- And is the posture basically the same as is reflected in your letter to Mr. Waterman or.............. ?

(Pause) ..............................

Broderick- Hello?

Werjefelt-Yes, Hello.

Broderick-Yes it is.

Werjefelt- I see. Well I realize You don't write the letters, you have your staff assist you with it, but the response

You provided to Mr.Waterman is virtually in its entirety erroneous. It is not true or correct

Broderick- What is not true about it?

Werjefelt- Well. Can you get a copy of the letter and I'll (interrupted) ….

Broderick- Not very easily. Why don't you just tell me what you think is not true. I mean we may have a

disagreement about what is erroneous. But what’s not true?

Werjefelt- What’s not true? Well, I guess the way you word the language. Your saying in one sentence here.

I'll go through it "Our review of data from airplane accidents since 1980 that had inflight fire and smoke

associated with emergency indicates that flight crews were able to safely control the plane." I mean we have

evidence to the contrary. In fact, planes have been lost where smoke in the cockpit was the probable or possible

cause for it.

Broderick- Airline airplanes?

Werjefelt- Sure, yea.

Broderick- Which ones?

Werjefelt- Well, let me go on. (interrupted) ...

Broderick- I mean, I just like to know. .... Which airline airplanes, carrying passengers in the United States or a US

carrier anywhere else, has been lost due to smoke in the cockpit, as a probable cause?

Werjefelt- Well I would say it is a foreign carrier, (interrupted) but if it is a US made ... (interrupted) ...

Broderick- Well I don’t have anything to do with foreign carriers.

Werjefelt- Oh really? Well its funny then, how come you ah, after a Swedish airplane goes down, or a Scandinavian

airplane, because of icing problems - well known icing problems by the way - within a couple of weeks after,

you issue a notice to address the icing issue.

Broderick- Dr. Werjefelt, I did not issue an icing notice that applies to foreign carriers.

Werjefelt- Well it applies to US carriers right?

Broderick- Let me tell you something, There has never been a US built, US airline operated airplane, which

has lost lives, passenger lives, due to smoke in the cockpit – fire. Okay. Show me which ones have. Just ..

See one of the things I think that we have a problem with is you think that there is a problem that isn't addressed.

We believe that our standards address these problems.

Werjefelt- Well I know you believe that but.. (interrupted)

Broderick- ... The way to prove us wrong is to provide just the date

and the location of the accident that involves smoke in the cockpit,

that would have been obviated by your device ... and I don’t think you

will find a very long list. Obviously that has to be a list of

airplanes that come under our regulatory authority. It’s pointless to

point to foreign airplanes.

Werjefelt- It is not pointless. Why do you turn around and issue

notices on de-icing two weeks after a foreign air carrier goes down.

Broderick- Dr. Werjefelt, do foreign airlines come under our regulatory authority?

Werjefelt- No, but I think you are missing my point. A foreign carrier,

a US made airplane, which is built and operated according to US

standards goes down because of icing problem. What do you guys turn

around and do? You issue a notice within two weeks to all US carriers to fix the icing problem.

Broderick- Dr. Werjefelt, can we stick with smoke and not icing and

just answer my question as to what carriers you are talking about? What airlines...

Werjefelt- Well we are trying to see if we are going to talk apples and

oranges. If Boeing says they have lost 7 jets because of smoke in the

cockpit - what I read from you is that this doesn't concern you, so long

as it was not US owned or US operated.

Broderick- It doesn't concern me from the viewpoint of demonstrating

that there is a regulation that is required in the United States. No.

Werjefelt- Oh, well then how come you act on this icing problem then?

Broderick- I thought we were talking about smoke?

Werjefelt- Well it doesn't matter whether a plane goes down because of

ice or smoke. It goes down and people are killed or hurt, or planes are destroyed, or whatever.

Broderick- I guess, I mean, we're not going to get anywhere on this,

what I am trying to tell you is that the US standard for design,

operation and maintenance of aircraft work well with regard to smoke in the cockpit.

Werjefelt- But only in the US?

Broderick- I am only limiting my concern to the US for this

discussion. I can only write a regulation which affects US airlines. I

must demonstrate that the cost to US airlines are outweighed by the

benefits to the United States when I write a regulation. And if I have

no benefit, I certainly can't have a lot of cost.

Werjefelt- Well we can demonstrate the benefits but I guess we ...(Interrupted)

Broderick- ... You can't demonstrate the benefits if there have been no accidents.

Werjefelt- Well if the accidents are happening everywhere else but you

choose to ignore them and you are just waiting for one to happen in the

US before you act. How can anybody argue (interrupted) ...

Broderick- ….We don’t chose to ignore them,

Werjefelt- Sure you are.

Broderick- ….problems that are causing them other places.

Werjefelt- All right, if you have a test that doesn't take into account

continuous smoke but yet your experts acknowledge continuous smoke as

being a serious problem in aviation safety. And that test subsequently

proves to be essentially worthless for smoke evacuation purposes, in the

real world. If its not happening, if that is not occurring in the US,

are you going ignore it or are you going act on that?

Broderick- We believe that the tests are appropriate and they serve their intended function.

Werjefelt- Well ... So, you would be willing to come out, if I invite

you out for a demonstration, a smoke demonstration in one of your planes

there at National, you can come out and attest to the fact (interrupted)

........

Broderick- I don’t I would be going to a smoke demonstration at

National. By the way how do you solve the decompression problem with your device?

Werjefelt- What decompression problem?

Broderick- Well if you're at 20 or 30 thousand feet and one of these

inflate and then the airplane gets a decompression, what does your device do?

Werjefelt- Well it is solved and certified by the FAA. It has a relief valve on it.

Broderick- Mr. Werjefelt, that is not certified by the FAA to do anything except not provide a hazard to the crew.

Werjefelt- Well it's demonstrate .... (interrupted)

Broderick- ... performing it's intended function. It just is certified under a no hazard basis.

Werjefelt- It is certified to meet its intended function. We spent considerable time and money to accomplish that.

Broderick- Well how do you solve the problem with decompression ... ?

Werjefelt- I just explained to you that we have a relief valve on, which is certified by the FAA.

Broderick- Oh? Okay.

(Pause) ................................

Broderick- So then ???? works when you have the relief valve and you

then fly down to ah say... 5,000 feet, it still Performs its intended function?

Werjefelt- Yea, but at that point your increasing the pressure so the unit would be deflating.

Broderick- Right.

Werjefelt- and we have taken care of that as well.

Broderick- How do you do that?

Werjefelt- Well its continuously supplied with air.

Broderick- Oh, is it battery operated?

Werjefelt- Yea.

Broderick- Oh, okay. All right. Well, do you have any other questions?

Werjefelt- No, I wish that we could find some common course that is less abrasive than what we have now.

Broderick- Dr. Werjefelt, I think that we have been pretty reasonable in trying to deal with the fairly

inflammatory letters that you have sent in. Ah now then...

Werjefelt- Your letters are just as inflammatory. Your sticking your head in the sand and ignoring that

there are any problems.

Broderick- ( Broderick apparently goes off of the speaker phone and

picks up the handset) I think that you got a fundamental disagreement

with us about the existence of a problem. You've defined a problem that

we don’t think exists and then you solved it. Then you berate us for not accepting your solution.

Werjefelt- Your own experts acknowledge the problem.

Broderick- I am sorry but we do not accept the fact that we have a problem that requires a solution.

Werjefelt- Well let me read you what your own experts say then. Okay?

Hang on. Where is the ... (interrupted)

Broderick- No, no, I don't want, Dr. Werjefelt, to debate the existence of the problem with you.

Werjefelt- You don’t want to debate it?

Broderick- ... solution is. Now you can go and find any one of

thousands of people that now work or used to work at the FAA or are

otherwise somehow imbued with the title of aviation safety expert. What

I am telling you is that we don’t think that we have a problem which

deserves a regulatory solution. You can argue with us but you can’t. I

mean there is nothing that I know of that you can do to prevent us from

disagreeing with you. It is as simple as that. We have studied the

issue, we have studied the material you've sent. We don't think - we

know that you have not yet convinced us that we have a problem that needs a regulatory solution.

Werjefelt- Hey, your own experts and your own advisory material, the

problem is clearly acknowledged. You guys just (interrupted) ...

Broderick- Find any advisory material that says we have an unsolved problem. Okay?

Werjefelt- Oh yea, your advisory circular 25-9 is ample testimony to

that very fact You attest repeatedly .... to continuous smoke, hazardous

quantities of smoke being a problem. Yet you don't have a test that

addresses the issue of continuous smoke.

Broderick- Let me just tell you once again that we do not believe that

we have a problem that needs a regulatory solution - PERIOD.

Werjefelt- Okay, if pilots then are reporting that in planes

certificated as recently as 1989, they can't see through the smoke,

they- pilots- it so thick with smoke they can’t even see each other. Is

that what you guys intend to accomplish with your tests and certification requirements?

Broderick- We do not have a problem that requires a regulatory solution.

Werjefelt- So you think it is perfectly fine that pilots can't see then.

Broderick- We don’t have a problem that requires a regulatory solution.

Werjefelt- Jez, I can't believe what I am hearing.

(Pause) ..................................

Werjefelt- You don't call it a problem that (interrupted)

Broderick- We do not have a problem that requires a rule-change, I’m

sorry. I’m sorry you don't agree with that. We respect your right not to agree.

Werjefelt- That is fine, I don't respect your right to not act to prevent the recurrence of accidents.

Broderick- You said recurrence, where was the first one.

Werjefelt- Boston, 73 for instance.

Broderick- Cargo airplane? Hazardous material? Right?

Werjefelt- Right

Broderick- You know, okay? I know about that accident. DC-8 right?

Werjefelt- Right.

Broderick- Non-passenger operation right?

Werjefelt- Yea.

Broderick- Right.

Werjefelt- Mr. Broderick. Listen, you apparently will not accept any

foreign--U.S. made, but foreign operated aircraft, as being of any value

in your determining whether there is a problem or not.

Broderick- I didn’t say that.

Werjefelt- Well that’s what I ... (interrupted)

Broderick- Given all the data, we do not believe we have a problem that

needs a rule change. ... Are you there?

Werjefelt- Okay, let me read you this then ... ah (interrupted)...

Broderick- Dr. Werjefelt, you don’t have to read me anything, I told

you that ... (interrupted)

Werjefelt- But you don't want to hear, if I can point to a problem.

You just don’t want to hear. You've closed your mind to it.

Broderick- I told you that I've done the research. I understand your

point of view, and I don’t agree with it. It is as simple as that.

Your not going to be able to convince me by pulling a sentence here and

a sentence there out of documents that you’ve got in front of you.

Werjefelt- Oh baloney.

Broderick- know what the prior history is.

Werjefelt- Believe me I know what it is.

Broderick- I said I know what it is.

Werjefelt- I don’t think you do. Planes are going down. If the

accident report says that it probably went down because the pilot

couldn’t see. You just don't want to hear it.

Broderick- Well, and you just don't want to accept my answer.

Werjefelt- Well, wait a minute. If they are reporting ... if the

accident report says it went down because the pilot couldn’t see, you

don’t want to hear (interrupted) ...

Broderick- I told you that we have operating and maintenance

procedures that differ from foreign carriers. You cannot compare

foreign operations to domestic operations.

Werjefelt- That’s baloney. You , certify the planes here, if they

happen to be operated in a foreign country. Smoke evacuation isn't changing.

Broderick- Ah, Ahhh... As I have told you before I don’t think that we

have a regulation that needs to be written in this area.

Werjefelt- I don’t care how you do it, the main thing is pilots should

be able to see if there is continuous smoke. You have no provisions for

that right now, and planes are going down because of it.

Broderick- No, not in this country they are not.

Werjefelt- Not in this country - Oh holy smokes. You just don’t want

to hear if planes are dropping all around you, as long as they are not

dropping on your front door step your not going to address it. You just

don't want to address this issue. You're addressing other issues where

planes go down overseas. Your addressing them immediately with things.

Broderick- Because it makes sense to do so. In this case it does not.

Werjefelt- Right, right. So the next plane that goes down because the

pilots couldn’t see and if it goes down in some foreign country, are you

going to do anything about it?

Broderick- We will investigate and learn what we can and see what is appropriate.

Werjefelt- Yea, a number of them have happened already. You don’t

investigate and you don’t want to hear. You've just told me that

Broderick- No I didn’t tell you that.

Werjefelt- Yes you did. You don’t want to hear about the foreign

ones. Tell me about the US ones you said.

Broderick- Mr. Werjefelt, I have in front of me, the accident summary

from Britain that starts in 1947 and lists every accident that has ever

occurred in their records in the world. Okay? I understand that there

are other countries that have different accident histories than we do.

Werjefelt- But they are caused because of - as it concerns smoke

(interrupted)...

Broderick- ... Well go sell your device to them.

Werjefelt- Ah, I can’t believe this is our own government. I just

can't believe it. I can't believe - Jeez this drives me up the wall.

Broderick- I am sorry we don’t agree.

Werjefelt- You don't even want to see the facts. That’s the problem.

Broderick- Mr. Werjefelt, I think, I know the facts. And the facts are

that we don’t have a problem that needs a regulation to solve it.

Werjefelt- Okay, so if an accident occurs then or has recently occurred

where the report is that: "in seconds, thick smoke severely impaired

vision on the flight deck. By this time, neither pilot could see each

other". Is that the kind of safety standard the FAA subscribes to.

Broderick- I would suggest that those people check their maintenance

and operations standard.

Werjefelt- Oh baloney ! That is absolute baloney. It is a plane ....

you certificated... (interrupted)...

Broderick- ... Well it has worked pretty well in the United States for the last 20 years or so.

Werjefelt- Really?

Broderick- yes.

(Pause)

Werjefelt- Well I ... You know what, the next plane that goes down,

believe me, I am gonna make sure that you are accountable, personally.

If it is the last thing I do Buddy.

Broderick- Okay, thank you very much

Werjefelt- You're welcome

END

email IASA                                                homew.gif                          List of Annexesaltimeter.gif