OCR Text |
Show Family Weekly / Aprit 27, 1969 The Questions Americans Ask Most More and moreof ustravel by air, crowding an already crowdedsky; here cn aviation experttells how we are protected from disaster—and what still must be done By ROBERT J. SERLING Author of “The President's Plane Is Missing” and “Loud and Clear” IR SAFETY is no longer a back to World WarII. Many airport- The airlines, most of which do not control towerslack radar, also a war- earn anywhere near the 10-percent time development. At least half the U.S. jet fleet is return on investment thai the Civil Aeronautics Board has decreed reasonable, cannot afford such expendi- frequently to lay groups on safety developments and receive much mail expressing interestin this vitalfield. equipped for what amounts to allweather landings—but groundfacilities needed to supplement the airborne devices have not been installed. Mostof these deficiencies are due to lack of funds, and this, in turn, is due to a persistent slashing of appropriations by Congress and/or the Federal Budget Bureau. In this 10th yearof the jet age, airlinersstill crash largely for the same From both the personal contacts and the correspondence, I have compiled someof the questions most frequently reasons planes crashed 20 years ago —inadequate runways, poor runway lighting, obsolete navigation aids, What can be done to solve the “skyjacking” problem? subject discussed by a small minority of Americans. Largely because of the jets, more than 42 percent of the nation’s adult population has flown on a scheduled airliner at least once, and the percentage increases daily. This upsurge in air travel has been accompanied by a natural increase in public concern over safety. I speak asked—and what you are about to tures. They already have committed themselves to more than $4 billion worth of new (and safer) jetliners for delivery in the next five years. The overwhelmiag majority of aviation officials agree that an Airport Trust Fund, financed through higher passenger fares, increased airline and general aviation fuel taxes, and other revenues, is badly needed. Apprehension and prosecution of read are not only pertinent queries, but the answers presented, I hope, have clarity and objectivity. movement of air traffic. Most of the detection devices being tested can spot gunsor explosives, but they also pick up totally innocent objects on a person or in baggage. Sabotage, a far moreserious problem than highjacking in terms of catastrophe, worries airline pilots more than anyotherair-safety problem. The majority of pilots, by the way, are agreed that over-the-counter sale of flight insurance should be banned or limited. There is considerable evidence that easy-to-buy insurance has been a motivating trigger for airliner sabotage attempts. What single achievement would do the most for air safety? Probably the prevention of fire on impact. Fire and sinokeare the prime killers in a crash. Government and industry alike have been busy per- Why don’t the airlines equip their planes with parachutes for all passengers so they can evacuate a doomed aircraft? fecting ruptureproof fuel tanks and the use of gelled or emulsified fuels which control or reduce the spread Few captains would relish the responsibility of deciding whentotell passengers to jump—knowing that gers themselvesrealize that survival of fire. Nevertheless, until passenin a crash may depend on their own actions, needless deaths will occur. Are stewardesses really “glorified cocktail waitresses,” primarily trained in liquor and meal service? Any passenger whose life has been saved by a well-trained, cool-headed stewardess will testify that “cocktail waitress” is a libelous description. The public seldom realizes that one-third to one-half of today’s train- most of them probably would be severely injured or even killed in the process; the art of parachuting re- quires superb physical condition and careful training. It is even conceivable that the majority would be safer if they stayed in a crippled plane instead of jumping. It is unlikely that anyone could jump safely from a jet which, say, lost a wing at 35,000 feet; no one could breathe at such altitude.If the The terminal of Chicago's O'Hare Field illustrates crush of air passengers. jump were attempted at lower alti- tudes, the plane probably would be spinning so violently that evacuation would be impossible. Most crashes occur during the landing or take-off phase, anyway. Why, after 10 years of jet experience and millions of dollars expended in safety research, should we still have accidents while landing or taking off? It is because ail the technical achievements havenot been extended to everyday use. Hundreds of airports used by the airlines, for in- stance, do not have Instrument Landing Systems even though ILS dates 4 Family Weekly, April 27, 1969 and human error. Even the latter may “skyjackers” would be theonly really involve extenuating circumstances, effective deterrent, inasmuch as most highjackings occur because the perpetrators believe they can get away scot-free. Effective gun-controllegis- for many pilot mistakes would not occur if crews were given all the tools they needed for a safe flight. If airports are inadequate, why don’t the airlines themselves pay for the modernization instead of waiting for Federal funds? It would take a conservative $150 lation would be an indirect help. Some means of detecting the presence of weapons or explosives on boarding passengers is an obvious need, and much secret research is being conducted in this area. The million a year in Federal funds alone through 1975 to bring this nation’s difficulty, of course, is to develop de- airports up to the highest standards of safety. Current Federal airport spending is only about half that. simple, and capable of detecting tection devices which are foolproof, would-be highjackers or saboteurs without interfering with theefficient ing for cabin attendants is in emer- gency procedures. Theairlines flunk more girls out of stewardess schools for failures in safety tests than in anyother phase oftraining. As long as a girl flies, she must go through recurrent training regularly. Are the jets safer than propeller-driven planes? In almost every respect, yes. Jets are stronger with far more reliable engines. They are not as forgiving as the older planes, and they must be flown by the book. But in return for this demanding nature, they boast an inherent ability to absorb punishment. There are cases on record in which jets have lost one-third of a wing and still were landed safely. |