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 dont 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 Ive 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 cant see they wont 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 youre saying thats not the intent of the regulation ? Is that it?
Broderick Im saying weve never applied them to achieve that intent. Thats correct. Werjefelt Well, we all recognize that you haven't done that. - We have said that from the outset Broderick Ok Werjefelt .that doesnt 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 Youre 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 cant 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 havent addressed it. Broderick Well I ..I mean I certainly dont 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 dont 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 FAAs 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 Im not..Im not sure what youre 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 dont believe that our requirements go far enough and thats..I mean thats a reasonable disagreement. Werjefelt No, its not a disagreement. I think you guys have agreed that they didnt 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 dont 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 Ive 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 dont 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 youre 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 dont 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 youre saying "Oh, we havent 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 dont know what else to say. We dont agree with your statement that the possibility of continuous smoke in an airplane ahh..results in an unsafe condition. (!) (Comment: Mr. Brodericks ludicrous stonewalling defies the imagination. Just look at the list of smoke related accidents! When smoke is continuous and cant be stopped (which we have shown happens time and time again) and, by Mr. Brodericks 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 cant 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. FAAs 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 cant believe what youre 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, thats 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 dont 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.. Ive given you the list. You are choosing to ignore it because youre 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 cant see.. Werjefelt Then theyre not supposed to see? Broderick We dont expect people to see through smoke that is so dense that they cant 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 cant. And, your not going to do anything about it. Broderick What have we ever said could cope with dense continuous smoke? Werjefelt Why dont you look through your correspondence. Broderick Well thats 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 FAAs 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 Id like to believe its that your not doing your duty and you think you are. Broderick Thats 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 dont 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 doesnt he warn the pilots that there are known and documented circumstances when they wont be able to see and they will therefore in all likelihood have a fatal crash? Why doesnt 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. Youre making it a big complicated thing. It doesnt 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. Brodericks 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, thats 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 wasnt 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. Brodericks 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 wouldnt write such a letter if they didnt believe it is an ongoing problem. (3) FAAs 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 doesnt 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 youre ignoring it Broderick A problem that should be by Federal Action ? (Comment: Yes, thats 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)" Thats 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 dont 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, isnt "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. Well 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 dont 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 doesnt mean every body has to put a jet engine on their airplane. (Comment: What has that got to do with it? Why doesnt 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, doesnt address it. And, its 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 cant. Werjefelt Well, obviously we cant. 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. Youre denying it exists. They are asking if there is a need for our device No theres no need for the device for pilots to see. Youve now said you dont 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 dont 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 whats not true? Werjefelt- Whats 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 dont 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 dont think you will find a very long list. Obviously that has to be a list of airplanes that come under our regulatory authority. Its 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 dont 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 dont 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 dont 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 dont 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 dont think that we have a problem which deserves a regulatory solution. You can argue with us but you cant. 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 cant 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 dont 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, Im sorry. Im 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 didnt say that. Werjefelt- Well thats 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 dont 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 dont 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 dont 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 youve 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 dont think you do. Planes are going down. If the accident report says that it probably went down because the pilot couldnt 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 couldnt see, you dont 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- Thats 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 dont think that we have a regulation that needs to be written in this area. Werjefelt- I dont 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 dont 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 couldnt 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 dont investigate and you dont want to hear. You've just told me that Broderick- No I didnt tell you that. Werjefelt- Yes you did. You dont 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 cant 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 dont agree. Werjefelt- You don't even want to see the facts. Thats the problem. Broderick- Mr. Werjefelt, I think, I know the facts. And the facts are that we dont 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 |