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):
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
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
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.
(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
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
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..?
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.
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
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.............. ?
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.
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.
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?
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.
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?
Broderick- You know, okay? I know about that accident. DC-8 right?
Broderick- Non-passenger operation 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
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- 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
List of Annexes