[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.]

(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!]

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

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

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

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.)

(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.")

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.]

(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!

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

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

indisputable evidence of the unsafe conditions from foreign accidents with FAA

certified planes, as he proceeds to do)

(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.)

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.)

(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."]

(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.)

(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.)

(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)

(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"??)

(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.)

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

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

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

(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

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

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

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

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.)

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

he does not want to admit)

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

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.)

(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

March 5, 1992

10:00 am (HST)

Returning Vision Safe's Call

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?

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 ?

There is lots of people who have to review it.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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

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

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?

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)

........

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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

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?

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

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

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

in your determining whether there is a problem or not.

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

you that ... (interrupted)

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

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.

accident report says that it probably went down because the pilot

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

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

don’t want to hear (interrupted) ...

procedures that differ from foreign carriers. You cannot compare

foreign operations to domestic operations.

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

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

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.

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.

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

going to do anything about it?

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

ones. Tell me about the US ones you said.

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.

(interrupted)...

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

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

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.

and operations standard.

you certificated... (interrupted)...

(Pause)

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

If it is the last thing I do Buddy.