Program On Crash Of Swissair 111 May Be Flawed, But It Does
Raise Questions
By Associate Editor Pete Combs
When WGBH in Boston sent
me a pre-release copy of "NOVA Presents: Crash Of Flight 111," I
ran over to the neighbor's apartment, borrowed a VHS, spun up the
tape and heard this:
"I was thinking at the time these things are flying firetraps. I
mean, how is it that we can put 200-plus people in an airplane with
all this flammable material? This is the tinder waiting for the
match."
I came up out of my seat. The comment was made by the one man
the airline industry most loves to hate -- David Evans, editor of a
weekly aviation safety newsletter. He went on to say, if commercial
passenger aircraft were restaurants, they'd be shut down by the
health department in a heartbeat.
Hoo boy, I thought. It's another hatchet job on aviation, the
likes of which we've most recently seen from CBS Correspondent Bob
Orr.
Then I watched the rest of the program.
I saw and heard a simulation of the crash of Swissair 111 on
September 2, 1998. I heard dramatic music. I saw crying relatives
grieve the 229 people lost on board the flight. And, buried in the
show business, I heard some news.
To NOVA's credit, it wasn't buried too deep in the sentimental
and highly calculated heart-tugs. The news was that metalized
mylar, once thought flameproof, isn't. Silicone air duct components
also thought fire-resistant aren't. In the 150 or so miles of
wiring it takes to fly an MD-11, there could be up to 1500 cracks
in wiring insulation -- cracks that, when exposed to the type of
condensation typical of the high temperature differences between
the cabin of an aircraft and the outside air, could cause
electrical arcs. Those arcs can reach 12,000 degrees (F). Although
brief in duration, they can be devastating in damaging aircraft
systems.
NOVA is a program that bills itself a science show and, to reach
aviation neophytes, the producers did what television does best. It
grabs you by the collar and slaps you in the face to get your
attention. Then it tells you what the producers want you to know.
In the case of the CBS story on general aviation security, there
was no meat. The NOVA piece, for all its show biz flaws, is filled
with facts.
It's also filled with the kind of emotional manipulation that
can make a pilot red-faced angry. Words like "flying firetraps" are
the kind of words that are virtually guaranteed to scare passengers
and threaten an already depressed airline industry. We all know
that crews are trained in firefighting techniques, that
sophisticated fire detection and prevention technology is employed
in many parts of the aircraft and that, in the event of an
emergency evacuation, the exits are here, here, here, here and
here.
So it might be easy for
an aviation enthusiast, industry worker or pilot to dismiss the
story. The fact is, there is a preventable fire danger on board
most of the world's civil fleet. The wiring. The metalized mylar.
The lack of fire detection and suppression equipment in places
nobody goes but the A&P -- when he has to.
The program also leaves the story there, as if to hold it out to
the flying public and say, "Warning, Will Robinson, warning!" But
the story doesn't end there.
The rest of the story is that it takes a lot of time and money
to fix the problems raised in the NOVA program. Replacing the
metalized mylar insulation could take hundreds of man-hours and
cost millions of dollars. Developing, testing, installing and
operating additional fire suppression equipment, as called for in
the Canadian Transport Safety Board findings on the Swissair 111
tragedy will also take millions and millions of dollars. And if you
haven't noticed lately, the airline industry -- along with
manufacturers Boeing and Airbus, don't have a lot of spare change
to throw around these days.
The NOVA program quotes one NTSB official as saying it took a
tragedy of this type to point out the dangers of an in-flight fire
to lawmakers and regulators. That's a sad truth. But motivation
isn't the issue here. Methodology is the real problem.
If the NOVA story makes you squirm, makes you want to throw
shoes at your television and cancel your PBS membership, so be it.
We in this business have been battered, bruised and bewildered by
events since 9/11. But we are an industry of can-do people. A clear
issue has been raised. For once, let's examine the facts, disregard
the panic-mongers and address these issues. We can find a better
way to insulate wiring and detect faults in that insulation. We can
find a replacement for metalized mylar products like MK, MPET and
AN-26. We can install better fire protection and suppression
systems on board aircraft. All aircraft.
Despite the economic
issues we face, despite the uphill battle we have in educating the
non-flying public, despite regulation that is often seen as
ham-handed, we have a problem folks. And we need to figure out a
solution.
Sadly, aircraft manufacturers don't seem willing to engage in
this discussion. Aero-News contacted both Boeing and Airbus. We
sent both companies copies of our initial story, which was
published a week ago. We offered to play portions of the WGBH tape
down the phone line. But so far, neither company has chosen to
address what will most certainly become an industry hot-button
issue in the coming week.
Why? Because on Monday,
CNN and Fox News will report the NOVA story. ANN considers itself
an aviation-friendly publication. Because it lacks
aviation-specific knowledge and experience, the
jacks-of-all-trades-masters-of-none general media are more likely
to miss important information or center on emotional issues that
play to the heart instead of the mind. Both Boeing and Airbus have
apparently chosen to miss an opportunity to reach out with the
facts to its most sympathetic and knowledgable audience. Now, the
general media -- broadcast in particular -- will almost certainly
pick up on the most sensational aspects of this story and the voice
of industry reason will be shunted aside as an attempt to excuse
what will be painted as the unexcusable.
One last thing. In spite of its flaws, I appreciated the NOVA
story. Even though it scored about a four on the emotional
manipulation scale of ten, It dealt with a timely and important
issue in a (mostly) responsible fashion. Sure, go ahead and blow
raspberries at the likes of Bob Orr. Be ready to blow some more
this week when other media outlets get ahold of the story. But
watch the NOVA piece. It's worth your time and will make you
think.
(Associate Editor Pete Combs is an 1100 hour GA pilot. He's
also a national and international broadcast journalist)