Inaction Alleged on Cockpit Smoke Issue

Two weeks before Saturday’s crash of ValuJet flight 592, a Hawaiian entrepreneur filed a complaint with the Department of Transportation’s inspector general, accusing federal aviation officials of waiting for tragedy to strike before adequately addressing the threat of cockpit smoke.

Although the crash that killed 109 people near Miami remains under investigation, it appears that smoke in the cockpit may have played a role, investigators say.

As far back as 1991, Bertil Werjefelt, who is trying to market a cockpit smoke protection device, has tried to persuade the Federal Aviation Administration to reconsider its policies on in-flight smoke emergencies. Although the agency advises pilots to land in the event of smoke filling a cockpit and requires breathing apparatus for pilots, it has no requirement that pilots be able to see instruments, checklists and flight path.

Over the years, there have been numerous airline accidents and incidents in which smoke in the cockpit appears to have played a significant role. In July 1991, a Canadian DC-8 crashed in Saudi Arabia, killing the crew and 247 people. Similar to the crew in this latest crash, the Saudi crew reported “severe smoke conditions” on the aircraft before the plane nose-dived into the ground at high speed.

Experts long have debated whether FAA regulations governing smoke in the cockpit were adequate. Currently, a pilot is to put on goggles and an oxygen mask and crank up the plane’s ventilation system. But while that measure may clear out the smoke in most instances, there are cases when the smoke is too continuous and dense.

In December 1992, the Air Line Pilots Assn. also asked the FAA to require further measures on smoke safety equipment. The association “is very concerned that aircraft cockpits must be able to evacuate smoke effectively, so the crew can land” the aircraft, said the letter, a copy of which was included in Werjefelt’s complaint.

But the FAA as recently as last month maintained that the threat is overstated.

In an April 19 letter to Sen. Daniel K. Inouye, FAA Administrator David R. Hinson wrote: “It is clear that the FAA and the NTSB [National Transportation Safety Board] . . . share the view that there is no unsafe condition warranting further action on our part.”

A copy of the letter was provided to The Times by Werjefelt. A native of Sweden, a pilot and president of Vision Safe Corp. in Kaneohe, Hawaii, Werjefelt has invented a device called the Emergency Visual Assurance System. Basically, it is a clear plastic bubble that inflates to fit over the instrument panel and window. By filtering out visible particles in the air, the battery-powered gadget allows a pilot to see even when thick smoke continues to pour into the cockpit.

The patented device was tested and approved by the FAA in November 1990, but the agency has never taken the step of requiring it to be installed on aircraft. The agency says only two accidents involving deaths have happened in the past 20 years where smoke was a primary culprit. Boeing Co., however, has told Werjefelt that on its jets alone there have been at least seven accidents in the past 30 years in which smoke in the cockpit was a suspected cause.

*

With a $20,000 price tag, some experts have suggested the FAA has balked at requiring them because it is an expensive proposition for airlines.

Tuesday, a frustrated Werjefelt said he filed his April 26 complaint with the inspector general because he believed the FAA had avoided its statutory charge to protect the flying public, and he believed it was only a matter of time before an accident happened.

The EVAS device must be custom-made for each aircraft model. And ironically, Werjefelt said, the first one was certified for a DC-9, the same type involved in Saturday’s tragedy. “It’s really sad,” Werjefelt said.