Transcript of Hearing 12/12/97 - TWA Flight 800 Investigation

1186BEFORE THENATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SAFETY BOARDWashington, D.C.— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — -xIn the matter of the investigation :of the accident involving .Trans World Airlines, Inc. .Flight 800, B-747-131, N93119, ;8 miles south East Moriches, .New York on July 17, 1996 .— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — -XBaltimore Convention CenterHalls A and BOne West Pratt StreetBaltimore, Maryland 21201-2499Friday, December 12, 1997The above–entitled matter reconvened forhearing pursuant to notice, at 9:00 a.m.APPEARANCES :Board of Inquiry:Dr.Honorable Jim HallChairmanBernard LoebMember NTSBDirector, Office ofAviation SafetyDr. Vernon EllingstadDirector, Office ofResearch and EngineeringMr.Mr.Barry SweedlerDan CampbellDirector, Office ofSafety Recommendationsand AccomplishmentsGeneral CounselTechnical Panel:Thomas HaueterAl DickinsonChief, MajorInvestigations DivisionInvestigator-in-Charge,OperationsCAPITAL HILL REPORTING, INC.(202) 466-9500

1188I N D E XOpening Statements:PageNone.WITNESSTom McSweeneyIvor ThomasCaptain Steve GreenEXHIBIT NUMBERNone.EXH I B I T SDESCRIPTION104164Closing Statements:None.PageCAPITAL HILL REPORTING, INC.(202) 466-9500

119112“The reticulate polyurethane foam reduced theavailable fuel by about two percent and is completely3passive.After twenty years of operations at F-4’s,4567McDonnell Douglas found no deterioration of the foammaterial in the tanks. Also rthere has been nomicrobiological growth in the tanks due to the foam.”“I firmly believe that this material should8be used in all commercial aircraft.The cost is9minimal and the benefits outweigh the two percent loss10in fuel.Fuel system purging can be accomplished in11many different ways,nitrogen being the most common12131415method, but no other system is completely passive,which is still the biggest attraction of the foam.”“Additional information can be obtained onthe Air Force project from the Aeronautical Systems16Division.Write Patterson Air Force Base in Dayton,17Ohio.The contract numbers which pertain to this1819202122232425project were Air Force 33-615-54-24, Air Force 33-615-12-17, Air Force 33-615-32-77 and Air Force 33-617-38-80.”“I was project manager for this program andwould be willing to assist the implementation of thisproject.”Senator McCain sent this letter over to meand we responded to Mr. Carnivelle on July 8th, andCAPITAL HILL REPORTING, INC.(202) 466-9500

1192123which we had a discussion that I won’t go into becauseyou covered a lot of the material about the -- aboutthe use of this foam, but we did -- I did close the4letter by saying,“We appreciate your bringing this5subject to our renewed attention.Please be assured678910during our continuing investigation of the TWA Flight800 accident we will consider this issue further,including discussing with the FAA further research intothe use of reticulate polyurethane foam in fuel tanks.”That letter got my specific attention because11like Senator McCain,I am a Vietnam Era Veteran,12although I served in the Army,and I was very aware of13Senator McCain’s excellent service to our country and1415what he did,his airplane,and when somebody talked about it being inI -- that got my special attention.16171819So, maybe as we get into the rest of thepanel today we can discuss it a little more, but youthink -- the Navy did not have that in their airplanes,right?20MR. BALL:It has been my experience that the2122232425Navy did not use foam in their aircraft in SoutheastAsia primarily because they flew JP-5 which is asignificantly less volatile fuel, and therefore theydidn’t feel they had the problem that the Air Force hadwith the JP–4.CAPITAL HILL REPORTING, INC.(202) 466-9500

1193123The Air Force developed this orange foam andput it into many of their aircraft, literally tackingit into the aircraft, because at that time we did notfully understand how it worked and we wanted to make5sure it was effective.We know it saved quite a few67891011aircraft in Southeast Asia.CHAIRMAN HALL: Well, I don’t guess -- now,who is the gentleman from Wright–Patman? Yes, sir?Mr. Lauzze, do you know this gentleman?MR. LAUZZE: No, I do not know him, sir.CHAIRMAN HALL: Okay, well, you might want to12check him out.He says he is still willing to help.13MR. LAUZZE:We will follow up on it, sir.14CHAIRMAN HALL:He sounds very knowledgeable.15Well,I will turn it back over now to the panel and,1617Mr. Anderson,conversations .if you want to continue with the1819MR. ANDERSON: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Goodmorning, Mr. McSweeney.20MR. McSWEENEY:Good morning.2122232425Whereupon,TOM McSWEENEY, GREGORY DUNN, BILL CROW,GEORGE SLENSKI, KEN CRAYCRAFT, IVOR THOMAS,ALEX TAYLOR AND ROBERT VANNOYwere re–called as witnesses by and on behalf of theCAPITAL HILL REPORTING, INC.(202) 466-9500

11941 NTSB, and, after having been previously duly sworn,2 were examined and testified further as follows.3CAPITAL HILL REPORTING, INC.(202) 466-9500

1195123QBY MR. ANDERSON:DIRECT EXAMINATIONWe invited you to this panel today to discuss456789101112131415the impact that the military survivability techniquesthat we have discussed in the last session might -- andalso existing fuel protection designs –– might have onthe FAA’s view of the regulatory problem concerningfuel tank safety.In view of what we heard yesterday from Dr.Ball and the testing people with the DOD, which one ofthese concepts or designs, preferably ones that are allready in use by the military, would you say would bemost applicable and be most quickly adapted into acommercial environment?A Well, I think it would be a mistake to make16that decision here today.If you consider the fuel1718triangle and the three components, the FAA’s programdeals with looking at the fuel, the ignition and the1920oxidizer,in this case oxygen.I think it would be premature to say anything21other than everything is on the table.Until all are22weighed against each other,I think it is premature to2324make any decisions about which are more feasible incivil aviation than any others.25QDo I understand you to say, sir, that thisCAPITAL HILL REPORTING, INC.(202) 466-9500

1196123process of evaluation of these systems is justbeginning?A Oh, absolutely not. I mean, the FAA did in4fact look at nitrogen and inerting years ago.We have567891011121314151617181920212223been looking at everything dealing with the fueltriangle since the accident.One of the greatest myths is that we haveonly been concerned about ignition sources, and that isin fact a myth because that has not been our soleapproach since the accident.Q Thank you very much. My point here --perhaps I should restate the question -- is that wehave a series of technologies, we have provided atutorial, if you will, on the theoreticalunderpinnings .It would seem reasonable that some of thesetechnologies would have a shorter past development, andgiven that the FAA has been studying this and myrecords show here since at least 1971, that there wouldbe some engineering data on the part of the FAA thatwould relate to this question and perhaps could beshared with the public.A If I may, I think your statement that we have24been studying it from’71 is really only partially25correct. We did study it in ’71 and we did make aCAPITAL HILL REPORTING, INC.(202) 466-9500

1197123decision, and the decision was made in the 70’s. Whatis true is that we haven’t studied it since, until thisaccident.4But,I don’t want to leave the impression56that the FAA has been studying something for the lasttwenty-five years.7QWhat is your opinion of the -- we have been89discussing the foam technique for inerting orpreventing catastrophic explosion in fuel tanks.What10is your opinion of that technology at this point, sir?11DR. LOEB:Before you answer that, let -- I12would just like to ask a question, Mr. McSweeney.Why13141516is it that given that the fuel approach that you tookfailed, why is it that you did not go back and take alook at other options after the success of the early1970 foam work?17WITNESS McSWEENEY:The tests that I think1819you are referring to is anti-misting kerosene, and thatwas ––20DR. LOEB:That is correct.21WITNESS McSWEENEY:That was the test in the22desert.That test showed that the benefits that people232425expected to have gotten from anti–misting kerosene andthe benefits before that time were seen in thelaboratory just did not present themselves in fullCAPITAL HILL REPORTING, INC.(202) 466-9500

1198123scale testing.An interesting piece of information is a verysimilar accident to that test in the desert occurred4one month after,and that was the Manchester accident5in which hot fuel came out of the wing and impinged on678an engine that was very hot,that test in the desert.That whole effort,just like what happened inthough, was at post-crash9fires.I think that is important for everybody to10understand.1112The FAA at that time was looking at postcrashfires and did, in fact, come to conclusions thatthe anti-misting kerosene was not the way to go.13so,it took a different path, and it has14completed that path,and that path consists of1516hardening the interior for fire entry into the cabin,and that includes side wall ceiling panel flammability,17low level lighting,lavatory smoke detectors, et1819cetera,et cetera.DR. LOEB: All right, and I do recognize that2021222324that was directed solely or primarily at post-crashfire. However, the foam would be helpful in both postcrashfire and helpful to prevent explosions of thetank.The early work indicated that the foam had25promise, at least,great promise in helping in bothCAPITAL HILL REPORTING, INC.(202) 466-9500

1directions.When the test in the Mojave failed, why119923456789did you not go back and take a look at the foam asanother possibility. Incidently, we have had post–crash fires in accidents involving transport aircraftsince then.WITNESS McSWEENEY: Well, I would not denythat statistic. The success, though, has been muchgreater than it was before the 70’s and 80’s.DR. LOEB: Yeah, I would agree.1011done significantly.WITNESS McSWEENEY:The lives lost have gone121314151617DR. LOEB: Yeah, I will agree with that. Iam just asking why you didn’t go back and take a secondlook. I mean, it may have been –– there may have beensome factors that we need to know about here that wereinvolved in why you didn’t; weight, or the penalties,or ––18WITNESS McSWEENEY:At the -- well, I wasn’t19in the decision–making at the time, so I can’t be20exact,but my recollection of reading the material was21that we believed it was not a safety improvement that22mandated –– or,warranted that kind of action at the23time, because we were focusing on post-crash fires.24DR. LOEB:Is the FAA now looking at foam as25a potential source for both remediating fuelCAPITAL HILL REPORTING, INC.(202) 466-9500

12explosions,fuel air explosions in the tank, and postcrashfire?12003WITNESS McSWEENEY:We are looking at all4567three elements of the fuel triangle -- the firetriangle as possible solutions to explosions in fueltanks.DR. LOEB: All right, but specifically --8WITNESS McSWEENEY:And everything is on the9table.1011foam right now?DR. LOEB: Specifically, are you looking at12WITNESS McSWEENEY:Yes.13DR. LOEB:Are there studies underway, and1415can you help us out by telling us what you are doing inthat --16WITNESS McSWEENEY:I don’t personally know17of any studies.I guess first of all I would ask what18you mean by a study.We certainly are looking at what19has been done.We are working with the military in202122232425trying to capture their experience and, as I said,everything is on the table.CHAIRMAN HALL: Was this letter correct? Wasthere something done in 1965?WITNESS McSWEENEY: Mr. Chairman, I am reallynot familiar with the letter.CAPITAL HILL REPORTING, INC.(202) 466-9500

1CHAIRMAN HALL:1201I know that goes back a long23time,Mr. McSweeney.WITNESS McSWEENEY: So, I really hate to45comment on something I don’t really have any knowledgeof.6CHAIRMAN HALL:Okay, I would appreciate it78if there was a test for –– in 1965 of this material,that it could be provided for the record.9WITNESS McSWEENEY:We will be glad to do10that.11CHAIRMAN HALL:Mr. Anderson?12131415161718BY MR. ANDERSON: (Resuming. )Q Mr. McSweeney, following along here, I thinkthe foam is a good example of a technology that, ofcourse, deserves attention. But, I guess what we areinterested in is how the FAA is going to evaluate this,what type of resources will be used and what the totalrole will be of the FAA.19For instance,will your research facilities20be actually conducting tests, will you contract this21out?Just how would this program proceed, and could222324you give us some idea of time that is involved?A Well, it is really a multi–faceted effort.We have a lot of expertise in fires, we have a lot of25expertise in fuels at the Technical Center.They haveCAPITAL HILL REPORTING, INC.(202) 466-9500

120212been involved in the issues all along.involved in the present effort.They are34effect,We have several folks in Seattle working, infull time dealing with the possible solutions5to explosions in the fuel tank.6CHAIRMAN HALL:Mr. McSweeney, that leads me7to ask the question why, with all the expertise the FAA8has,was the decision made to have this studied by an9101112ARAC group for six months, which was Ms. Garvey’sresponse to the Chairman on December 3rd in regard toour recommendations.WITNESS McSWEENEY: I was --13CHAIRMAN HALL:Do you know what the budget14is in Atlantic City, the fire ––15WITNESS McSWEENEY:Not off the top of my1617head, no. No.in my answer.I was about to get to that very pointIn the letter from Administrator Garvey,181920it makes the clear point that the FAA has decided it isgoing to do something.That is not -- ARAC has not been asked to21study something.ARAC has been given –– is going to be22given the specific charter to develop specific23solutions,as everybody on ARAC sees them, of how to2425deal with minimizing or eliminating explosive mixturesin fuel tanks.CAPITAL HILL REPORTING, INC.(202) 466-9500

12031234What we will -- are expecting to get at thesix month period is specific technical answers andsolutions .CHAIRMAN HALL: Well, let me ask one other5question,then -- and let me say again, sometimes I67don’t think the public appreciates some of theregulatory processes that are in place at the FAA that8require you all to ––and are there obviously to be9sure hasty decisions and wrong decisions aren’t made10which everybody, I think,acknowledges and appreciates.11But, it says “after the notice of the new12task assignment goes to the Federal Register.”Could1314you give us a date this morning on when that will go tothe Federal Register?15WITNESS McSWEENEY:We have promised that16within two months of sending that letter to you we will1718have the notice in the Federal Register.beat that by a significant amount of time.We expect to19CHAIRMAN HALL:What would be the situation2021222324as we found with flight and duty time where the ARACcommittee locked down and came up with no decision?What would the FAA’s position be then?WITNESS McSWEENEY: Well, it was –– it’s ––because of some past --25CHAIRMAN HALL:And let me say, the reason ICAPITAL HILL REPORTING, INC.(202) 466-9500

120412ask that, Mr. McSweeney, as it says in the letter tome, “FAA will then,” referring to after the ARAC3committee,“will then act upon the ARAC recommendations456and make appropriate judgment and decisions on furtheractions expeditiously.”Does that mean that if -- I guess just for7clarification,if the ARAC comes up with no8910111213141516171819recommendation, or no consensus, do you have anyidea –– and I know you can’t speak for theAdministrator on this –– unless maybe you can –– can ––what –– do you know what would be the FAA’s position inthat situation?WITNESS McSWEENEY: Well, I certainly can’tspeak for the Administrator, but I can certainlyrecommend to the Administrator.The ARAC is constructed this time for somevery good reasons, and you raised those reasons. We attimes in the past have seen ARAC committees get boggeddown because there are conflicting interests on ARAC.20so,we have set a specific time frame of six months,212223and we have said we want a report that will be atechnical report of solutions, not issues to study.It may contain differences of opinion, and24that is fine.We will then take that report, we will25then make a decision within the Agency on where to goCAPITAL HILL REPORTING, INC.(202) 466-9500

12051and then we will charter ARAC, or we will do it2ourselves,immediately prepare a notice of proposed3456rule making for whatever decisions we believe areappropriate. So, we really tried to set this up sothat it can be absolutely as fast track as we can makeit.7Quite frankly,the ARAC process is the only89process that offers the opportunity for the U.S.Government to meet with private people, including10citizens,to discuss regulations openly and above board11121314151617181920212223and on the table.My predication has always been that if wewere to take a controversial thing like this and notput it into ARAC and just simply do an FAA notice, thatit would become so controversial during the commentsstage that we would actually take more time doing itthat way.CHAIRMAN HALL: Well, I guess -- I don’t wantto leave the impression that we are just beginning. Ithink you had a committee, a comment period, right? --that took place this year in regard to ourrecommendations to the FAA, and the industry puttogether a unique group.24In fact,it seemed to be one of the first25times that I have seen the international and domesticCAPITAL HILL REPORTING, INC.(202) 466-9500

120612manufacturers and associations all come together, andthey made specific comments to the FAA in regard to the3recommendations .Is that not sufficient?4WITNESS McSWEENEY:The recommendations5weren’t t-- the comments we received from the docket6789weren’t specific as to exactly what the solutionsshould be for the fuel triangle, and some peoplerecommended we deal with the sparks, other peoplerecommended we deal with the fuel which showed some10very good promise,and other people said let’s inert1112the tanks,or let’s put foam in.What ARAC is going to do is take all of that13information,the information from the FAA and SAE fuels14conference and the information from this hearing right15here,synergize it all together and come up with a16solution with very specific actions being recommended.17CHAIRMAN HALL:Again, did you say when that1819notice would go out to start the six month periodrunning?20WITNESS McSWEENEY:We have promised to have21the notice out within two months of the letter to the22Board.We will probably beat that time.23CHAIRMAN HALL:Thank you.2425drafted all ready.WITNESS McSWEENEY:The notice is presentlyCAPITAL HILL REPORTING, INC.(202) 466-9500

120712CHAIRMAN HALL:MR. ANDERSON:George?Thank you, sir.3456789BY MR. ANDERSON: (Resuming. )Q Mr. McSweeney, I would like to sort of backup here and discuss the process by which we get fromthe studying of the problem to the final system that ison the commercial airplane.I would like to just briefly list those stepsso that the public understands what we are talking10about here and where we stand.The first step in my1112131415terminology would be a paper study, which we have heardsome of these where no hardware is being built, butconcepts are being evaluated and weighed and so on.The next step is really what you represent inthe FAA, and that is the policy decision of what will16be required.Only when that decision is made can17design begin by the commercial industry, and design is18followed by development,and development in the case of1920212223what we are hearing here may take some time because ofthe problems inherent in using the technology that wemay have seen all ready.The last step is to manufacture hardware, andit has a lead time that may even eclipse the other24areas,and having said that, Mr. McSweeney, I would25like to point out that the military has completed allCAPITAL HILL REPORTING, INC.(202) 466-9500

120812these five steps.They are today operating airplanes with these3systems on board.What I seem to be hearing from you4is that the FAA is still on step one.Have I missed567something,road?Aor have we actually gone further down theTo answer your question, I would like to ask8the question of the military, if I could.91011QMcSweeney?AWho would you like to direct it to, Mr.Either the Air Force or the Navy.1213Q Mr. --WITNESS McSWEENEY:My question is, does14151617either one of the gentlemen representing those servicesbelieve that the existing military systems can beretrofitable right now into commercial airplanes?MR. ANDERSON: Mr. Lauzze?18MR. LAUZZE:I don’t believe you would take19it right off the shelf and retrofit it.I believe202122there would definitely be some study required and a lotof engineering required before it would be directlyapplicable.23MR. ANDERSON:I would think -- is that all,24Mr.Lauzze?25MR. LAUZZE:Yes.CAPITAL HILL REPORTING, INC.(202) 466-9500

1WITNESS McSWEENEY:1209I would then add, because23that is what I thought the answer would be, that it isreally not, first of all, a paper study. It is an4engineering study,it is a risk assessment study.56Anything you do in that fuel tank is going toadd risk. Whatever it is, you have to make sure it is7dealt with.Even foam adds risk to the maintenance8cycle. We heard that yesterday. It --9CHAIRMAN HALL:My only concern on that, Mr.1011McSweeney,of ’96.is why that work didn’t begin in the summer12WITNESS McSWEENEY:In the summer of ’96, I131415don’t think it was clear to anybody as part of thataccident investigation that foam was the immediatesolution to that problem.16CHAIRMAN HALL:I am not saying foam, I am171819saying looking at all these military alternatives thathad been available and had been used, some since theearly 60’s.20WITNESS McSWEENEY:As I said earlier, our21folks began very soon,within a few weeks after the22accident,looking at all possible causes, which then232425led us to all possible solutions. So, we have beenlooking at things.DR. ELLINGSTAD: Excuse me. Could I followCAPITAL HILL REPORTING, INC.(202) 466-9500

1up, Mr. McSweeney?In addition to the ARAC process,12102345you have indicated that there is a considerable amountof research and engineering analysis.What kind of resources is the FAA committing,either in terms of the programs at the Technical6Center,or in terms of any extramural research activity789addressed to these activities?you speaking of?WITNESS McSWEENEY:What activities, now, are10DR. ELLINGSTAD:We are talking about this111213141516171819202122232425whole business of looking at controlling flammability,the kinds of suggestions that have been discussed here.WITNESS McSWEENEY: Well, let me take thethree elements of the triangle, the fire triangle, oneat a time. First of all, fuel. We have written to theAmerican Petroleum Institute and asked them to form agroup to begin looking at using JP-5 in commercialaviation as a replacement for Jet–A. So, we aredealing with that part of the triangle.We believe people like the American PetroleumInstitute have far more expertise than any of us onwhat it would take to do that, because the crackingfacilities in the United States are probably thegreatest issue there.As far as ignition sources, we have issuedCAPITAL HILL REPORTING, INC.(202) 466-9500

12111234567several Airworthiness Directives, we have dealt withtwo possible accident scenarios in our AirworthinessDirectives . One, quite frankly, is a notice, and Irecognize that.As far as the –– dealing with the oxygen, wehave looked at and talked to people who have submittedcomments to our docket proposing everything from CO 2 to8nitrogen inerting.We have spent a lot of time talking910to those people that use nitrogen inerting. Ipersonally have talked to some McDonnell Douglas people1112on the C–17 program. So,to look at all this.we really have made an effort13Now,as far as fuel research itself, up to1415this point we have been more than happy to be just --we have been more than happy to let the NTSB lead that16effort.We know you have ongoing research. We17certainly don’t–– we certainly believe it is headed in18the right direction. So,we have not felt compelled to19do any of that research ourselves.We think that it2021would be a waste of the taxpayer’s money.That is basically it, in a nutshell.I could222324give you more time if you would wish, but that is acapsulation of it.DR. ELLINGSTAD: No, that’s fine, thank you.25CHAIRMAN HALL:Please proceed, Mr. Anderson.CAPITAL HILL REPORTING, INC.(202) 466-9500

1212123Qand Mr.BY MR. ANDERSON: (Resuming. )Mr. McSweeney, your question of the militaryLauzze is interesting, but I would like to45678point out using my frame work here that you are askinghim a question that would take place after the policydecision was made by the FAA to proceed.He could not fairly answer your questionuntil you could tell him what requirements you have set9out for the systems to meet.Is that a true statement?10A First of all, my point in making the11question --asking the question, was that even121314151617when you do have the policy, you have to engineer thesolution to every single airplane, and what isengineered into the 747 might be totally different thanwhat is engineered into any other Boeing product, notto mention the fact that Air Bus and Volker (sic) andothers might do it differently.1819so,be engineered,each and every model of airplane has toand you are correct in saying that the2021222324first step is for the FAA to establish the criteria.We have to define an objective standard to define whatlevel of flammability we would be willing to allow ornot allow in an aircraft.We would not probably, as a result of any25rule making action,mandate a particular solution.CAPITAL HILL REPORTING, INC.(202) 466-9500

1213123There are many who have studied the Agency, includingthe recent NCAR commission who have given us what Ibelieve are very appropriate recommendations to set the4safety objectives,not the design criteria.567It is entirely possible to set a safetystandard and have one manufacturer do inerting andanother manufacturer cool down the tank or remove the8heat sources,or something like that.9Q Yes, Mr. McSweeney, I agree entirely with10your statement,and I think it just enhances this111213process, that what you are saying is that the policyprocess is a daunting thing, because you must considerthe last three steps which is design, development and14manufacture,and they carry with it a lot of1516considerations .However,do you not agree that until the1718policy information is available to the manufacturingand the aircraft operators that we cannot proceed?19APolicy is certainly the first step, and that20is what ARAC is going to be doing.There are some21solutions, though,like JP-5 that don’t have airplane222324design and manufacturing problems.They have other issues that have to beaddressed, but those issues are not with the individual25aircraft itself,and once solved one of those issuesCAPITAL HILL REPORTING, INC.(202) 466-9500

12141would be solved for all aircraft at one time.2CHAIRMAN HALL:Mr. McKinney (sic), since we3are talking about, obviously,something that sounds to4me years in the future, Ms.Garvey’s response to me on5page four says,“the FAA does not now see a significant67891011safety benefit from adding center –– adding fuel to thecenter tank when it would normally be empty, but theFAA is open to any future findings coming from theBoard’s accident investigation.”Have you had an opportunity to look at thework Dr. Shepherd has done, and would that in any way1213impact the FAA’s position,under consideration?or will it at least be taken14151617WITNESS McSWEENEY: Yes, we have had a chanceto look at that. In fact, the very night of thatpresentation I held a meeting with my folks that werehere and we discussed that matter.18What we said in Ms.Garvey’s letter is in192021222324fact true. It still is true. What Dr. Shepherdpresented is information that appears to be differentthan the information we had when we made thatstatement.CHAIRMAN HALL: But, I believe he made thispresentation at the Fuel Flammability Conference to the25whole industry,but that didn’t seem to change theirCAPITAL HILL REPORTING, INC.(202) 466-9500

12151opinion.2WITNESS McSWEENEY:I was just going to get3to that point.The material was presented at the Fuels4Conference.I personally discovered that after it was5presented here.I then talked to lots of folks, both678910in the FAA and outside the FAA who were at thatconference.Nobody that I talked to could recall it fromthat Fuels Conference. So, for some reason it wasn’trecognized for the value –– and I think that is an11appropriate term ––of the presentation from that Fuels12Conference.I don’t know why, but it wasn’t.131415161718CHAIRMAN HALL: Dr. Shepherd, are you --well, let’s let -- Dr. Shepherd, are you that boring,or did you not present the information?DR. SHEPHERD: Well, I sure hope I am notthat boring.(Laughter. )19WITNESS McSWEENEY:Certainly my comment was20not intended to be a personal comment about anybody.21DR. ELLINGSTAD:We might also note that the222324proceedings of that conference were made availablebefore the conference was adjourned, including Dr.Shepherd’s paper.25WITNESS McSWEENEY:That is correct, but I amCAPITAL HILL REPORTING, INC.(202) 466-9500

12161234here to say for the record that that information wasnot considered at all, because we literally didn’tfocus on it and it did not get our attention at thatFuels Conference.56so,information,the letter referred only to otherand I think we still have to spend some7time studying the information that Dr. Shepherd has8presented here,and we began that two days ago.910CHAIRMAN HALL: Well, that’s the main thing.We can have –– there is, obviously, honest11misunderstandings,and if it wasn’t highlighted at the12Conference,then all I am asking is you are going to1314consider that information now?WITNESS McSWEENEY:Absolutely.15CHAIRMAN HALL:Thank you.16DR. LOEB:Mr. McSweeney, I –– just for17clarification on the JP–5 issue which I think is18certainly an interesting ––an interesting prospect, if19202122we can solve the problems within this country, what dowe do about the issues of the availability or non–availability of JP–5 outside of the country and themyriad foreign countries that our carriers fly to?23WITNESS McSWEENEY:That certainly is an24issue that has to be dealt with.There are many cases25when other countries take the lead of the UnitedCAPITAL HILL REPORTING, INC.(202) 466-9500

12171States.There are international oil societies and23organizations,those.and certainly we would be approaching456The encouraging thing about JP-5 is the fortydegrees fahrenheit change in flammability. Itliterally is like taking this curve over here, the tall78curve on the left,horizontal access.and dropping it down to the9That would –– it is not –– I know it is not10mathematically that,but that is what the effect would11be.The other interesting point is that JP-5 is all1213ready approved for the engines of today.I want to not be overly excited about JP-5.14I want to put some caution in there.It does not,15though, give us a freezing point problem.The freezing1617point is equal to,we have now.or a little bit less than the fuels18so,we are not going to have a problem with19cold soak at altitude.It starts a little harder on2021the ground if you cold soak an airplane with fuelovernight at minus degrees.22But,the point is if you could in fact be232425successful with JP–5 in getting it into the airplanes,it would not require a change to the airplane. Itwould give you an immediate improvement such that noCAPITAL HILL REPORTING, INC.(202) 466-9500

121812345wing fuel tank would have an explosive mixtureimmediately.You might have to do more to a center fueltank to drop it a few more degrees, but out analysisshows just using the flammability limits at sea level6that you could go from --you could make a twenty fold78910111213increase in safety in the center fuel tank on the 747.That is worth going after.DR. LOEB: Oh, I agree. I mean, I think itis certainly something that is very worth exploring.How do you intend to address this on the internationallevel, going through IKAO, or just going through abilateral process, or --14WITNESS McSWEENEY:I don’t think IKAO is the15form.I think the international oil consortiums are16probably the way to go.I have already had discussions17with Mobil Oil to try to get them very active into the18ARAC process.My plans in the future -- and I am quite19202122frankly haven’t started the international part yet.I think it is important to get the domesticpart going first -- but, my plans in the future wouldbe to contact people like that and see if we can get23the U.S.industry to stimulate that kind of2425involvement .DR. LOEB:Have you been given any indicationCAPITAL HILL REPORTING, INC.(202) 466-9500

121912from industry what kind of time frame we may be talkingabout to get something going?3WITNESS McSWEENEY:That is the focus of our45letter to the American Petroleum Institute.DR. LOEB: Okay. Well, did we ask for a copy6of that for the record?I don’t think we have seen7that letter, and if we could ––8WITNESS McSWEENEY:We can certainly provide9it.10DR. LOEB:Thank you.1112BY MR. ANDERSON: (Resuming. )Q Mr. McSweeney, in view of the previous13remarks,it would probably be appropriate at this time14to ask you to describe the ARAC members that you know1516of right now.this committee,Who are you going to invite to sit onand who do they represent?17AARAC is a group of people that represent18manufacturers, operators,flying public and citizen192021groups . They represent all elements of aviation. TheFAA doesn’t invite members to sit on particular ARACefforts. ARAC is a standing committee. It is an2223advisory committee under the law.members, I believe, at this point.It has sixty-some24Members themselves -- once ARAC is chartered25with something to do,the members themselves make upCAPITAL HILL REPORTING, INC.(202) 466-9500

12201234their mind as to whether they want to be on thateffort, or not.Sometimes we have reached out to specificmembers and specific elements of the community and5said,“This is important and your input is very6important and, so,we would really encourage you to be78on this particular ARAC effort, because without yourinput into the synergy of the solution, we don’t think910we will probably have the right solution.”kind of how it works.That is1112Q Let me try some names. Would representativesof the airlines be on this ARAC committee?1314AQYes.Would representatives of the Air Transport15Association be on this committee?1617AQI believe so.Would members of manufacturers who18192021manufacture foam products, would manufacturers whomanufacture the various types of nitrogen inerting beon this committee?A That question, I don’t know at this point.2223QAWould that be a good idea?To get the input from those people, yes, that2425would be a very good idea.Q I was --CAPITAL HILL REPORTING, INC.(202) 466-9500

1AYou can be a member of the active working12212group and be representing anybody and not be on the34full committee, though.happen.It is possible for that to56Q Why would they not be a full member? Whywould they be different?78Agroup.ARAC, up to this point, has been a fluidPeople have joined as they see many times the910111213141516171819202122232425opportunity to involve themselves in regulatory actionswith the Agency.I don’t know why the industry that representsany kind of foam or nitrogen inerting haven’t been onARAC . You would really have to ask them. I wouldassume that if they want to become involved and be amember of ARAC right now that their application wouldbe appropriate.We do not invite or bar anybody from being onARAC . I mean, it is an industry, it is a public thing.Q I understand, sir. In your opinion, as wesit here today do you believe that it would beadvantageous to this process to have representationfrom these industries?A Yes, I do.Q Thank you. I would like to ask anotherquestion, Mr. McSweeney. In your role of settingCAPITAL HILL REPORTING, INC.(202) 466-9500

122212standards which, of course, as we said before, is thevery beginning of this process of getting safer3airplanes,is there anything in the certifications456regulations that you write and make available to theindustry that limits the amount of safety that anoperator can put on his airplane?7In other words,are there airplanes out there8that are safer than others because of their designs?910Asafety.Our regulations define a very high level ofOne of the things that I absolutely despise is11the word “minimum.”It is a legal term, I believe. It1213141516is minimal –– it is the minimum standards that arerequired, but they certainly are not minimum safety.We set a very high safety standard.When the FAA certifies an aircraft, itcertifies that that aircraft complies with those very17high standards.It does not say that that airplane is18safe ror that one airplane is safer than another. It1920212223says that the standards on which that safety have beenjudged have been met.We do not have a way -- and I don’t believeanybody has a way –– of looking at an airplane andsaying overall it is safer than another airplane. It24is a very ––it would be a very complicated thing.25There are airplanes that for some very goodCAPITAL HILL REPORTING, INC.(202) 466-9500

12231reasons,like airline dispatch requirements, have23components in them that go beyond –– and levels ofsafety that go beyond what the regulations require.4Those are for economic reasons.They are not5for safety reasons.They are so that when you are6sitting at the gate and a particular component happens7to fail,they can go to the master minimum equipment8list,or their minimum equipment list, they can do what9101112131415161718192021is necessary and dispatch the airplane so the hundredsof people on that airplane can get to theirdestination. So, that is kind of why that equipment isin there.(Tape change. )Q Thank you, sir. Is there -- let’s take ahypothetical situation in which an airline decided thatthey wanted to speed up the process that we perhaps arebeginning here and try an advance type of system.Would there be anything in the certificationregulations that would prohibit somebody from movingahead in a more quick manner? –– and the FAR is what Iam referring to.22AThere is nothing prohibiting anybody from232425putting anything in the airplane that will improvesafety. We would have to do two things. We would haveto make sure that it is, in fact, an improvement inCAPITAL HILL REPORTING, INC.(202) 466-9500

1safety,and we would have to make sure –– and this is12242most important ––that it is fully certified as3improved before it goes in airline passenger operation.45In other words,to do any kind of testing.we don’t use airline aircraftIt would have to have been67totally proven out before then.Q But, if an airline decided they wanted this8to begin,would you work with them and would you910111213accelerate the process so that they would be able to dothis?A Oh, absolutely. I mean, we would be morethan willing to work with anybody about anything thathas to do with safety.1415Qyesterday.That gets me back to our discussionsWould the military’s experience and the161718fact that the military has fielded systems that areoperating help you and speed you on that process?A Well, that’s almost a given in my mind. I19mean,any technical information that has been –– that20is available from past efforts is certainly going to21speed up a future effort,because we all learn by2223connecting what we know to what new information wehave.2425QAThank you, sir.That is the way the human works.CAPITAL HILL REPORTING, INC.(202) 466-9500

12251 MR. ANDERSON: I would like to go to Mr.2 Thomas just for a side question here along this line.345678910111213141516171819202122232425CAPITAL HILL REPORTING, INC.(202) 466-9500

1226123456DIRECT EXAMINATIONBY MR. ANDERSON:Q Good morning, Mr. Thomas. To your memory,has Boeing Aircraft ever received specific requirementsfor an airplane that they bought which weren’t yourgeneric offering?7ACould you repeat the question?8910111213Q Yes. When a customer comes to you, have theyasked for special features that you don’t routinelyoffer on a ––CHAIRMAN HALL: Mr. Anderson, let me get thismore specific. Mr. Thomas, first of all, Iappreciate –– what is this, your fourth or fifth panel?1415WITNESS THOMAS:CHAIRMAN HALL:Fourth time, I believe.That is -- and as anybody who1617has had the opportunity to sit under these lights, youknow what a pleasure that is.18WITNESS THOMAS:Yes.19CHAIRMAN HALL: You know, the Safety Board20has 400 employees.The FAA has about 40,000, and about21222324254,000 of those are in Flight Standards. Boeing is theflagship industry of our nation, with over 200,000employees.Could you tell me what you all have donesince the TWA accident in the area of looking at foam,CAPITAL HILL REPORTING, INC.(202) 466-9500

1looking at inerting,1227looking at the possibility of any23technology that would keep wires out of fuel tanks, anythings that would run the wires for the fuel quantity4indication system in a ––separate from the low signal5wires,or to add some shielding which I think is6789usually done in the chemical industry any time you haveparallel wires like that run?What has Boeing done in that regard since theaccident?1011WITNESS THOMAS:Let me try and answer it.That is a long question.We have been studying all of121314these options basically since we realized that we werenot going to find an easy solution to TWA 800.It became very obvious we needed to expand15our attention.The NTSB recommendations focused our1617attention on a lot of these things.study those things.We undertook to18We have looked at fuel tank inerting, we have19looked at foam,we have looked at JP–5, we have looked20at ullage sweeping.We have done all of these things.212223We have looked very carefully at our systems. Wecontinue to do so.We have looked at are there techniques to get24away from electrical driven fuel pumps.These things25are all the issues we have been looking at.Shielding;CAPITAL HILL REPORTING, INC.(202) 466-9500

12281I am not an electrical engineer.I know we have234567discussed it at length as to the options.Some of our later airplanes are shieldedalready simply for performance reasons, particularlythe later airplanes where we changed technology in howwe sense the signals to and from the gaging system.We required those systems be shielded, so we8have incorporated those into the later airplanes.Not9for safety, per se,but for performance reasons where101112there are some side benefits from that. So, we havedone all of that.We were -- a lot of that is -- you referred13to the industry response to the FAA.A lot of those14studies are documented in that response.I was15literally technical leader, if I can use that term, of16that response,and a lot of the work was based upon171819202122232425studies done at the Boeing Company and in cooperationwith McDonnell Douglas.At the time we did all of that work,McDonnell Douglas was still a separate corporation andwe cooperated with McDonnell Douglas, we cooperatedwith Air Bus and we cooperated with Lockheed.CHAIRMAN HALL: Have you -- do you anticipateparticipating in this ARAC committee that the FAA willput together?CAPITAL HILL REPORTING, INC.(202) 466-9500

123will participate.WITNESS THOMAS:CHAIRMAN HALL:1229The Boeing Company certainlyWhat is done in the Boeing45678Company between the military side of the house and thecommercial side of the house in sharing safetyinformation on similar products, aircraft types, andwhat have you done?Are there any of the Boeing aircraft types9that have the foam or the inerting systems?Any101112experience that you would want to share with us?WITNESS THOMAS: Yes, sir. Certainly. Theanswer to the first part of your question as far as13sharing information;there is a -- not what I would14151617call a formal process of us going over to the militaryside of the house and vice versa.We do on a regular basis exchange employees.If the military has a need for a two year project, one18of our engineers,or two or three of our engineers will19be loaned to that military project.When they come2021back, they will bring that information with them.I certainly have been involved in that kind22of thing.So, most of the fuel system -- particularly23the senior fuel system people get involved.One of the2425issues, obviously, on the military side of the house issecurity.CAPITAL HILL REPORTING, INC.(202) 466-9500

123012345We have black holes where people literallydisappear for six months and, you know, we just do notsee or hear from them. You know, we know they areworking on a military project.When they reappear in the commercial side of6the house,they actually cannot talk about the7891011specifics of what they were working on, but if there issome particular safety benefit, then that becomesavailable.A good example of that is the study of a fueltank inerting system we reported in our response to the12FAA .We had two key players in that activity in the13Boeing Company,both of whom had worked on military14151617airplanes and were very, very familiar with themilitary side of the house and development of the OBIGsystem.We use the military side of the house, the18computer codes, the size, the OBIG system.We used192021those codes to develop the response that was in the --that we sent to the FAA. So, there is a lot of -- Ithink -- I myself, personally have worked at various22times on fuel tank inerting.We have looked at foams.232425The presentations that were given yesterday,I was certainly familiar with all of the informationpresented.CAPITAL HILL REPORTING, INC.(202) 466-9500

12CHAIRMAN HALL:specific information ––Can you give us again what1231action has been taken by Boeing3since ––under service bulletin since the accident in4regard to the 747 center fuel tank system?5WITNESS THOMAS:I am not sure I can come up6with a complete list. I can certainly sit down with --78CHAIRMAN HALL:here in a little while,Well, we will take a breakand if you could get the table9to do it.I would like to just have on the record the10things that the company has done, and I understand that1112you all had some concerns about inerting.to put those on the record?Do you want13WITNESS THOMAS:I would certainly like to1415speak to that after the break.CHAIRMAN HALL: Okay. I am sorry, Mr.1617Anderson,ahead.I keep interrupting, but it is day five. Go18MR. ANDERSON:Thank you, sir.1920BY MR. ANDERSON: (Resuming. )Q Mr. Thomas, following on, I am interested in21the perception of your customers over time.Has222324anybody discussed inerting or other means of enhancingprotection of fuel tanks on any of your products?I would ask you to consider both your25military and commercial customers.Have they inquiredCAPITAL HILL REPORTING, INC.(202) 466-9500

1about these programs?1232Have you bid to the military to2345678produce an alternate system than what is currently inuse?A Excuse me, what was the word you used? ––bid?Q Bid. When you –– normally the process ofobtaining business from the military is that you bid.You submit a bid where you have a design and the910military evaluates it,you the contract.and if they like it they award11A As I demonstrated, I am not familiar with the12military side of the house.I have been in the1314commercial sidecareer.of the Boeing Company for all my1516171819202122As far as customers coming to us, yes, thecustomers have come and asked our opinions on a lot ofthese issues. We have responded. Certainly when weput together the response to the FAA, a lot of ourcustomers were involved in looking at those responses.Q Thank you sir. I --CHAIRMAN HALL: Mr. Thomas, so I understand,if you don’t think it is unfair for the Chairman to23ask,since the taxpayers basically fund the military in24this country,that if there is safety information that25that somehow gets transferred?I don’t want to be outCAPITAL HILL REPORTING, INC.(202) 466-9500

1233123of order here.WITNESS THOMAS: No, absolutely, sir. Ithink what we try and do --4CHAIRMAN HALL:And I don’t think that most5Americans want –– you know,they are not interested in67strafing areas in their commercial planes, so there isa difference.8But,if there is safety things; fuel tank,9101112electrical system, things like that, you know, couldyou maybe look at how you might be sure you got allthose safety benefits being exchanged?WITNESS THOMAS: Yes, sir. I think that13is–– I think a lot of what is going on takes place in1415the open committees, the SAE meetings, those kinds ofthings .16There is-- that is probably where the171819military and the commercial side come together forconversations and to catch up with what is going on.We have members on those SAE committees.20They bring back information.I see regular21reports from those activities.That is probably why I22232425know -- I am pretty familiar with most of the topicsthat have been talked about this morning.CHAIRMAN HALL: Well, again, that is what gotme back –– you know, the testimony –– I guess it wasCAPITAL HILL REPORTING, INC.(202) 466-9500

12341Dr.Ball about losing the 5,000 planes during the234567Vietnam era and how much better we did in the Gulf Warand, you know, that is all technology and things welearned through the loss of American lives and theexpenditure of American dollars, and I would just liketo be sure we have that benefit on the commercial side,as well.8WITNESS THOMAS:On that point I would -- for910the record,you know --when we have been talking about looking at,1 lost the right word -- external threats11to the airplane.When we were considering those we12engaged with our military people.The survivability1314and vulnerability people on the F–22 were brought intothe team and supported us for many, many months.15CHAIRMAN HALL:What are you doing on the16fuels area?Did we touch on that, Mr. Anderson?17MR. ANDERSON: I would like to develop --18CHAIRMAN HALL:Is that a future question?19What,have you all been looking at any alternate fuels?20WITNESS THOMAS:I believe we were the21company that proposed looking at JP–5, sir, when we22first started talking about this.Because of the forty23degree shift to the right, if you will, on the curve of24the flammability,we could see there was some25significant benefits and, as Mr. McSweeney has said, itCAPITAL HILL REPORTING, INC.(202) 466-9500

1235123becomes an option that becomes readily available to allthe fleet.CHAIRMAN HALL: Dr. Shepherd, have we looked4at JP–5?Is that something that could be incorporated56in your work?DR. SHEPHERD:We could do that, but we789101112haven’t done that at this point.CHAIRMAN HALL: All right, but we might --that is something we might want to get Mr. McSweeneyand Mr. Thomas’ input on, and that is something that weought to do as part of this –– your ongoing efforts ––that is something we ought to consider.13141516MR.on a questionIvor Thomas?talked ratherBIRKY: Mr. Chairman, could I follow upyou had asked a little while ago of Mr.After the Filipino explosion, I know weextensively about the technology of171819gaging the tank without putting wires in the tank.Is any technology being pursued, development,or what is available to do that at this time?20WITNESS THOMAS:At the present time the2122232425technologies we have looked at on the 777; we use a newtechnology called ultrasonic technology, which is inlayman’s terms a sonar pinger at the bottom of the tankthat sends a pulse of sound to the fuel servers.It bounces back down, and you time the –– youCAPITAL HILL REPORTING, INC.(202) 466-9500

12361basically measure the time it takes to travel that2distance,and then the computer calculates the height3456of the fuel and then calculates how much fuel is in thetank. That is the technology. That still involveswiring going into the tank.We have looked at and have tested -- what’s7the right word?-- pressure sensitive systems. In8other words,it will have three pressure sensors in a9triangle.I can measure the height of the fuel from1011those three pressure sensors and also the angle of thesurface.12so,if I now know the attitude of the13airplane and the angle of the surface, mathematically I14can calculate how much fuel is in the tank.We have15tried that in a limited experiment.The problem there1617is the accuracy of the pressure transducers and thereliability of the pressure transducers to be able18to -- you know,we want to be able to measure a quarter192021of an inch so we can calculate the fuel accuratelyenough.We currently have gaging systems that are22accurate to half of one percent of the tank.If you23are lucky,your average gas gage is probably good to2425maybe twenty percent.hopelessly inaccurate.My car at low fuel volumes isCAPITAL HILL REPORTING, INC.(202) 466-9500

1so,in that regard it is very important if1237234the gentleman next to me wants to know how much fuel isin his airplane. As a result, we have to be very, veryaccurate and very reliable. So, we have looked at5those things. So,I think that answers the question.678910We continue to look at alternatives.People have proposed fiber optic systems tolook at fuel tanks, also.CHAIRMAN HALL: Mr. Thomas, since this, haveyou all looked at what is done in the chemical industry11and the nuclear industry?I have gotten so many12letters from people with Ph.D. and stuff after their13name saying, you know,these -- we had these things and14experiences in the marine industry, and I know it is15not exactly compatible,but is there anything we can1617learn from the experience in other industries?you all looked at those?Have18WITNESS THOMAS:At this point we have done19some limited looking.I think we need to go further.20We have some engineers who have been in the oil21business,or the petrochemical industries. So, we get22232425some feedback from those people and we discuss it.We have not pursued that at a high level. Wehave been focusing on other solutions, like JP-5. So,I think we need to continue with that expansion of ourCAPITAL HILL REPORTING, INC.(202) 466-9500

1238123knowledge base into the petrochemical industry andnuclear industry. But, we have not done a lot at thispoint.4CHAIRMAN HALL:Well, my brother is a5678chemical engineer. He went, unfortunately, toVanderbilt University.(Laughter. )I went to the University of Tennessee, but he910has been talking to me sinceChairman about this accident,–– everybody talks to theand I am pleased to hear111213you are going to pursue those things, because he thinksthere are things that might be able to be learned fromthe refining and chemical industries.14MR. BIRKY:The interesting thing, I think,151617181920from the chemical industry is they start with a littlebit of a different philosophy or premise; they cannotdesign out all ignition sources, so they have to takesome other action.I wonder if that philosophy would beapplicable in this environment we are talking about.21so,I am suggesting we might look at removing all22electrical systems from a tank, for example.23WITNESS THOMAS:We have talked about that.24As I said, we have talked about going to non-electrical25FQIS fuel gaging systems.We have talked about non–CAPITAL HILL REPORTING, INC.(202) 466-9500

12electric pumps, or moving the –– you know,non–electrical devices that we could use.1239finding some3We have talked about that.That is a fairly4long research project to develop these things.Our5current technology has taken us a long time to develop67to the state of the art where it is right now.to go further, I think.We need8There is–– I came back to the Chairman’s9comment about the military.I think the military has10111213probably used more hydraulically driven pumps and othersuch things on the fighters than we ever have, and Ithink there is a database that we need to go andexplore.14CHAIRMAN HALL:We don’t have any of the15engine manufacturers involved as a party to this16investigation,but Mr. McSweeney and Mr. Thomas, are17you all working with them in terms of the JP-5 and1819looking at the fuels, as well,the ARAC group?and they will be part of20WITNESS McSWEENEY: Yeah. Two weeks ago I21contacted my ––the Director and Manager and the Engine222324Director who reports to me to make sure that they had aspecific effort working with the major enginemanufacturers to begin looking at JP–5 well before even25we got into it on ARAC,to make sure all of the dataCAPITAL HILL REPORTING, INC.(202) 466-9500

124012was ready to go, and they have looked at it. I sincehave received two pieces of information back.3CHAIRMAN HALL:Let me apologize and correct4the record. Dr.Loeb correctly points out that we do567have an engine manufacturer as a party, but they havenot been designated as a party to this hearing becausethat was not an issue.8WITNESS THOMAS:If I can follow up on Mr.9McSweeney’s reply as far as involving the engine10companies .I am the Chairman of the Propulsion11Harmonization Working Group,which is another working121314151617group to look at the harmonization of rules alsosponsored under the ARAC process.We had a meeting in Phoenix probably sixweeks ago where we discussed at length the upcomingARAC activities to make sure that all the engine andthe auxiliary power unit people, which are also18involved in this,were aware of this upcoming activity.1920ready.so, I think the industry is aware. We areWe will work with the FAA on this very hard.21CHAIRMAN HALL:Mr. McSweeney, how would you22involve the military,these three gentlemen at the end23of the table that seem to have some knowledge in this24area?Would they be on the working group, or could the25working group access their information?CAPITAL HILL REPORTING, INC.(202) 466-9500

1WITNESS McSWEENEY:1241Well, whether or not they2are on the working group,I would leave it up to them.3But,certainly to proceed forward and not access their45information would be wrong. So, we are certainly goingto have to do that.6CHAIRMAN HALL:Thank you.789that.BY MR. ANDERSON: (Resuming. )Q Mr. McSweeney, I would like to follow up onWould you invite -- be prepared to invite them10to participate today?11AOn the working group, yes, we can do that.12131415As a member of ARAC, it -- it -- I don’t know theprocess by which we would do that. But, as a workinggroup -- we have had -- we have had the militaryinvolved in our programs at the Tech Center, be it16Halon replacement,or be it investigations of fuel and171819202122232425flammability in the past.We have direct contacts in the researchcommunity with the military on a great deal of –– agreat number of projects. So, it wouldn’t be uniquefor us.Q Yes, sir. I –– what I am getting at here isnot that the military has not been consulted or thatyou are unaware of their research, but there is acommunication process going on with that committeeCAPITAL HILL REPORTING, INC.(202) 466-9500

124212where people make inputs and reports are generated.It would be comforting to know that their34inputs would be made in that final report.understand?Do YOU5A Well, yes. I already said yes, they would6be.7Q Yes, and -- so, because most people see the8results;they don’t see the process. So, if things get910lost in the process there is no way of tracking itanymore.11At any rate,I wanted to kind of bring to1213141516closure this area of discussion, and to do that Iwanted –– we are going to get into later the FAA’srequest for public comments on the NTSB recommendation.We have a copy here. There were over 700pages of public comments received by the FAA relative17to your request. So,we would like to discuss that,18but before that, because I think it is relevant to what19we have been discussing,especially with Boeing, we2021222324have a letter here from a person who represents acompany who produced foam, Kaleidoscope Company.I would just like to read into the recordjust a short part of this discussion, because this isanother view of what we have been discussing, and I25quote,“Any change to the 747 fleet or others willCAPITAL HILL REPORTING, INC.(202) 466-9500

12431234require engineering and some engineering changes.”“The penalties and added weight, cost, fuelcapacity and added other costs are expected. A 747center wing tank foam kit would require about twenty5days design work,and an additional thirty days to6provide a proof kit.Kit costs un-installed would be789101112less than $100,000 each,” and so on.This is an opposing view that I believeshould be considered in this committee, and I amconcerned that there should be some representation ofthese kind of specific numbers.A You know, as I have already said, we are13going to consider all that input.I would ask you,1415161718192021though, if you are going to put that comment in thedocket that maybe the other thousand pages of commentsought to be also in the docket because that is the onlyway I think the American public are going to see whatall the comments have said.CHAIRMAN HALL: That will be done. Let’s putthe whole comments in the docket.MR. ANDERSON: Yes, we will certainly be glad22to do that,and when we proceed further we will try to2324call upon your memory and deal with those that you feelare helpful to illustrate the problems.25CHAIRMAN HALL:The only thing, Mr.CAPITAL HILL REPORTING, INC.(202) 466-9500

1McSweeney,I would like to mention is that -- and the12442345reason I think Mr. Anderson is pursuing this and we areconcerned about it is that there were a lot ofrepresentations .We understand that things have to make sense6dollar-wise, but, you know,we had an experience here789101112recently with the Value Jet accident where theestimates and the actual cost of installing thesuppression equipment in the cargo holds turned out tobe dramatically different.Since you do have to go through a costbenefit analysis on some of these items under the13present process,we want to be sure that you are14151617getting a wide range of estimates from individuals andmanufacturers and airlines and other interestedparties. So, that is –– I think that is one of ourconcerns.18WITNESS McSWEENEY:I certainly share that19concern,and I thank you for affording people the2021opportunity to see all the comments.I think the first issue that we are going to22address, though, is not cost.The first issue we are23going to address is safety,and we have got to look at24the safety objective of where we are headed in this25effort,and that has to drive everything we are doing.CAPITAL HILL REPORTING, INC.(202) 466-9500

124512345MR. SWAIM: Mr. McSweeney, I have a question,a couple of questions for you before we get too farfrom our last part of the conversation.In the 70’s the FAA -- you had mentioned thatthe flammability studies previously were for post-crash6fires.In the 70’s the FAA went so far as to SDC a DC-789 with a nitrogen system.My question is,what is to keep this effort910going that it does not get like the post-crash firefuel misting effort and run out of steam at some point11there?How many NRS’S or other people do you have12dedicated to this type of an effort?13WITNESS McSWEENEY:We have -- not counting14151617181920212223the people at the Tech Center that are supporting usand have a lot of experience in this area, we havespent on this accident I would say over 15,000 hours ofwork, and at one time or another I have had over 100people working on this program.I don’t know how I would respond to apresumption that maybe we will slow down our vigor onthis effort, because all I can say to you is thiseffort has been a top effort in our organization.It has been one that I have personally been24involved in.I brought nine personal notebooks of25information to this hearing that I have amassed myself,CAPITAL HILL REPORTING, INC.(202) 466-9500

12and I am not making the technical decisions.manager.Iama12463so,we are on top of this as much as we can4567be. I have 1,000 resources at my beck and call. About350 of those are engineers. We will put whateverpeople we need to on this -- on this effort.I think it is important to recognize that the8real message behind Ms.Garvey’s letter is that we9have -- there is no doubt, we are going to do10something.What is up for debate is how are we going11121314to take those three sides of the triangle and develop asynergy of those solutions that is the best solutionfor this and all other possible ignition sources.MR. SWAIM: Great, thank you. That is what I15wanted to hear.My next question is –– you had16mentioned –– you had used the word “minimizing the17flammability” earlier.My question is, how far in1819202122general terms are we talking?Are we talking a six percent reduction in thetime that we have a flammability problem, or are wetalking about reducing to six percent the exposure, orare we talking about trying to make it go away totally?23WITNESS McSWEENEY:I believe the words I24used and the words that are in our documentation are25“minimize or eliminate.”We haven’t ruled outCAPITAL HILL REPORTING, INC.(202) 466-9500

124712eliminating.so, the key is, if you look at some of the3possible solutions you have,I think that whole range4from where we are today to total and absolute5elimination.We haven’t ruled that out.6What we want to do is to see what are the7possibilities that is out there.If JP-5, for8instance, proves out,we could probably get a twenty9fold reduction in accidents,twenty fold increase in10safety.What we -- what you might want to add to that111213to get you down to zero times in flight when you wouldhave an explosive mixture might be quite minimal.You could also look at it from, “well, we14won’t deal with the fuel,we will deal with inerting15the tanks.”Whatever the solution is, I think it all1617181920212223has to meet the same safety objective of significantlyreducing or eliminating explosions in fuel tanks.MR. SWAIM: Thank you. George?MR. ANDERSON: Thank you, sir. I would liketo go over to Captain Steve Green at this time.Whereupon,CAPTAIN STEVE GREEN,was called as witnesses by and on behalf of the NTSB,24and,after having been first duly sworn, was examined25and testified on his oath as follows.CAPITAL HILL REPORTING, INC.(202) 466-9500

1248123BY MR. ANDERSON:DIRECT EXAMINATIONQ Good morning, Captain Green.45AQGood morning, Mr. Anderson.I want to say first that when we put together67this panel I think that the -- Mr. Green representingALPA, Air Line Pilots Association, we were at least a8little bit wondering where–– why they belonged on this9101112panel, and my feeling about it was that we had todiscuss among the other complexities the importance ofthe final operator of any new modification or system,or whatever came out of this process of change.13Captain Green,we have been discussing some14significant potential here that would affect the15commercial air fleet.I would ask you, what are some16of the operational concerns.That would be from the17crew members,the maintainers and the people that you18work with every day that you would envision as meeting19scrutiny ––and I know that you have some other2021222324comments concerning the methodology that might be usedto approach this.A Okay, I think I can address that. I firstwanted to establish, Mr. Chairman, some of my basiccredentials . Number one, I have been in the center25tank; two,I have read Dr. Ball’s book; and three, weCAPITAL HILL REPORTING, INC.(202) 466-9500

12491will be at the ARAC.2so,we have covered most of those issues, I34think, all ready. Can I put up my first slide?(Slide shown.)5Thank you.I want to borrow a little bit6from Dr.Ball’s book and go back to his basic equation78of combat survivability in which he said that that wasequal to one minus susceptibility times vulnerability.9In his case,he is defining susceptibility as exposure10to a military damage mechanism, a missile round or some11type of weaponry,and vulnerability is the damage121314151617mechanism in tolerance that the airplane exhibits.I think part of the effort here is trying todevelop a way to write across some of the militarydesign philosophy into the civilian sector, and I thinkwe can do that beginning with this equation.If we move into the civilian side of the18house,we can write this to say that Flight Safety will19equal one minus the susceptibility times the20vulnerability, as well,except in our case we define212223the susceptibility differently.It is not a combat threat, it is an exposureto a system failure and/or a damage mechanism within24the system.Our vulnerability remains very much the25same.It is an intolerance to system failure, or theCAPITAL HILL REPORTING, INC.(202) 466-9500

12501234damage mechanism.I think the thing that is significant tofocus on here is that the susceptibility we are dealingwith is very different from the susceptibility that the5military is dealing with.We carry our damage threats6on board the airplane.They are not located at some78geographic site that either can be avoided or perhapsnot avoided.9In other words,I don’t have the opportunity10to elect to operate within the exposure area.I am111213operating in the exposure area from the time I step onthe airplane to the time I step off.That really is what has driven the civilian14approach to this all along.If we take the Flight15161718192021Safety term, we want to make it one. There are anumber of ways that –– well, two ways we can do it.One is we can drive susceptibility to zero,or we can drive vulnerability to zero, or we can doboth . Traditionally, we try to drive susceptibility tozero because we are exposed to that damage source allthe time.22As I said,it is part of our mission. We23can’t say, “well, today the inerting system doesn’t24work,so we are not going to fly this airplane in25combat. “CAPITAL HILL REPORTING, INC.(202) 466-9500

125112This remains an important concept, but whatwe are proposing now is that we move towards driving3both of these terms to zero,which obviously enhances45the opportunity to get a one out of the Flight Safetynumber.6But,I think we want to be careful that we7don’t look at this as a swap of philosophies.In other8words,I don’t want to do away with the approach of9eliminating ignition sources.I have got to have a10fuel tank with no ignition sources in it, even if I11inert the tank because,depending on the design, I12131415161718don’t know if my inerting system is going to be with meall the time, or not.What is even more important is that a similardamage mechanism may attack other vulnerabilities, andone of the things that I think we may have forgottenhere is that due to the outstanding work, for therecord, that Mr. Swaim has done in investigating19aircraft wiring,we may have identified a damage202122232425mechanism that can do me a lot of damage in a number ofother ways besides exposing an ullage. So, that damagemechanism becomes very interesting in and of itself.Reducing that susceptibility has to remainprimary because of the capability of that damagemechanism to influence other vulnerabilities, and thenCAPITAL HILL REPORTING, INC.(202) 466-9500

12521234567also because my vulnerability reduction, if it isinerting, or what have you, depending on design, mayfail during flight.If I am half way across the Atlantic with anitrogen inerting system and the little light comes onand says that the inerting is no longer maintaining anine percent oxygen content in my tank, it has gone up8to fifteen,I hope there are no ignition sources in9there.I can’t afford that.10so,this is really not a design philosophy11swap.It is an improvement in design philosophy, and a12radical improvement and a needed improvement.But, it1314is a little different than perhaps the way it has beenportrayed in the media to date.15From our perspective,vulnerability reduction16171819must, first of all, have no adverse impact on aircraftsystem reliability. Now, Mr. Thomas mentioned theother day that the primary purpose behind the fuelsystem is to provide a reliable and safe fuel flow to20the engines,and I am rather fond of that.21I cannot afford any adverse impact.I can’t22have a vent valve cause me a flow problem.I don’t232425have vent valves now, but I would if I put a nitrogeninerting system in it, or some designs of it.I can’t have a piece of hydrolyticallyCAPITAL HILL REPORTING, INC.(202) 466-9500

1unstable foam wandering around the fuel system.1253These2are all considerations.They are not insurmountable,34but they are all considerations that we have to focuson.5Secondly,one of the interesting aspects of6789101112131415161718some active inerting systems is that it moves theresponsibility for maintaining a safe fuel tank intothe cockpit to one degree or another, and that’s fine.We have a number of other systems we are responsiblefor.We are not necessarily objecting to having anadditional one, but if we go that particular route, ifthat is the option that is chosen, the system needs toexhibit a safe and reliable man–machine interface. Wedon’t want to have a system that comes into the cockpitthat introduces a couple more problems that openthemselves up to human error, et cetera, et cetera.Finally, I think, you know, the thing that is19also important ––and for this reason we had more or20less independently arrived at the conclusion that JP-52122was a very interesting alternative.this to all fuel tanks.We need to apply23The center fuel tank is the focus of24attention for obvious reasons,but if we go back to the25Madrid accident we see the affects of an outboard wingCAPITAL HILL REPORTING, INC.(202) 466-9500

1fuel tank explosion.1254We really can’t tolerate any fuel2tank explosions,and we need to apply it to all3456789aircraft and scheduled passenger service, and I thinkthe Board is familiar with that area of discussion.But, we have been focused on large aircraft. We thinkthe solution needs to incorporate everything down to aBeach 1900 and right on up.The most important thing, as I said, though,is the design philosophy that exists today must not10change.It must be augmented by vulnerability11reduction. But, we can’t afford to let go of that12susceptibility issue.Again, I am really interested in13141516171819202122the other ramifications of some of the ignition sourcepossibilities that we have been talking about.That pretty much concludes that area that Iwanted to talk with you about.CHAIRMAN HALL: Well, let me just comment onthat briefly, Captain Green. I think your thoughts arewell thought out and well presented.The Safety Board’s position has been a twotrackapproach to continue to look at removing thepossibility of the ignition sources which has to be23done,as well as addressing the subject of explosive2425vapors which previously had not been as fully addressedas the other subject had been.CAPITAL HILL REPORTING, INC.(202) 466-9500

1255123451, again, am very pleased to see that fromboth the Federal Aviation Administration and the BoeingCommercial Airplane Group that that is a commitmentthat the American people now have, that those both aregoing to be addressed.6In addition,we looked in our recommendations7891011at both the short term and long term, because werealize that a lot of this involves design engineering,and you don’t want to put anything on the airplane thatwould cause it to be less safe. But, SO, we had madeshort term and long term recommendations.12so,I thank you for a well thought out, well1314presented presentation.MR. ANDERSON:Mr. Anderson?Thank you, sir.1516171819202122BY MR. ANDERSON: (Resuming. )Q Captain Green, you made I believe animportant point when you talked about the –– rather,extending this problem to handle all airplanes,basically referring to size and type, but that areendangered.Could you expand on that a little more andsort of give your concept of that complexity?23AI think it goes back to a requirement.24Again, as I think we have all been discussing, if we25can establish,which is what we would hope to doCAPITAL HILL REPORTING, INC.(202) 466-9500

1through the ARAC process,a requirement for reducing12562345the flammability of a tank, then it falls upon themanufacturer to decide what technology he is going touse to do that.There is obviously a variety of6opportunities,and I don’t think there is any need for7all airplanes to use the same technology.The concept89of a nitrogen inerting system on a Beach 1900 has gotto be kind of overwhelming to the poor folks at10Raytheon,and yet it may be reasonable for an airplane11such as the 747,depending on how it is developed.12We are very interested in -- and13consequently,we are very interested in universal1415161718solutions, beginning with a look at JP-5 or derivativefuels, because obviously they apply to all turbinepowered airplanes and it is a rather elegant solution,if it is a solution at all.Foam is another interesting angle, because it19is applicable to small fuel tanks.The military has20made good use of it in small fuel tanks.It also has2122no moving parts,attractive.which is something we also find very23But,I think the main thing that is important24is that we establish a requirement for how we are ––25you know,what the flammability must be, or what theCAPITAL HILL REPORTING, INC.(202) 466-9500

12571234reduction must be in the tank and then move on fromthere.Q I understand. As a charter member of thegroup that will be attempting to produce5recommendations,are you comfortable that the obvious67891011121314bias that is a natural part of diverse group of partiescoming together to do a technical job is going to beheld in abeyance while this important work continues?What I mean by that is, I detect a strongbias against certain technology, and I understand thatprobably part of that is because of the daunting costsor the unknowns, but how does one, when you aredrafting policy, not be thinking about these? Howwould you imagine that would be put aside?15AI think that is an interesting question. I161718think you are referring specifically towards the ARACprocess, or something of that nature?Q At least the ARAC process. I know there is19many more processes,including, you know, public20discussion and the forums.21AI think to begin with it -- we have to22232425remember that we have got a very, very majordevastating accident at hand here which, frankly, in myexperience with the ARAC process, we are not alwaysequipped with that close and meaningful a purpose.CAPITAL HILL REPORTING, INC.(202) 466-9500

1Secondly,1258there has been quite an educational2process going on in the industry, beginning with the3flammability conference,and certainly with this4hearing, which has been very,very informative for me.567I think as we develop that information, the better wedevelop it when we go into the ARAC process, it clearsaway a lot of those obstacles.8Finally,the FAA has taken the initiative to91011put at least that process on a six month time line,which is something they haven’t done before, and I havebeen involved in the ARAC process for several years, as12you may be aware,with in flight icing, and have131415161718experienced the frustrations of that.I think this is maybe a little bit of adifferent approach that they are taking now.Q Thank you. I just have one final question,and it has to do with testing. What is needed? Whatis the key part in a lot of what you express are19concerns?Is it the reliability of the system, that it20212223is properly designed and it does not contain inherentfailure modes?That is one thing that was brought out Ithink yesterday, but perhaps not emphasized in this24context,and that is that a system once proposed and25even shown to function is not ready to be put on anCAPITAL HILL REPORTING, INC.(202) 466-9500

12591aircraft or a fleet, but money must be expended for2testing.In some cases the more complex the system the34more money must be spent,one of the drivers.and I suppose that will be5678Do you feel that this is something thatshould move ahead on an accelerated schedule?A We certainly do. I mean, I can’toveremphasize our feeling that there is a need to do9this sort of thing.We generally don’t approach this10111213141516171819202122from a financial side of the house, because we areobviously not paying any of the bills. But, we do haveto keep in mind that somebody is, and we do have to getit done.We are really interested in a solution, andwe are also interested in making sure that we don’tengage in something that is so costly that it becomesalmost un–doable. So, we need to keep it all inbalance, but we do want to accelerate this work.Q Yes, sir. My final point there would bewould it not be meaningful and important to at leastconduct some testing to resolve some of the questionsthat arise during the ARAC so that their final results,2324if you will,information?are informed and based on more factual25A I think that is definitely a need. In fact,CAPITAL HILL REPORTING, INC.(202) 466-9500

12601the more information we have going into the ARAC2process, the better that would work.I think that Mr.3456McSweeney made a good point earlier when he said thatthe Safety Board was engaged in a lot of the testingthat will be meaningful on a number of fronts.Not just flammability, but, as I said7earlier,the investigation that Mr. Swaim had8conducted,and the more that information is shared910throughout the civilian side of the industry betweenFAA and NTSB and the manufacturers and ATA and AIA and111213so forth,to be.I think the more effective that ARAC is goingIf we can go in with completed work with some14reasonably sound,fundamental conclusions, then we15161718don’t have to spend a lot of time in the ARAC wonderingwhether we need to be doing this or not, or whether Dr.Shepherd has actually completed his work, or whether ithas been appropriately criticized and found to be sound19and so forth and so on,which is the kind of thing that20212223threatens to take place if we are not careful with it.Q I understand. Is there any other remarksbefore we go on to another subject from you, CaptainGreen?24AI think the only thing that I would offer in25addition is, as I said,we were interested in the fuelCAPITAL HILL REPORTING, INC.(202) 466-9500

12611234concept, and I was also very interested at theflammability conference in what Dr. Shepherd had to sayabout the affect of temperature on the minimum ignitionenergy.5I think that is a significant player.The678temperature control approaches probably should not beoverlooked, particular in the short term because theymay be an easier approach in the short term.9But,other than that we plan to be very much101112131415involved in this and stay involved, and hopefullyprovide a little bit of a semi-independent perspectivein the ARAC and other areas, because we are not amanufacturer and we are not an operator and we are inthe airplane quite a bit more than anyone else. So, wehave kind of a vested interest here.16QThank you.17181920CHAIRMAN HALL:was paying attention, soDR. SHEPHERD:CHAIRMAN HALL:Dr. Shepherd, Captain Green——That’s good to hear.so, now I just -- I think21what I would like to do is see now if we could take a22break.We will take a little longer break than normal,2324come back at 11:00, and then we will see if we can’tcomplete this hearing by 1:00 p.m.25I don’t want to rush anything.I want theCAPITAL HILL REPORTING, INC.(202) 466-9500

126212parties to have whatever time they need to ask theirquestions and -- and, so, we will try to be --34summarize up here,subject well.but we want to be sure we cover the5But,that will be what we will attempt to do.6so, we will stand in recess until 11:00.7(Whereupon,a brief recess was taken.)8CHAIRMAN HALL:We will reconvene this public91011hearing of the National Transportation Safety Boardwhich is called for the purpose of looking into theaccident investigation of TWA 800.1213141516171819202122232425Mr. Anderson,MR. ANDERSON:would you like to proceed?Thank you, Mr. Chairman.CAPITAL HILL REPORTING, INC.(202) 466-9500

126312345FURTHER DIRECT EXAMINATIONBY MR. ANDERSON:Q Mr. McSweeney, on a different subject, weheard during an earlier testimony two days ago a Boeingwitness talking about the standards that they used for6protecting the --1 believe it was bonding protection7of the fuel tank area.That would be in respect to89101112131415preventing static electricity build-up and also arcingfrom stray electrical voltages.We heard that the specification that was usedwas a military specification, and I think that we alsoheard that that specification was in the process, oractually had been cancelled by the Department ofDefense.We also understand that the Department of16Defense,as a matter of policy, is canceling many of171819202122232425the specifications that, like this one, will affect thedesign of new aircraft.Could you tell me what the FAA is doing toassure that this information –– and that is what thespecifications in general represent –– is accumulatedexperience and guidance to assure that this informationis being maintained and updated for the purposes ofinsuring the integrity of the commercial aviationfleet?CAPITAL HILL REPORTING, INC.(202) 466-9500

1264123456A I will be more than happy to. There areseveral bodies, SAE being one, who have taken on thechallenge of the mil specs of being obsolete to pick upsome of those mil specs and make them industrystandards.I happen to be a member of the Aerospace7Council of SAE.That is the body that basically89manages the cooperative engineering program whichproduces all of those standards and specs.10We have been,over the last –– I think it is11about three years,regularly briefed on the progress of12converting those into SAE standards.Certainly, the131415material in those needs to be retained and improved andmodified.There really is a process by which SAE16standards are updated on a regular basis.This17181920212223particular effort is to just take the mil standardsverbatim and move it into an SAE standard.I believe there are other standard-settingbodies that are trying to do the same thing, and we area part of that because we are on a lot of the teamsthat help develop those standards.Q Yes, sir, I understand. In addition to that,24to just further clarify it,you are talking about one25route where a standard which is being cancelled isCAPITAL HILL REPORTING, INC.(202) 466-9500

1265123passed to an engineering society, would that be correctto say, that you mentioned?A Yes, I would call SAE an engineering society.4QI would ask you if in your opinion the -- all567specifications should follow that route, or shouldthere be specifications that perhaps should remainunder government control?8AOh, I don’t think I am an expert to talk91011about what the military’s needs might be and whatshould be under government control and what shouldn’t.I think the real focus of the FAA is our rules and12regulations,and most of our rules and regulations13141516provide for a level of safety that we are trying toachieve.It is up to the manufacturers to, usingwhatever means and methods they believe are17appropriate,show us that they do, in fact, meet that1819202122level of safety that we have identified.I think there is a very good argument thatthe burden of maintaining those industry standardsought to be borne by the industry, not the taxpayers ofthe United States.23QWhen we use the term “standard,” don’t we2425imply that everybody is following the same script, soto speak?CAPITAL HILL REPORTING, INC.(202) 466-9500

126612A You have to, I think, understand thedifference between the military use of standards and3the civil use of standards.Standards are acceptable4to the FAA.There are ways of doing business.5Certainly there is a benefit to having an6industry standard.It is -- there is certainly a7benefit to everybody to have people doing things the8same way.That is fairly much the case in engineering,9because there is not a multitude of solutions to a10given engineering problem.There is usually very few.111213I am not an expert in the military, and maybesome of the other people on the panel can address this,but in the military case the military is also the14purchaser,and some of the standards I believe are used1516171819202122232425to make sure that the military gets the product thatthey, as the purchaser, are paying for.I would say having spent some time on theother side of that military civil equation working atNorthrup Aircraft I am at least familiar with some ofthe standards that dealt with flutter vibration andacoustics which was the area I was working in.I am not an expert, though, in that.Q I understand. I really have two otherquestions in that area, though, and that is, who in theFAA is monitoring this process and making sure thatCAPITAL HILL REPORTING, INC.(202) 466-9500

12671cancellations do not affect your regulations.2In other words,I think we can find instances34567where the most either specifications or standards arecited as possible or acceptable means of achieving agoal.A Well, if a mil standard that has beencancelled is an acceptable means of compliance with a8regulation,the fact that it has been cancelled9wouldn’t change that fact.The real issue, is the1011process contained within that mil spec one that stillis appropriate for a particular regulatory compliance.12QMy -- I believe my point would be, sir, that131415161718192021if the specification is not being reviewed by acompetent technical authority within the FAA, perhapsthe specification becomes obsolete or inappropriate.A Well, you have to remember that we reviewevery application of a standard during typecertification of a product. Well, every –– in thesense that the ones that are really critical to thedesign, because some we delegate to the designees toreview in our behalf.22so,if there were a standard that were2324heretofore acceptable for use on an airplane, and thedesign of that airplane was so radical from previous25designs,that would cause us to look at the continuedCAPITAL HILL REPORTING, INC.(202) 466-9500

12681234applicability of that standard. So, we do, in fact, ona regular basis look at them.Q I understand, and the last point I would wantto ask you about is that looking at the options5available here,which are of course the DOD can –– is67no longer funded to maintain these documents, andtherefore the only alternatives are other government89agencies or the public,engineering societies.the commercial public or the1011for this effort?The question I would ask you is, who will pay12AFor the SAE effort that is ongoing, and it is1314a very significant effort, the government, I believe.The FAA is now contributing $85,000 a year to the SAE15Cooperative Engineering Program.From that we figure16171819202122232425we get millions of dollars of benefit, because many oftheir standards are referenced in our technicalstandard orders.I think it is also important to point outthat for military aircraft that are carrying passengersonly, and even for some of their training aircraft,they have chosen to accept the FAA standard.Q Thank you. I think it is a very importantpoint, and I am glad to hear that there is provisionfor maintaining these one way or the other.CAPITAL HILL REPORTING, INC.(202) 466-9500

12691The next thing, Mr. McSweeney, that I wanted234to cover is basically thejust a little bit earlier,public comments.–– we had talked about itwhich was the FAA solicited5678Could you give us just an overview from yourpoint of view personally of what you were attempting todo by asking the questions in terms of -- you probablyfelt that you would get both technical information and910opinions.little bit?Could you just, you know, clarify that a11AWell, when we issued the notice to get12comments on the NTSB recommendations we had several13objectives.First was we wanted to obtain answers to1415specific questions.the notice.Those specific questions are in16But,we also wanted to frame as best we could171819a background of history so that when those questionswere answered there was some framework around which wewould get those answers.20so,we also included things in our notice of21what we felt the published information was on fuel22properties,what the FAA had done in the past about23explosion hazards,past activity in nitrogen inerting24by the FAA,complete history to what we had of civil25and military accidents,and we realized we would getCAPITAL HILL REPORTING, INC.(202) 466-9500

127112345and the considerations that were done in that timeframe.Were there any reports, or any formalengineering documents that came forward from that timeframe that would be available?6AI don’t -- I guess I can’t recall specific7ones off the top of my head now.I do remember8910111213141516171819202122232425extensive documentation of the anti–misting keroseneprogram.Q Just quickly, the other question I have is --reading on it says in 1972 the FAA document informs us,“the Aviation Consumer Action Project Petition for RuleMaking requesting action to require nitrogen fuel tankinerting systems on all transport category airplanes, ”and based on these requests the FAA issued Notice ofProposed Rule Making Number 74-16.The final note we are getting here at thecomments received from the public on that Notice ofProposed Rule Making opposed this proposal because itwas argued that the explosion prevention system wouldhave little or no effect on reducing the fire andexplosion hazards of impact survivable accidents.Did that also include the NTSB’S concernabout the in flight phase?A Well, as I said before, that particularCAPITAL HILL REPORTING, INC.(202) 466-9500

127212effort and what is referred to as the Safer Committeewhich was a full advisory committee that met for a3couple of years,I believe -- and it, by the way, has45tons of documentation.They looked at --after the notice went out6789they looked at the history of accidents. Myrecollection is that at that point they concluded thatthere wasn’t an in flight history as significant asthere was of a post crash fire history.10so,they believed the most appropriate thing11to do at the time was to create a post-crash fire12scenario as the scenario,or as the goal that everybody13was trying to protect against.Quite frankly, I think141516171819202122we have been fairly effective in doing that.Q Yes, sir. Essentially what has happened isthat there is new information and new experiencecontributed since that time, would you agree, tosomewhat change our view of these incidents?A Well, I think I clearly made that statementearlier in this testimony that our opinion of thepast -- and it is just like anybody else -- our opinionof the past is certainly likely to be different today23than it was back then,and we have gone on the record2425many times to say everything is on the table, includingnitrogen inerting.CAPITAL HILL REPORTING, INC.(202) 466-9500

12731Q I understand. This gets me to the next area2that you commented on.I know it is an important3456subject, so I wanted to ask you several questions inthe area of fuel selection.The NPRM talks about the use of JP-4 duringthe earlier time period in the late 60’s and early770’s,and it was believed because of what we now know8910111213is the flammability characteristic, so that may havebeen a major factor in some of the earlier accidents.Could you comment on that and give us youropinion?A Yes. When you look at -- at least when Ilooked at the history of the accidents, they tend in my14mind to group into three clumps.The first clump was15JP-4 .It certainly is a different fuel than used16171819202122232425today, and we all know what its flammability parametersare.The second kind of group of accidents isexternal threats to the airplane, and I was happy tosee that the Board even broke it up as external andinternal threats because I think they are possibly ––you might be able to look at solutions differentlywhether it is an external or internal threat.Then the third group was the internal threat.In the internal threats I would say that probably theCAPITAL HILL REPORTING, INC.(202) 466-9500

127412history that is most significant is the history withJet-A fuel.3QHow would you carry that forward today in4your evaluation of the JP-5 versus those other fuels,5JP-8, Jet-A-1, Jet-B? Isthere some way that you can6draw a line between thoseas safe rsafer,safest?789A Well, certainlyadvantages in solving theit makes that much easierthe JP-5 fuel offersflammability of ullages, andto solve if you are using JP-105 fuel. Quite frankly, if you --11CHAIRMAN HALL:Does it cost more at the12pump, Mr.McSweeney?13WITNESS McSWEENEY:From the statistics, the14data thatI havefrom the military, the difference1516between JP-5 andis two pennies.JP-8 -- JP-8 is equivalent to Jet-A --17Now,the fuel cost itself is much higher, so18192021you can’t just look at the price per gallon becausethere are reasons having to do with how it is deliveredto the source that make it a little bit more expensive.But that the JP-5 is presently produced in22very small batches,and what we have to look at when we232425deal with the ARAC group and what we want the AmericanPetroleum Institute to look at is, what is that costlikely to be if it actually replaced all of theCAPITAL HILL REPORTING, INC.(202) 466-9500

127512345millions and billions of gallons of Jet–A that we usetoday?The price is not trivial, but is also is notenormous, and we just –– it is just something we haveto look at.6QThe last thing I want to talk about with the78NPRM’s comments was the itemization of the accidentrecord both in the commercial world and in the military9world,and as I look through that with the caveat that10was given in the NPRM,that many of these were related1112131415to the use -- or thought to be related to the use ofJP-4 fuel.We count thirteen commercial accidents fromthe early 60 -- well, actually, the earliest being1959, and on the military side of non-combat airplanes,16which in this case are two types.One is the Boeing1718192021707 and the other is the B-52-H which were bothmanufactured by Boeing.Could you comment on that list in terms ofwhat, if anything, that signifies? Is there anythingthat the FAA suggests, any trend?22AWell, maybe I was trying to look at the2324table, but I didn’t quite understand what significanceyou are trying to get me to comment on.25QWell, we have heard -- there has been a lotCAPITAL HILL REPORTING, INC.(202) 466-9500

127612said and written about the probability of fuel tankflammability occurrences, and I think this listing ––3CHAIRMAN HALL:If I gather it, it is the4issue of the change in the fuel having impact on the56number of accidents.that jet?When you went from -- what is7MR. ANDERSON: JP-4 .89CHAIRMAN HALL:MR. ANDERSON:JP-4 to Jet-A.Yes.10WITNESS McSWEENEY:I think in the general11sense you can get a trend like that out of that data.12But,you have to really go back and look at each and13every accident.Some of the fuel tank explosions were14maintenance induced.I don’t think you should in any151617way count that as an issue relative to one kind of fuelor another.One was a boost pump that was put in a tank18where the wiring was actually put in the tank.Well,1920you know,the fuel.you can’t say that that was a problem withIt was a problem with the maintenance. So,2122you really have to go back and look at it.I think the real key is not to look that much23at the past,but recognize we had a tragic accident and24we need to make sure we never have another one.25CHAIRMAN HALL:Excellent.CAPITAL HILL REPORTING, INC.(202) 466-9500

12771MR. ANDERSON:Thank you, sir.23QBY MR. ANDERSON: (Resuming. )My last question would be, could you share456789with us some of your impressions, rather than goingthrough individual responses -- but, we can do that ifyou like -- to your NPRM. Could you just share with usyour feelings on what was received? -- and feel free togive examples if you like.A Okay, as I said, there were about a thousand10pages of comments.We received comments from the11121314industry, nitrogen inerting, system manufacturers,foreign regulatory authorities, universities and such.There was admittedly a lot of people whothough there wasn’t even a problem that needed to be15solved,and there were others that thought we should go161718192021well beyond what we were doing right now. So, therewas a full gamut of comments, which I think is verypositive. I mean, that is the kind of input we like toget.There was comments about temperature,controlling the fuel –– temperature, comments about22ventilating,insulating the tanks, nitrogen injection23to cool the fuel on the ground.There was a lot of24comments received about nitrogen inerting.Quite25frankly, those people that had a system felt theirCAPITAL HILL REPORTING, INC.(202) 466-9500

1system was the right system to use.We are certainly127823going to have to look at that and see if we agree withthat.4But,things like nitrogen, OBIGS and56cryogenic liquid comments were received. CO 2 , dry ice,charcoal generation generators were used –– were7submitted as comments.Increasing the flashpoint of8fuel was submitted as comments.9so,in a general sense we really, I think,1011got the breadth of comments that we were looking for.I think we got the depth to make a decision that there12are solutions out there,and what we are asking ARAC to13do is give us specific -- first, by regulatory14criteria,and then that has to be based on specific15known ways of getting there.16so,we think it is not a unique thing that we17have issued comments,or asked for comments and NTSB181920recommendations, but I don’t think you can count thenumber of times on more than one hand that I am awareof.21But,in this particular case, the comments we2223received –– and I think it was alluded to before –– thecomments from the U.S. –– well, I shouldn’t say just24Us.industry because it was more than that, but from25the manufacturers and the operators, far exceeded myCAPITAL HILL REPORTING, INC.(202) 466-9500

127912345expectations .Q Thank you, Mr. McSweeney.MR. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, I have no morequestions.CHAIRMAN HALL: Well, I think we will move to6the party table,unless there are any of the Technical7Panel .We will give the Technical Panel a chance after89101112we go through the parties. In fairness, let’s go downto the parties.I believe we begin with Mr. Liddell, theInternational Association of Machinists and AerospaceWorkers.13MR. LIDDELL:Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I14just have a couple questions for the military15representatives .In regard to the foam use, has -- is1617there or has there been any summary or records made ofmaintenance problems with the use of foam?1819MR. LAUZZE:detailed history of it,I am not personally aware of anybut we could look into it.20But,I am not aware of one.21MR. BALL:That is really out of our realm.22These gentlemen are testers and I am an educator, and I23have heard comments,as we heard yesterday, that it is2425removed for maintenance problems.If I were a pilot and I was going to go intoCAPITAL HILL REPORTING, INC.(202) 466-9500

12801combat and heard the maintenance offer removed my foam2before I flew in there,I might be a bit upset about34567it. So, I think you have to look at the maintenanceversus the survivability issue from our perspective.But, it really is –– it is not something that we arefamiliar with.MR. LIDDELL: Also rare you familiar with8what type of fuel tanks this foam is used in?Is it in9a bladder tank,or is it just a fuel tank?10MR. BALL:Most of the foam is in the wing.1112Most of the foam applications are in the wing tanks.There are some applications in the fuselage. The F-151314is in the fuselage,a bladder.and I believe the F–15 fuselage has15But,generally speaking, the foam is most16applicable to us in the wing tanks because that is a17large, exposed area.That’s a (inaudible) mentioned181920yesterday, and those wings take a lot of hits.Also rthose wings -- that wing field is,generally speaking, used first. So, that is our most21vulnerable area.That also gives us a minimum fuel2223penalty because we don’t carry that much fuel in thewing.24MR. LIDDELL:Thank you very much. No25further questions, Mr. Chairman.CAPITAL HILL REPORTING, INC.(202) 466-9500

12811CHAIRMAN HALL: Thank you very much. Trans2World Airlines, Inc.Captain?3CAPTAIN YOUNG:Thank you, Mr. Chairman. At45this time,no questions from Trans World Airlines.CHAIRMAN HALL: Thank you very much. The678Federal Aviation Administration? Mr. Streeter?MR. STREETER: Yes, Mr. Chairman. For Mr.Tyson and maybe also for Mr. Lauzze; on the reticulated9foam,again, is reticulated foam being used in any new10installations,or is it being supplanted by the OBIGS,111213or how is that going right now?WITNESS TYSON: Yes, it is used in newinstallations . The latest upgrade to the Navy F-18 --141516FA-18,wings .the EF version is using reticulated foam in theMR. STREETER: Okay. Has the product itself17changed over the years?–– and I am speaking of the1819composition of the product for whatever purposes.WITNESS TYSON: Yeah. I think the answer to20that is yes,but my aspect of it, it is testing what21they give me as opposed to designing it.22MR. STREETER:I see.23MR. BALL: Yes, if “over the years” you mean24since 1965,the answer is yes.25MR. STREETER:Oh, definitely.CAPITAL HILL REPORTING, INC.(202) 466-9500

12821MR. BALL:It is significantly changed.2MR. STREETER:Yeah, yeah.3MR. BALL: Also rthere is a study of pore4size versus solid content,and we have gone from the567polyesters which broke down to the polyurethanes whichdo not break down.In the F-18 the wing’s skin is literally8bolted -- or,attached –– and they don’t want to take9that off,and this foam is in there and it is going to10last, as we hope, for a significantly long time.11MR. STREETER:Okay, and that -- that was12really the issue I was after.There were situations13141516with the earlier product where there was break–down, isthat correct?MR. BALL: Yes. I wasn’t there at the time,but that is what I heard.17MR. STREETER:And the impression is that1819that has been addressed with the later productimprovements?2021MR. BALL:the polyethers.Switching from the polyesters to2223Anderson,MR. STREETER: Okay. Then, I guess for Mr.I would have a question in that I believe Mr.2425Anderson stated that he had a letter, or someinformation from McDonnell Douglas indicating that theyCAPITAL HILL REPORTING, INC.(202) 466-9500

12831had removed material from an F-4 which showed no2deterioration,and yet in questioning from the Board3Mr.Liddell responded that material had been removed45from an F-15,deterioration,and I believe that involved somealthough I am not certain.67Is there some way we can look into this,because it appears that the later airplane is the one89that has the deterioration,didn’t.and the earlier airplane10MR. LAUZZE:Are you referring to me, sir?111213141516MR. STREETER: Yes, sir. I was wondering ifwe could possibly look into the information that cameout from these two pieces of testimony to see if wecould find out whether there is the situation.DR. LOEB: Mr. Streeter, I can answer that.We definitely will.17MR. STREETER:Okay, thank you very much,181920sir. For Mr. Tyson or Mr. Lauzze, do you know if theAir Force has used reticulated foams in any large airframes?21MR. LAUZZE:Yesterday I believe I referred22to the C-130.The Navy is using it in the P-3. I2324think those are probably the two largest systems.Going back to one of your earlier questions25on new aircraft,the Air Force is in the process ofCAPITAL HILL REPORTING, INC.(202) 466-9500

128412345buying the C-130 J. It is going to be in the C-130 J,a brand new system.Going back to the other question on the F-15,the earlier versions of the F-15 use the polyester foamthat Bob referred to earlier, which did have a6hydrolytic stability issue.It has since been switched7over to polyether,and that degradation issue has89pretty well gone away.MR. STREETER:Okay, so it really is a10product type of situation that you have to deal with?11MR. LAUZZE:Yes, sir.12131415MR. STREETER: Okay. Again, for either Mr.Lauzze or Mr. Tyson, the discussions on OBIGS. You hadsome schematics up there that I felt gave a fairly goodbreak-down of how the system worked, but it doesn’t16give me–– never having worked with one of those, it1718doesn’t give me a reference as far as weight or size.Is this a large -- physically large system,19or heavy,or what does it entail in the aircraft?20WITNESS TYSON:It really depends on how you21interface it to the airplane.I can give you -- and I222324am going to be drawing deep into my memory for some ofthis .I can give you some numbers for tactical25airplanes.If I am remembering correctly, a retrofitCAPITAL HILL REPORTING, INC.(202) 466-9500

12851system on an existing airplane has quite a bit of23penalty associated with it.of 1,000 pounds.I want to say on the order4Now,you have got to remember that tactical56aircraft has some incredibly high gas demands when itdoes its climbing and diving to keep the ullage of the7fuel tanks inerted.The transport aircraft don’t have89101112that same high demand as a result of the new grade, butthey have larger tanks.A system I am aware of that was designedalong with the design of the fuel system weighed on theorder of 100 pounds.13MR. STREETER:That was initial design? In14other words,went into initial production with the15aircraft?Is that what you are saying, or retrofit?16WITNESS TYSON:The aircraft program was17cancelled.18MR. STREETER:Oh, okay. So, then, there1920appears to be a trade–off between the tactical demandsand the capacity between your tactical aircraft and21your–– is there a possibility that a similar size2223system could be used in a much larger aircraft in atransport category?24WITNESS TYSON:Ralph might be able to add25some more to that, because they have the largerCAPITAL HILL REPORTING, INC.(202) 466-9500

12861234567aircraft that have been protected. But, certainly thelarger fuel tanks would demand a larger system than a100 pound system.MR. STREETER: Okay, understood. How aboutthe -- is this a high maintenance system, is it asystem that requires servicing every time it is on theground, or a calendar servicing, or what?8MR. BALL:I will step in here and excuse9101112these two gentlemen. They are testers. They basicallydetermine the effectiveness of the system and the sizeof the system that is necessary.The design of the system for reliability,13minimum impact on maintenance,minimum impact on other14aspects of safety is really not something that we are1516aware of.I apologize for that.MR. STREETER: Okay, understood. Do you have17any background on operational requirements?Is it a1819202122system that requires pilot input, or is it a passivesystem, or do you know?MR. BALL: Again, sorry, we don’t know.MR. STREETER: Okay, understood, sir. Again,let’s try another line here. Again, I understand that23you may not have this,but I am -- there was -- you2425gave us a list of various tactical and transportaircraft that carried the systems.CAPITAL HILL REPORTING, INC.(202) 466-9500

1287123Does either the Air Force of the Navy usesome type of inerting system on board all theirtransport category aircraft?4MR. LAUZZE:The answer is no.5MR. STREETER: Okay. What -- or, if you are6aware of it,what kind of factors go into the decision78as to whether or not a system would be put on anairplane?9MR. LAUZZE:I can’t really speak to some of10the systems that don’t have protection.Many of them1112131415were designed long before I, you know, was involvedwith the Air Force. But, with any design, you know,you need to look at what the -- particularly in themilitary, you need to look at what the mission is, whatits predicted exposure rate is, what the threat is.16You know,is it going to come up against17missiles,is it going to come up against gunfire, is it18never going to see combat?All those things play into19the equation,and obviously, you know, we want an20optimum low weight solution.21so,there is no single answer, and I think22that is one reason why we see things like foam, we see23things like Halon,we see things like liquid nitrogen,24as well.We need a whole bag of tricks, because25everything –– you know,each system is different.CAPITAL HILL REPORTING, INC.(202) 466-9500

12881MR. STREETER:In the list you showed up2there,I noticed that the -- you had both the C-130 and3456the C-5 listed as having protective systems, and if Iunderstood correctly the C–5 was a retrofit due tosituations it had run into on the ground.The C-141 wasn’t listed, and since it sits7right in between the two,I am wondering if there was8some reason that -- or, does it have a system, and if9it doesn’t,what is the reason it doesn’t?10MR. LAUZZE:That was a system I was1112referring to as the answer to the earlier question. Ireally don’t have any knowledge on the 14113specifically.It has been around for a long time. I1415really can’t speak to it.MR. STREETER:Since we are dealing with a16Boeing product here,although we are dealing with a17181920concept that covers everybody’s product, and I believewhile I am not sure I have all the designators right,so I will stick with the civilian designator, but Ibelieve the Air Force is using the 747 for command and21control purposes,707 derivatives for various AWACS and22232425theater operations and so on, and the 737 fornavigation training and personnel transport.Do you know if any of those systems haveinerting aboard?CAPITAL HILL REPORTING, INC.(202) 466-9500

12891MR. LAUZZE: No, sir, I do not.2MR. STREETER:I guess for the Navy the34567891011equivalent question on the C–9, or –– well, actuallyfor the Navy and the Air Force both, the C-9?WITNESS TYSON: I have no idea. I am withtactical airplanes.MR. STREETER: I understand. Okay, thankyou, sir.Mr. Thomas, you mentioned -- I believe yousaid in the triple seven that there is a sonictransducer that is used now for fuels?12WITNESS THOMAS:For fuel (inaudible),13correct.141516171819202122MR. STREETER: Okay. Now, even though yousaid that system has wiring in the tank, my presumptionwould be, based on my understanding of a system likethat is that this system would also be immersed for themajority of the time it is operation, wouldn’t it?WITNESS THOMAS: Yeah, the sensor itself isat the bottom of –– each position we have multiplesensors out along the wing and in the center wing tank.MR. STREETER: Okay. So, unlike the capacity23probe system,you shouldn’t have any wiring that is24necessarily exposed to vapors?25WITNESS THOMAS:I can’t say that, becauseCAPITAL HILL REPORTING, INC.(202) 466-9500

1290123obviously as the tank empties the wiring and eventuallythe sensors will become exposed.MR. STREETER: Okay, would you --456WITNESS THOMAS:MR. STREETER:WITNESS THOMAS:The wing has a dihedral.Oh, correct.As the fuel drains in board,7the outboard sensors will eventually become uncovered.8MR. STREETER:Okay.910WITNESS THOMAS: But, the system is designedfor exactly the same load --1112MR. STREETER:WITNESS THOMAS:Same function?–– requirements as we have13described in the capacitive type of systems.1415MR. STREETER:a bottom–mounted system,Okay, and is it -- since it isis it a fair assumption that16there is far less wiring exposed inside the tank?17WITNESS THOMAS:I can’t answer that question1819without actually doing the details, looking at thatsystem.20MR. STREETER:All right, thank you, sir.21That is all I have, Mr. Chairman.22CHAIRMAN HALL:The Boeing Commercial2324Airplane Group? Mr. Rodrigues?MR. RODRIGUES: Yes, Mr. Chairman. First, to25answer one of Mr.Streeter’s questions, the C-17 systemCAPITAL HILL REPORTING, INC.(202) 466-9500

129112weighs 2,000 pounds.One question for Mr. Thomas.The Chairman3asked the question earlier on, what work Boeing has45done so far since the TWA accident.to that now?Could you respond6MR. THOMAS: Yes, certainly. I believe the7question was two-part,what service bulletins we had8published and what additional work is going on.As far9as service bulletins,there is a fuel pump conduit10service bulletin which is the inspection the FAA11mandated through an AD.That is in your docket, I121314believe,bulletin,at this point.We have the scavenge pump connector servicewe have the series three terminal block that15we discussed at length.That is –– as we said, is due1617to be released in January/February of next year.We have the center wing tank inspection18bulletin which is also in the public docket.That was19202122232425released in –– the updated revision is going to bereleased in January of ’98.Another one which is not connected directlywith TWA 800 is the override boost pump connectorinspection design improvement service bulletin wereleased simply because we had a connector problem. Ibelieve that is also in the docket.CAPITAL HILL REPORTING, INC.(202) 466-9500

129212We discussed a little bit on -- I think itwas -- I am not sure which panel it was. I believe it34was the Monday panel.that we are doing.We kind of ran through things5I want to make a point here that -- I guess6Mr. McSweeney made the point earlier.We have a very7large fleet of airplanes that is out there.There is813,000 airplanes out there in the fleet. 9,000 of9those,or more than those are now Boeing products as a1011result of the merger.We really need to look at ways to reduce12flammability,as we said in that Monday discussion. We13need to work on that.We need to make sure that the14151617system is retrofitable in a relatively easy fashion.The simpler, the better, if you will, the KISprinciple.JP–5, as I said earlier in the discussion,18was one of the obvious extensions of that.If you move19the flammability over and if you are focused on tank20flammability,that is an obvious thing to go after.2122Center wing tank cooling;discussions with the NTSB.we discussed it at length in23We flew -- when the NTSB was flying the24Evergreen airplane,as was discussed a couple of days25ago, we took the opportunity to fly three flights ofCAPITAL HILL REPORTING, INC.(202) 466-9500

1our own,piggy-backing onto that experience using the12932345flight test and all the instrumentation.We used that flight test data to build acomputer model. In fact, we have now two computermodels that we can use first of all to cross check how6well the models are behaving,but also to study all of78these things. So,those.we are very actively looking at9If you look back in the response to the FAA10back in August,one of the things we did say was the11insulation concept would look very promising, and we12were continuing to work on them.We are still doing131415161718that work. We use the flight test data. We are nowlooking at concepts of slot cooling, as I think Idescribed briefly on Monday.We are also doing laboratory testing ofullage sweeping. That is a very simple concept. It isvery appealing in terms of trying to blow air into the19tank.The issue really is what do you do with the20212223light ends that get blown overboard, or is there someway of collecting them somehow, and that is the nextstep we want to go to.The other point that I think is very24important is we are designing ––we are reviewing our25designs on the bonding and grounding issues as we tryCAPITAL HILL REPORTING, INC.(202) 466-9500

129412345and create the service bulletins.We are going through all our airplanes verycarefully to look at all the bonding and groundingrequirements we have imposed on the airplane to seethat they are correct, first of all, and to make sure6we want-- then we go out and look and create the789service bulletins on each of the airplanes so we havethe right measurements.so, it is -- the very act of creating the10service bulletins is forcing a design review.It is an11interesting process.We have to go through drawing12after drawing, and going through a 737 that is ––13whatever it is,almost thirty years old, to pull out14151617all those drawings and look at very carefully how wecreated the bonding design in those airplanes and theninvent and create a test in the service bulletin, thatis really why the 747 service bulletin is a hundred18pages long.There is an awful lot of work going into192021that service bulletin.In regard to all the questions on the -- andgoing back to your question earlier, Mr. Chairman, on22the military side of the house.As I said earlier, we23had our own military people involved in this.We have2425also talked to the foam manufacturers, we have talkedto the inerting manufacturers.CAPITAL HILL REPORTING, INC.(202) 466-9500

1So, we --1295and most of this is in the response2to the FAA.I think there is an awful lot of very good3work that was done by the industry.We discussed the4weight of foam,we discussed the design of the fuel5tank inerting system.I was involved i that.67It was very important.lot of time doing trade studies.I think we spent aWe weren’t simply89101112putting a system together to get a rough weight. Weactually did a lot of design trade.We spent a month and a half doing designtrades on the size of the gas separator unit versus thecompressor system that we needed to feed it, because13some people were saying, well,if you just fed the air14into the gas separation unit it would be a very simple15thing to do,it would be very reliable.16Yet,the weight of the gas system went up17phenomenally because of the low pressures available.18so,then you trade that against the compressor cooling192021system required to feed the gas separation system thecorrect pressure and temperature.What we have in this document is that22optimized system,and it still weighs something like232,000 pounds. We used a lot of the C–17 experience in24that, by the way. So,I would refer you to the25document for a lot of this information.CAPITAL HILL REPORTING, INC.(202) 466-9500

12961CHAIRMAN HALL: Well, thank you. That is a2345very complete response.MR. RODRIGUES:Chairman.CHAIRMAN HALL:Thank you very much.No additional questions, Mr.The Air Line Pilots6Association?Captain?789CAPTAIN REKART: Yes, sir. I think the firstquestion would be for Mr. Lauzze and Mr. Tyson.Yesterday in your presentation you used terms like1011“successful” and “effective”different remedial systems,when referring toreference being made to121314151617successful use of inerting and the fact that foam hadbeen effective.Can you give an idea how that success andeffectiveness is measured?WITNESS TYSON: Yeah, I can. When we conducta test it is based on –– and we are evaluating a system18like that,it is based on a pressure in general below1920212223the design limit load of the structure that it would beinstalled in.If we can keep that pressure below -- forexample, eighty percent of the –– our goal would be tokeep the pressure in our test in using these protection24systems at eighty percent,the design limit load of the25structure it will be installed in.That would be -- ifCAPITAL HILL REPORTING, INC.(202) 466-9500

129712we can achieve that,success.that would be considered a3CAPTAIN REKART: Okay. Of the various4inerting systems ––and I shouldn’t say inerting567system, I should say the remedial systems that areavailable –– which system is or has been the mostreliable in every day operation?8WITNESS TYSON:You know -- sorry.910CAPTAIN REKART: Okay. I understand thatthere are questions you can’t answer from the11operational side of things,but they still have to be12addressed,and I hope you understand that.13MR. BALL:You ask and we’ll answer.14CAPTAIN REKART:Okay, we will keep on going.15With regard to the remedial systems that we have161718discussed,crew.some questions regarding the role of theAs you are well aware, we don’t have load19masters,we don’t have mechanics and we don’t have the202122232425luxury anymore of flight engineers. So, all themonitoring and all the work has to be done by thecaptain and the first officer.Who is responsible for monitoring the systemsthat you develop for the different -- for the differentaircraft?CAPITAL HILL REPORTING, INC.(202) 466-9500

1WITNESS TYSON:I am going to try to take a129823456789101112shot at that. Again, I am not -- the foam doesn’trequire anything in the installation, particularly inthe wings, as Dr. Ball mentioned, where it is installedfor the life of the aircraft.I am really trying to -- there has beenanother –– other questions that have asked a similarthing, and I am really trying to recall how we intendedto interface the OBIG system to that cancelled programI mentioned.I believe there was a bit check done onstart–up of the airplane.131415CAPTAIN REKART:WITNESS TYSON:the status of that system.Okay.That would let the pilot knowOther than that, I don’t1617believe he had any --system.it was a completely hands–off18CAPTAIN REKART:Okay. Mr. Chairman, that19202122232425question is followed up with what indications to theflight crew are available to show that the ullage spacein the tanks are in fact non–explosive, and are crewactions required to either activate, re–set, troubleshoot any of these systems.Since there is no other members of the panelthat are able to address those, I was wondering ifCAPITAL HILL REPORTING, INC.(202) 466-9500

1299123456789101112there was a way that we could get the answers to thatfor the record?CHAIRMAN HALL: Well, I would -- I wouldrequest that, and I do add that Mr. McSweeney has saidthat he would include on the ARAC subcommittee workinggroup representatives from the military.I know there are operational concerns, andthat might be the appropriate forum for them to beaddressed. But, if –– I will ask Dr. Ball and Mr.Lauzze if you can take that information back andprovide something for the record we would certainlyappreciate it.13CAPTAIN REKART:Okay, the next question is14still a little bit more of a follow up on that, and it15is sort of a clarification question.It is hard to161718follow the FAA, because they have been using the samequestions that I had all day.The military uses a variant of the DC-9 as a19Med-evac airplane.The 707 and the DC–10 is tankers,20which are really airborne fuel tanks.The 737 and the2122232425747 as V-aircraft, and also in other support roles.They also have a very extensive craft fleet that theycall upon in time of emergencies.Again, has the military considered oractually attempted to employ inerting or any otherCAPITAL HILL REPORTING, INC.(202) 466-9500

13001234remediational technology in these activities? Irealize this is sort of close to the question that wasasked previously by Mr. Streeter, but I would like toask it again.5MR. LAUZZE:I really can’t speak to that.678910CAPTAIN REKART: Okay. That being true, thestatement was made earlier that these are systems. Intalking about the remedial system, a statement was madeearlier that these systems are –– these are systemsthat the military already uses.11That isn’t really a true statement.It is1213true that you do use these remediation systems incombat aircraft that are –– that are in a very14exclusive threat environment,but you don’t use these151617systems in any of the aircraft that we use in everydayoperation in the civilian world that I know of. Isthat a more correct statement, perhaps?18MR. BALL:Maybe if I try to explain how we19get involved.We are in a sense invited in at the20invitation of the Program Manager.Each aircraft2122232425project or program has a manager, and theoreticallythere would be a mission threat analysis done for eachaircraft.If rin fact, in that mission threat analysisit was revealed that that aircraft could come underCAPITAL HILL REPORTING, INC.(202) 466-9500

1hostile fire,1301with the frequency of occurrence that it2became something that --to seriously significantly3consider,then our community would be brought in and4our –– what would –– the mil standard 2069 that we had5would be imposed upon ––and they would look into that.67These aircraft that you mentioned, I don’tknow who the Program Managers were and I don’t know8exactly how much they looked at that.Probably, it may910just have been a sense that they thought they were notgoing to get shot at at the time.11CAPTAIN REKART:Okay, and these aircraft,12then,are certified in thenormal method of13certification that we havebeen talking about the past14three days,with the assumption that the fuel tanks are15161718192021222324always containing an explosive mixture and that allignition sources must be removed from that environment,is that correct?I know the word “certify” doesn’t exactly fitwhat we are talking about right now, but it is theclosest word that I can come to in making that –– inmaking that question.MR. LAUZZE: We are way out of my field. Onething I do know is that as part of the JointAeronautical Commander Troop which is composed of the25three services,as well as representatives from NASACAPITAL HILL REPORTING, INC.(202) 466-9500

130212and the FAA, they are working that FAA certificationissue as we speak.3In fact,there was a meeting last week, or4the week before last,where that was discussed. So, I5678really have nothing to add other than we are workingthe issue.WITNESS McSWEENEY: Mr. Chairman, or ALPA,would you care if I add to that?9CHAIRMAN HALL:No, please proceed.10CAPTAIN REKART: I would be happy to add --11have you add to it,but they are nice questions for12131415161718192021you, and I think it will probably answer the question,so if you would like to, go ahead, Tom.WITNESS McSWEENEY: Well, I think it isreally not a fair question for the military to reallybe commenting on, on our certification. When wecertify an aircraft that is for use in military, thatit has got a civil derivative, that aircraft first andforemost must meet the regulations.There must be created a type design, or adesign of that aircraft that is in full and absolute22total compliance with the regulations.Many times,23though, what is delivered to the military is different24from that configuration,and what the military normally25gets from us is a statement of conformity of thatCAPITAL HILL REPORTING, INC.(202) 466-9500

13031aircraft that says it complies with its civil type2certificate,except for these deviations.34Most of those deviations are in the area ofmilitary unique equipment required for military unique5environments .That is basically the process we use.678910CAPTAIN REKART: Okay. We will stay rightwhere we are. Yesterday Mr. Crow addressed the MEL.How do you see these remedial possibilities that wehave discussed being addressed by the MEL, or gettinginto the MEL.11Needless to say,to get into the MEL you have12to either be -- there are two areas that are addressed13by the MEL,things that are so fundamental to flying1415that they have to be on the airplane.wings, therefore you need them both.You have twoThe other side of161718the equation is down at the other end, stuff that youdon’t need like the -- perhaps soap and towels in thelavatories.19But,in the middle of that we have the other202122232425systems that through redundancy or through a secondarysystem can’t be inoperative under certain situations.Can you address what you see as a necessity of theseremedial systems being involved in the MEL?I am thinking about the poor guy that isflying a DC-9 or an MD-80 across West Texas in theCAPITAL HILL REPORTING, INC.(202) 466-9500

130412middle of the summer and it is 108 outside and it is105 on the tarmac and all of a sudden something goes345wrong.there?How is he going to get his airplane out ofWITNESS McSWEENEY: Yeah, I can certainly6address that.The basic premise behind any MEL item is78910111213141516that the aircraft is in full compliance with theregulations .There is a dilemma that has to be, I think,debated in the ARAC group, and that is that if wedecide -- whether we decide that we have an unsafecondition and we need to correct it, or whether we wantto simply raise the safety bar higher, we define a newlevel of safety.If that level of safety can only be achievedwith that system on full time, then it is going to be17very difficult,if not impossible to conceive of an MEL18restriction,although there are some that are possible192021that would allow you to achieve that same level ofsafety with the system on.Some of the possibilities are, you know,22changing the –– I mean,you would really have to change232425the physical parameters within the fuel system. Ifwith that OBIGS –– let’s say you had an OBIG systemthat was suddenly inoperative.CAPITAL HILL REPORTING, INC.(202) 466-9500

13051234If you are going to say that at some point --if you have decided that there is a level of safety,then it has to be achieved through the MEL process.You cannot let that level of safety be violated.5CAPTAIN REKART:Do you think -- do you feel6789that the present certification requirements of alwaysconsidering the explosive mixture and always removingthe ignition sources is adequate to allow the -- one ofthese remedial sources to be –– or, remedial fixes to10be used,and then allow it to be inoperative?11WITNESS McSWEENEY:I would just as soon not12bias the ARAC group.I think that is the issue that13they are supposed to be dealing with.14CAPTAIN REKART:Okay.15WITNESS McSWEENEY:I would hazard to guess16that if I made a statement here, they would come back1718and give me exactly what I asked for.go through that thinking process.I want them to1920more questions, sir.CAPTAIN REKART: Okay, thank you. I have no2122Honeywell, Inc.?CHAIRMAN HALL:Thank you, Captain.23MR. THOMAS:Honeywell has no questions, Mr.24Chairman.25CHAIRMAN HALL:Crane Company Hydro–Aire?CAPITAL HILL REPORTING, INC.(202) 466-9500

13061MR. BOUSHIE:Crane has no questions, Mr.2Chairman.3CHAIRMAN HALL:Okay, do any of the parties45have any additional questions for this panel?(No response. )6If not,does the Technical Panel have any78additional questions? Dr. Birky?MR. BIRKY: I do; a couple of real short9questions, I think.In response to Mr. Streeter’s10questions of Mr. Thomas,you referred to the triple11seven gaging system. My question -- as I understand12it,that gaging -- the gage sensor is in the bottom of13the tank,is that correct?14WITNESS THOMAS:Correct.15MR. BIRKY:In light of what we heard about16the build-up of the sulphur compounds, does that cause17you concern?Is it possible to move those sensors at18the top of the tank so they wouldn’t be in the fuel?19WITNESS THOMAS:I would have to look at the2021detailed design of the system and the wiring andeverything associated with it. Again, it is not –– it2223is a pinging system, if you will.It is not a fulltimecontinuous frequency system.2425If you -- if I understand from the testimonyof some day ago, you know, some –– the voltagesCAPITAL HILL REPORTING, INC.(202) 466-9500

130712involved in this thing are part of the deposition ofthe sulphur. So, we need to look at it. It is a good3question.We have added it on our things to go and45678910look at. But, I cannot answer you from here.MR. BIRKY: Excuse me. From what I heard, Iwouldn’t want to hang my hat on that the voltagescontributing to that without some chemical experimentalproof, would you?WITNESS THOMAS: As I say, we need to go andlook at it.11MR. BIRKY:Okay.12WITNESS THOMAS:Absolutely.13MR. BIRKY:The other question I had relative14to that is,you indicated on the 747 the more recent1516versions have shielded wires going to the center tank,correct?17WITNESS THOMAS:I believe that is correct,18yes.19MR. BIRKY:Does Boeing have any efforts or2021consideration on board to change that in the olderversions that don’t have shielded wire?22WITNESS THOMAS:The FAA has proposed through23their NPRM action to do just that.We are in the2425process of evaluating that in order to respond to theFAA. So, the answer is yes, we are looking. But, itCAPITAL HILL REPORTING, INC.(202) 466-9500

1308123is in order to respond to the FAA.have.MR. BIRKY: Okay, thank you. That’s all I456Technical panel?CHAIRMAN HALL:(No response. )Any other questions from the7If not, Mr. Sweedler?8MR. SWEEDLER:Just one short question for9clarification.Could we put in perspective the various101112131415size of these military airplanes that have some ofthese systems on board; the C-131, the C-5A and the C-17? How would they compare to civilian-sized aircraft?MR. LAUZZE: Well, I believe relativelyspeaking the C–5 would be in the same class as the 747.The C–17 is a little bit smaller, but it is still1617classified as a wide body.smaller.The C-130 obviously is much1819have, Mr. Chairman.MR. SWEEDLER: Thank you. That is all I20CHAIRMAN HALL: Dr.Ellingstad?21DR. ELLINGSTAD:Thank you. Mr. Thomas,22recognizing, as you had indicated with respect to the23flight test,that both Safety Board and Boeing24engineers are wading through mountains of data on those25tests,do you feel that we have sufficient informationCAPITAL HILL REPORTING, INC.(202) 466-9500

1309123on the environment of the 747 center wing tank and thesurrounding components that might transfer heat to thistank?4WITNESS THOMAS:I would say we have a very5good understanding of this at this point.67DR. ELLINGSTAD:WITNESS THOMAS:You say that we do?I quite believe we do.891011DR. ELLINGSTAD: So, you don’t believe thatthere are any additional flight tests, or on groundtests that would be useful to develop a betterunderstanding?12WITNESS THOMAS:I think at this point we1314have, as I said earlier, two computer models, one ofwhich is, quote/unquote, “a simple model” that allows15us to look at alternatives.We have a more161718192021sophisticated model that is a closer representation ofthe 747.As we try and develop alternative ideas suchas some kind of cooling system, we think we may findthat there is a part of the system where we need moredetailed information where we would have to go run that2223test,whether it is a ground test or a flight test.DR. ELLINGSTAD: Because, as that ––2425WITNESS THOMAS:development process.Part of that is just theCAPITAL HILL REPORTING, INC.(202) 466-9500

13101DR. ELLINGSTAD:Has any of that kind of234testing under operational environments been done on anyother aircraft in the Boeing fleet, other than this747?567WITNESS THOMAS:DR. ELLINGSTAD:WITNESS THOMAS:To develop temperature data?Yes.We have -- in the course of8910our investigation we took some very limited data offthe 737-700 because it was in flight test and we hadsome small instrumentation set up on that airplane.11DR. ELLINGSTAD:Okay, so Boeing doesn’t have12any ––13WITNESS THOMAS: We do not have a lot of --14DR. ELLINGSTAD:–– immediate plans to do any15additional testing in this area?1617WITNESS THOMAS:system we came up with.It would be a factor of whatIf we –– again, if the process1819202122we have described this morning of looking at what isthe requirements through the ARAC process, as we startseeing what solution we are going to go to, it willdrive us to do the testing we need to do to develop thesystem.23DR. ELLINGSTAD:Mr. McSweeney, do you feel2425that there is sufficient empirical data describing theoperating environment of the center wing tank in theCAPITAL HILL REPORTING, INC.(202) 466-9500

131112747 and the things around it that transfer heat to thetank?3WITNESS McSWEENEY:That is my impression,4also,that there is sufficient data to give us a good5feel for what is going on in that tank.67view on this?DR. ELLINGSTAD: Dr.Shepherd, do you have a8DR. SHEPHERD: Yes, I do. I believe that we9need to gather some additional information.Perhaps1011there is other information that Boeing has access to,but based on the information I know of from the flight12test,I think our knowledge is still incomplete.13DR. ELLINGSTAD:Thank you. Dr. Shepherd,1415while we have you there –– and, again, taking the riskof asking whether additional research is needed to an16academic,could you make a similar comment with respect17to the flammability characteristics of Jet-A? -- and1819while you are on that topic,JP-5 .we may as well also treat20DR. SHEPHERD:We started our evaluation of21Jet-A this summer,and our work has really been ongoing22only for the last five months, I would say.Our232425evaluation has necessarily been limited because of thatshort period of time.We have been able to examine Jet-A, freshCAPITAL HILL REPORTING, INC.(202) 466-9500

1Jet-A from LAX,1312and we have done a limited examination234of Jet–A that was used in the flight test sponsored bythe NTSB in July.I believe that it is necessary to get a much5more complete picture of this,particularly with regard67to the range of ignition energies that would be foundif you looked throughout the fuel supply in the world.8In addition,if we are going to propose using91011JP-5, I believe that it is also necessary to get a muchmore complete understanding of the ignitioncharacteristics of that fuel, also.12DR. ELLINGSTAD:Okay, thank you very much.13CHAIRMAN HALL: Dr. Loeb:14DR. LOEB:I don’t have any questions, Mr.15Chairman.I do have a point that I would like to make.161718192021A couple of points, I guess.The first one that I believe we have madesignificant progress in having our agreement that wecertainly need to look very strongly at means to reduceor eliminate altogether the flammable mixtures in thefuel tanks.22But,that brings into question the timing of23events,and I think we need to look at both short term2425solutions and long term solutions, and ourrecommendations of a year ago do go to that.Indeed,CAPITAL HILL REPORTING, INC.(202) 466-9500

13131234there were short term –– recommendations for short termsolutions and recommendations for long term solutions.I recognize that the parties have raised somequestions about the process by which we collected a lot5of the research and data,and what I want to make clear6is that as quickly as possible after this hearing is7adjourned,we are going to get all the parties together8910111213and also the researchers with whom we have been workingto determine the answer to some of the questions thatDr. Ellingstad just raised, and that is what more weneed to do to develop quickly short term solutions tothe problem while the process of developing the longerterm solutions go on.141516so,this hearing.can.you will be hearing from us quickly afterWe will be meeting just as soon as we17CHAIRMAN HALL:I have a few clean-up18questions.I went over my notes last night to try and19202122232425be sure that all the things I thought should be brieflydiscussed on the record were brought up, and there weresome things that we do not have any idea whether theyhad anything to do with the TWA 800 accident, but therewas some things on the inspections that –– regardingthe O-rings and ruse on some of the components in thetank.CAPITAL HILL REPORTING, INC.(202) 466-9500

13141Mr. Thomas, is there anything Boeing is doing23following up on that?of those inspections.I believe your folks were partWere they?4MR. SWAIM: Yes, sir, the Boeing people were5with us every step of the way.We do it as a party6system, as you know.We found that there were a number7of rubber O–rings in the fuel tubing connections in the8accident airplane,and in other airplanes we looked at910that had a lot of cracking, and how that is checkedright now ––11Well,let me ask Mr. Thomas, rather than1213testifying myself. How are the integrity of the O-rings checked in service, sir?14WITNESS THOMAS:It is checked in two ways.1516One, the airplane flies daily. The fuel system, thelines through the fuel system are all internal to the17fuel tanks,so if an O–ring starts to leak, if it is in1819its own tank the fuel simply returns to the tank.If it is in another tank in a cross-feed20line,then you will see some cross tank to tank21transfer of fuel,which will show up on the gaging22system and,as we heard yesterday, the pilots have the23option of writing –– or, will write a pi–rep, a pilot’s24report,to make sure that maintenance is aware of that25tank to tank transfer,and they can go and investigateCAPITAL HILL REPORTING, INC.(202) 466-9500

13151it.2Also rwhen we functionally test the system3problems,for instance during an -- after an engine45change, we will check the –– what’s the right word? ––functionality and integrity of the engine feed system.67MR. SWAIM:the engine pylons?Would that include the O–rings in8WITNESS THOMAS:Yes.9MR. SWAIM:Okay, but those O-rings in the1011engine pylons are outside of the fuel tank?WITNESS THOMAS: Yes, and –– yeah, and as we12discussed yesterday afternoon,an O–ring leaking in the13pylon will become very obvious very quickly.14MR. SWAIM:Because that fuel will go where?15WITNESS THOMAS:It will drain -- it will1617181920drain down the pylon through a drain line to the bottomof the cell and overboard.MR. SWAIM: Okay. Is the opinion of yourselfor the Boeing Company that leakage within the fueltanks is acceptable in those types of cases?21WITNESS THOMAS:Minor leakage inside the22fuel tank that doesn’t cause major pilot concern or a23tank to tank transfer is acceptable.Obviously, the24pilots themselves have that discretionary option of25saying,“I really don’t like what is happening; it isCAPITAL HILL REPORTING, INC.(202) 466-9500

1316123causing me to do too many corrective re–balances of theairplane.”As we described yesterday, a fuel leak in the4cell –– or,rather in the strut itself, would be noted567by the maintenance people and appropriate action taken.MR. SWAIM: Okay. We know that in some casesfuel hoses and other rubberized components have a set8life for the rubber,especially for the package life in9101112that -- I am thinking of other airplanes, especiallyflexible braided fuel lines -- but, in the case of atransport airplane such as this, what is the life thatyou expect out of an O-ring, or the whole series of O-1314rings?Is there a set life?CHAIRMAN HALL: Mr. Swaim, I don’t want to1516cut you off.MR. SWAIM:Okay.171819CHAIRMAN HALL: But, I really -- the onlyquestion I wanted to know is that you are aware of itand are you looking at it.20MR. SWAIM:Very good.21WITNESS THOMAS:The short answer is yes, and22yes.2324leak,CHAIRMAN HALL: Okay. You know, a leak is aand I assume even though it is acceptable for a25short period of time under some situations, it wouldn’tCAPITAL HILL REPORTING, INC.(202) 466-9500

13171234be for a long period.You mentioned, Mr. Thomas, that you -- thatin some of your later 747’s that some of the lowpowered wiring was shielded?56WITNESS THOMAS:CHAIRMAN HALL:Correct.Could you explain the78difference to me between the later model 747’s and theearliers in regard to that, the shielding?9WITNESS THOMAS:As we described yesterday, I10believe it was, there is two -- the reason for1112shielding is low energy EMI,wiring.or coupling between other131415161718192021We have shielding on the Honeywell gagingsystem because when we introduced –– I forget whatparticular feature it was, onto the airplane, itintroduced some low level noise.On the 747-400’s and 757-67 airplanes, thegaging system works on a slightly different principal.The Honeywell system works on sending a -- basically, ahigh frequency signal to the probes, and you can filterout noise on that high frequency by –– just like you22tune a radio.You can have filtering on the system.2324The newer systems in effect pulse the probes,and there is a lot of information on that pulse. We25look for resistance,we look for capacitance, we –– inCAPITAL HILL REPORTING, INC.(202) 466-9500

1effect,1318it is almost to the point where we can tell the2crew where a break in the wire is by this pulsing3technique,a measurement technique.4so,that is very open to noise. So, it is56very ––wiring.for performance reasons, we have to shield that78safety reasons?CHAIRMAN HALL:That is not done for any9WITNESS THOMAS: No, sir.10CHAIRMAN HALL:Now, given the information11that TWA 800 and looking back at the Philippine12accident in retrospect,is that anything that you all1314are going to look at as to whether those wirings shouldbe shielded and whether the low voltage and high15voltage–– is that the correct terminology? –– should161718run together?WITNESS THOMAS: Yes, sir. As I said in aquestion that somebody else posed just now, the NTSB --19excuse me,the FAA have proposed doing that by their20NPRM, and we are going to address the NPRM.21CHAIRMAN HALL:Mr. McSweeney, could you22maybe just briefly give us where the –– where you are23in regard to the –– or,the FAA is -- in regard with2425the service bulletins that Mr. Thomas went over, andhow long you would anticipate once those serviceCAPITAL HILL REPORTING, INC.(202) 466-9500

131912bulletins were put out that it would take to put themin effect?3WITNESS McSWEENEY:We are working with4Boeing in understanding those service bulletins as they5are being drafted.Our intent is to be prepared when678the final service bulletin is issued to immediatelyissue the airworthiness action.CHAIRMAN HALL: Mr. Thomas, you mentioned9that –– earlier,that there were two types of AD’s, or10one of these on colored paper and one on the white1112paper, and one was an alert?treated an alert as an AD.I believe TWA said they131415When you issue the service bulletin will --do you know at this point in time whether that will bean alert, or just a –– I mean, a service bulletin ––16but,it would just be an alert?171819bulletin, sir?WITNESS THOMAS:CHAIRMAN HALL:This is for which serviceAny of the ones you are2021putting out that you just went over.(Pause. )2223WITNESS THOMAS:are alert at this point,I do not believe any of themalthough the fuel pump conduit2425service bulletin was an alert service bulletin followedup with an AD.CAPITAL HILL REPORTING, INC.(202) 466-9500

1320123CHAIRMAN HALL: So, in other words, promptresponse by the FAA if they think those need to be AD’swould be needed for them to –– we see the action in the45industry?Mr. McSweeney?WITNESS McSWEENEY: Yeah, I just might want67to add that we really make a determination and look atservice bulletins on a regular basis, and we ––8historically,even AD service bulletins that weren’t9alert service bulletins,and at other times we have101112131415161718192021AD’d the alert service bulletin, but we have disagreedwith the timing in it and, so, we have come out withour own timing in the AD.so, it is –– we look at them independent ofwhat they recommend.CHAIRMAN HALL: Very good. I would like tonow go and call on the panel and see if you have anyclosing comments. This is our final panel. Anythingelse that you think that the National TransportationSafety Board should be exploring or looking at, or anyother thoughts that you have in regard to this wholematter that you would like to put on the public record?22Dr.Shepherd?23DR. SHEPHERD: Yes, sir, thank you. I would24just like to second Dr. Loeb’s comments.We have heard25a lot of discussion yesterday and today about fuelCAPITAL HILL REPORTING, INC.(202) 466-9500

1flammability reduction techniques.1321It is gratifying to23hear that reduction of fuel temperature is included inthat.4However,the bureaucratic process that has5been outlined to evaluate those techniques does not6promise to be short,and I think it is important that7891011we consider simple interim modifications to the ––either operation or hardware in the current fleet, thecommercial transports.I believe in this regard anything we can doto reduce the fuel and the ullage temperature in the1213center wing tank should be carefully considered.you .Thank14CHAIRMAN HALL:Mr. McSweeney, we appreciate15your twenty-three years of public service at the1617Federal Aviation Administration.that you would like to add?Is there anything18WITNESS McSWEENEY:I would just, I guess,19like to summarize in a few short words that -- starting20first with our goal.Immediately after the tragic21accident,today and in the future our goal will always2223be the same,TWA 800.to never again have a tragic accident like24I want to emphasize that we are looking at25the full triangle.We are looking at fuel, we areCAPITAL HILL REPORTING, INC.(202) 466-9500

1322123looking at the oxidizer and we are looking at theignition spark.We have, I believe, taken some action on4short term solutions.The AD on wing fuel pump5678910111213141516conduits is, in our mind, a possible scenario for thisaccident that we have effectively dealt with to take itout of any realm of possibility at this point onhappening on any other aircraft.Our NPRM AD on the fuel quantity indicatingsystem deals with three failure modes that possiblycould be considered as scenarios in this accident. So,I think those are short term actions that we havetaken.I appreciate the opportunity to make thosecomments.CHAIRMAN HALL: Mr. Thomas, thirty-one years17at the Boeing Company,a Chief Engineer and now a181920veteran of four panels at this public hearing.you deserve a raise.(Laughter. )I think2122I noticed on your experience that you workedas a designer on the Concord fuel system.23WITNESS THOMAS:Yes.2425comments,CHAIRMAN HALL: You know, in your closingis there anything of that system that is doneCAPITAL HILL REPORTING, INC.(202) 466-9500

132312345678that would be –– we could learn from?WITNESS THOMAS: On that airplane, it is --that is an interesting airplane, because the very actof going supersonic raises its temperature, and inreality that airplane goes from lean through theflammability region out into rich every flight everyday.It is obviously designed to exactly the same91011standards that we use.complicated fuel system.still in fuel systems.It is a very much moreThat is probably why I amIf you can do the Concord one,1213you can -- the rest are relatively easy until you getto something like the B-2.14First of all,I would like to thank the Board15for the opportunity.It has been a long, hard week. I1617have learned a huge amount.at dinner time last night,We were talking about itand the young panelist with1819202122232425me on the electrical system made a comment that it wassuch a sobering reminder of what safety really means.We talk about safety daily, but to come tothis hearing and really talk about it in terms of thisaccident is a very powerful influence on our lives.Jerry was saying we really need to figure out how wetake a ten-minute synopsis of this and make itavailable to our employees to get the message over, andCAPITAL HILL REPORTING, INC.(202) 466-9500

13241234tell them over and over again.I think the hearings has given the Americanpeople an opportunity to see everybody who is involvedin this and to hear everybody and the concerns that we5all have about safety.I think this is very important.6789Lastly, I would like to say in a sense we maynot ever know what occurred on TWA 800, and in somerespects had we have known if it was an arc–externalthreat and we knew about it six weeks after the10accident,we wouldn’t be here holding any of these1112131415161718192021discussions on reducing flammability.What we really have is an accident where wemay not know the cause, but it has forced us --everybody in the industry –– to sit back and reallyevaluate all our fundamental premises for designingairplanes, and in the long run, even without knowingthe cause of TWA 800, the end result will be much saferairplanes.It is a great opportunity to go forward anddo that.CHAIRMAN HALL: Thank you very much. Well,22Captain Green,as a pilot in your profession, as those232425of us in the traveling public look in that cockpitevery time we get on the plane and trust our safety toyou all, I appreciate very much your –– as well, ofCAPITAL HILL REPORTING, INC.(202) 466-9500

1course,1325as the mechanics and flight attendants and all2the others in the industry.34But,are the pilots,the most visible thing to the individualand they are well respected and highly5regarded,and we are pleased to have you participate.6Do you have any closing comments?7CAPTAIN GREEN:I think, Mr. Chairman, there8are two things relative to the panel that I would like9to mention.One is just to reiterate that we are10dealing with a different ignition source than the11military deals with,and the importance of identifying121314that ignition source and the susceptibility that itpresents remains paramount to us because of thepotential threat and other matters.15Secondly,this hearing has made me even more16aware,tremendously aware of a number of bodies of171819202122232425knowledge that are actively developing very, veryrapidly, beginning with the work that the Safety Boardhas done in flammability and in aircraft wiring, thework that Boeing has done and the work that the FAA hasdone and the flight tests that the Safety Boardconducted.The thing I would like to emphasize again isthe need for timely and effective and thoroughcommunications between all of these working groups asCAPITAL HILL REPORTING, INC.(202) 466-9500

132612quickly as we can as we run up to these ARAC processesand so forth.3It has been a very,very long and interesting4experience this week.We would really like to thank56the Board for the opportunity to be on the panel andparticipate in the investigation.7CHAIRMAN HALL:Thank you very much, Captain.8Mr. Lauzze, I want to thank just you and Dr.9Ball and Mr.Tyson all at the same time for your101112contributions on the military side to aviation safety,and give you three gentlemen an opportunity to make anycomments that you would like to make.13MR. LAUZZE:Thank you very much, Mr.14151617Chairman. From my position, one thing I would like towalk away with is a new spirit of cooperation, I think,among the different agencies that are involved.The Army and the Navy and the Air Force have18formed a committee that Dr.Ball mentioned yesterday,1920212223the Joint Technical Coordinating Group on AircraftSurvivability. We share planning, we share resources,we share data.We have a couple of years ago signed an MOUwith the FAA Atlantic City Tech Center to also share24data.I would like to see that continue and expand,25and maybe even share some more resources in theCAPITAL HILL REPORTING, INC.(202) 466-9500

13271planning exercise, as well.2We,for example in the military community,3have been trying for over twenty years to get some4flight test data,and the data you collected just5678recently on the 747 is going to help us immensely. So,I would like to offer our facilities and our supportand our cooperation.Thank you, sir.9CHAIRMAN HALL:Thank you. Dr. Ball?10MR. BALL:Just one final comment, Mr.11Chairman.I would like to thank you for giving us the121314opportunity to participate in this very importantpublic hearing.You have given us a chance to show the public15what we can do,and we hope that what we have presented161718here will be helpful to you in coming to your finalsolution.CHAIRMAN HALL: And Mr. Tyson?19WITNESS TYSON:I would just like to second20Ralph’s offer for cooperation both in our facilities21and exchange of data,and thank you very much for2223having the opportunity to be here.CHAIRMAN HALL: Thank you. Before I move to24my closing statement,I would like to go down the25parties and see if any of the -- I would like toCAPITAL HILL REPORTING, INC.(202) 466-9500

1328123456789101112131415161718acknowledge each of the parties, and if any of theparties have closing comments they would like to make.We will follow the usual order and begin withCrane Company Hydro-Aire. Mr. Russell (sic), thank youfor your presence and attendance at this hearing.MR. BOUSHIE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It issomewhat redundant as we go through the panel and thewitnesses and listen to everyone’s comments, because Ithink that it exemplifies basically all of ourfeelings.I would only like to say that I share in lotsof the spirit that has been expressed here, and I thinkwe will all go away with a different attitude and adifferent perspective toward air safety.Thank you very much.CHAIRMAN HALL: Thank you. The InternationalAssociation of Machinists and Aerospace Workers? Mr.Liddell?19MR. LIDDELL:Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We2021would like to take this opportunity to thank you forour participation in these hearings and the22investigation,and to also state that we stand back to23further assist you in this effort.24CHAIRMAN HALL:I appreciate your presence.25While the public may see the pilot, I am sure the pilotCAPITAL HILL REPORTING, INC.(202) 466-9500

13291sees the mechanic and is counting on his good work to2keep the plane safe,and you represent a very important34group of people that both work on the planes and designand build them.5Trans World Airlines, Inc.?Captain Young,67thank you very much for TWA’s participation in thishearing.8CAPTAIN YOUNG:Thank you very much, Mr.9Chairman.I would like to say on behalf of Trans World10Airlines we appreciate the ability to participate in11the hearing,and we certainly will continue to devote1213141516our utmost support for the continuing work of theBoard.Thank you very much.CHAIRMAN HALL: Thank you. The FederalAviation Administration? Mr. Streeter, thank you, and17thank you for bringing Mr.Dormer to sit at the table.18MR. STREETER: Certainly, sir. He needs to19keep an eye on me.Other than that, the FAA looks20212223forward to continued cooperation and participation withall the parties in the investigation.CHAIRMAN HALL: Thank you, sir. BoeingCommercial Airplane Group? Mr. Rodrigues?24MR. RODRIGUES:Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I25think Mr.Thomas pretty well expressed Boeing’sCAPITAL HILL REPORTING, INC.(202) 466-9500

13301opinion.We have thoroughly enjoyed all of the2exchange of information that we have received here this3week,and we will just continue on two paths, the first456789101112being continue to try and find what the cause is.It has been pretty frustrating for us whohave been putting in long hours for many months andstill not have a cause. So, we will continue there, ofcourse.As Mr. Thomas said, we are doing many otherthings, and we will pursue that. Thanks .CHAIRMAN HALL: Well, your company is aleader in the aviation industry and I think all13Americans are proud of the 200,000 employees.It is14151617181920one of the flagship companies in our country, and weappreciate the commitment you have made to help us inthese matters that have been discussed here today.Captain Rekart with the Air Line PilotsAssociation?CAPTAIN REKART: Well, sir, we have all beenhere for seventeen months so far, and we have covered a21lot of ground,and we are looking forward to being a2223part of the continuing investigation and taking it tothe conclusion, sir.24CHAIRMAN HALL:Thank you very much.25Honeywell, Inc., and Mr. Thomas?CAPITAL HILL REPORTING, INC.(202) 466-9500

1MR. THOMAS:I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for13312345678the opportunity to participate in this hearing, andHoneywell will be available to assist in any waypossible in the future.CHAIRMAN HALL: Well, thank you. Well, withthe last witness having been heard, we have concludedthis phase of the Safety Board’s investigation into thecrash of TWA Flight 800.9In closing,I want to sincerely express my10deep appreciation to all the participants in this1112hearing.I believe we have had a very productive week.As I said when we began, the National131415161718192021Transportation Safety Board serves as the eyes and earsof the American people at an accident site, and thesehearings are an exercise in accountability.In holding this hearing seventeen monthsafter the TWA 800 tragedy, we were seeking to explainto the American public just what we -- where we are inthe investigation and describe in some detail what hasbeen done to date not only by the NationalTransportation Safety Board and its contractors, but22also by the parties,by industry and the federal232425regulatory authorities.We have presented all of the factualinformation available at this time, and I want to takeCAPITAL HILL REPORTING, INC.(202) 466-9500

13321234this opportunity to thank the technical staff, some ofwhom are represented to my right, for the work andcommitment they have brought to this investigation.The technical expertise of this Board is5something the American people can be proud of.I am6789proud to be associated with these men and women andhave an opportunity to serve as their spokesperson.I hope that we have been successful indemonstrating the breadth and depth of the effort to10determine exactly what happened to TWA 800.We have11121314sought to take a careful, objective look at allconceivable ideas and theories and have called on awide array of experts from around the world to assistus i this endeavor.15We are by no means finished.Our work will16continue,and we will spare no effort to determine the17cause of the crash of TWA 800.I am confident that in1819202122the process we will learn a great deal more that willhelp make our air transportation system even safer.This hearing also represents what I believeis a milestone in forging a broad base systematicapproach to dealing with the dangerous vapors that can23accumulate in fuel tanks.2425The acceptance of a twotrackapproach to this problem is an important safetyadvance for the traveling public.CAPITAL HILL REPORTING, INC.(202) 466-9500

133312As testimony this week has shown, dangerousconditions in fuel tanks occur more commonly than had3been believed,and when the tank is heated, the amount456789101112of energy needed to ignite the vapors dropssignificantly.I welcome the FAA’s willingness to takeanother look and re–evaluate the recommendations onfuel/air mixture volatility made by the NTSB one yearago.I also welcome the Boeing Corporation’sexpressed openness to examine additional ways ofdealing with the dangers of fuel tank vapors suggested13by the Safety Board.I hope this hearing has14151617demonstrated the extensive work that has already beendone by the Boeing and the FAA in this investigation.The NTSB has long advocated a two-trackapproach to the fuel tank problem, pointed up by the18crash of TWA 800.This position is derived in part19from the lessons learned over the years.Thirty years2021222324of accident investigation experience has taught us thevalue of not relying on a single approach to resolvinga serious safety problem.We applaud the work that has been done toremove all potential ignition sources for fuel tank25explosions,but as has been stated frequently at thisCAPITAL HILL REPORTING, INC.(202) 466-9500

13341meeting, we can never be sure that all possible2ignition sources can be eliminated.Therefore, the3456789Safety Board strongly believes that additional measuresto stabilize fuel tank vapors are necessary andprudent.The Board certainly recognizes the need toproceed carefully in making changes to systems that ona whole have performed safely and reliably for extendedperiods of time.10Let me say again,the 747 aircraft has a very11safe record,and we have the safest aviation system in12131415this country of the whole world, and that is as aresult of a lot of work that is done –– good work thatis done by the individuals that design the aircraft,manufacture the aircraft, people that maintain the16aircraft,the people that fly the aircraft and the17government regulators that try to oversee those18processes.It is a record all Americans can be proud19Of rand I think that is one of the reasons we see the202122232425dramatic growth in aviation today in our country.We do want to be sure that the fixes that aremade are the right ones and that no new problems areintroduced, but these concerns should not immobilizegovernment and industry and inhibit us from actingvigorously and with dispatch when, as in the case ofCAPITAL HILL REPORTING, INC.(202) 466-9500

1335123456789101112131415161718the crash of TWA 800, a problem is uncovered.It is only through prompt, effective andsustained action that the aviation industry and thegovernment’s regulatory system can retain theconfidence of the American people.Let me emphasize that this investigation willremain open to receive at any time new and pertinentinformation concerning the issues discussed this week.The Board may at its discretion again reopen thehearing in order that such information may be made partof the public record.The Board welcomes any information orrecommendations regarding this accident from theparties or the public that may assist us in our effortsto insure the safe operation of commercial aircraft.Any such recommendation should be sent to the NationalTransportation Safety Board, Washington, D.C. 20594,to Mr. Al Dickinson’s attention.19Normally,submissions should be received202122232425thirty days after the receipt of the transcript of thishearing. However, since there are still investigationactivities open in this case, Mr. Dickinson will notifythe parties when the final submissions are due.All the evidence developed in thisinvestigation and hearing, and all recommendationsCAPITAL HILL REPORTING, INC.(202) 466-9500

1336123456received within the specified time will be presentedand evaluated in the final report on TWA 800 in whichthe Board’s determination of the probable cause will bestated.The record of the investigation, includingthe transcript of the hearing and all exhibits entered7into the record,will become part of the Safety Board’s8910111213public docket on this accident, and will be availablefor inspection at the Board’s Washington office.Anyone wishing to purchase the transcript, includingthe parties to the investigation, may contact the CourtReporter directly.On behalf of the National Transportation14Safety Board,I want to thank again the parties for15their cooperation,not only during this proceeding, but1617also throughout the entire investigation of thisaccident.18Also rI would like to express sincere192021appreciation to all those individuals, groups,corporations and agencies who have provided theirtalents so willingly through this hearing.22Specifically,the members of the National2324Transportation Safety Board administrative staff whoassisted through this hearing.25In closing,I want to thank the familyCAPITAL HILL REPORTING, INC.(202) 466-9500

1members who have been with us this week.It is good13372that so many of you all were able to attend.I know3that in many ways this has been a very difficult week4for you and I hope,though, that what you have seen of56the work underway to solve TWA 800 and the effort byeveryone here to learn how to prevent such tragedies in7the future,that this may give you some degree of891011comfort and will serve as a legacy to those who losttheir lives on that flight.I have received a very gracious letter fromthe families thanking the Safety Board for their hard12work.I am going to make that letter available for all131415161718of my technical staff and the others that have workedso hard on this investigation, as well as the parties,and I will submit that letter for the hearing record.Thank you very much again, and I want toassure the families that, of course, we will continueto stay in close touch with you as the investigation19proceeds and,as we have in the past, share all2021information with you.I finally want to thank C-Span for covering22this hearing gavel to gavel.There has been so much232425attention boththis accident,an opportunityin this country and around this world onI am glad that the American people hadto view these proceedings, and I want toCAPITAL HILL REPORTING, INC.(202) 466-9500

1338123again thank C–Span for that opportunity, being here andbeing able to show to the nation one of our hearingsgavel to gavel.4Therefore,I will now as Chairman of this56789hearing declare this hearing to be in recessindefinitely.(Whereupon, at 12:30 p.m. the hearing wasadjourned until further notice. )— — —10111213141516171819202122232425CAPITAL HILL REPORTING, INC.(202) 466-9500