Letter to NTSB Chairman James Hall 12/30/96 Posted By: James A. Bergquist <clittle@inetworld.net>
Date: 23 May 1997
VISION SAFE CORPORATION
TO: The Honorable James Hall, Chairman
30 December 1996 (VIA FEDEX)
National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB)
490 L'Enfant Plaza East, SW
Washington, DC 20594
cc:
Vice President Al Gore,
Chairman & Ms. Victoria Cummock,
Commissioner, White House Commission on Aviation Safety &
Security
From:
Earnest Hadley Esq.,
Richard Kessler Esq.,
Ms. Marilyn Chamberlin
& other relatives of Valujet victims
Ref.: Letter for your response: Letter and documents for inclusion in the Public Docket of the NTSB investigation of the accident with Valujet, flight 592, DC-9-32, N904VJ, near Miami, Florida, May 11, 1996 (case # SA-510)
Dear Chairman Hall, In accordance with the stipulations by Member
John Goglia , Chairman of the NTSB Valujet Hearings, November 18-22,
1996, that the Public Docket remain open for 30 days after the
release of the transcript of the Hearing (December 3, 1996), this
letter and the enclosures herewith, a total of 487 pages, all which
are numerated in sequence in the top right hand corner, are for
inclusion in the Public Docket referenced above, including all
printed or electronically stored copies thereof. (Any reference
herein to the aforementioned numerated pages will be noted in bold in
parenthesis: (ref.pg.00000)- Two pages, 000123 & 000158 are
intentionally blank) We are directing this to you because we believe
you should be aware of some of the more serious irregularities and
questions involving the NTSB Valujet investigation and because we
trust you and your staff will make certain that all these materials
are fully included in the Public Docket before Member Goglia's
deadline, 02 January 1997.
It has been our understanding that the purpose of an NTSB Public Hearing is a search for, and exposure of, all relevant facts, in order to determine cause(s), of an accident and of the related fatalities, especially if the causes of death are attributable to deficiencies in aircraft systems or maintenance and/or the absence of basic life saving equipment. Most regrettably, however, the NTSB Valujet Hearings appeared to be a well orchestrated promotional campaign for the FAA/NTSB oxygen canister theory and the speculation that the oxygen generators somehow caused a horrendous fire and a rumored plunge of Valujet flight 592 from about 7000 feet, nose first into the Everglades. There appeared to be a very deliberate effort to exclude or down play further investigation, discussion or explanation of important and known facts preceding the accident as well as evidence to other likely causes of the crash and the fatalities.
We are very disturbed to learn that previously discovered evidence of a serious electrical emergency along with sooty and scorched wreckage from the cockpit and electrical bay (ref.pg.000008-000023) now seem to have disappeared- The Structures Group Chairman's Factual Report states: "No soot or fire damage was observed on recovered components from the cockpit or the electric and electronics compartment." (ref.pg.000025). There are a number of questions that need to be answered, and a number of vitally interested individuals await responsive answers.
1. What happened to the sooty and scorched components from the cockpit and the electrical compartment that were previously recovered and reported in NTSB news briefings? (ref.pg.000008-000025)
2. Why is the NTSB promoting the oxygen canister-fire calamity-helpless plunge from high in the sky scenario and seemingly ignoring the NTSB's own findings of FAA radar data (ref.pg.000026) and reliable eye witnesses reports which clearly show the pilots dove down and leveled off close to the ground ref.pg.000041, 000042, 000048), in what appears to be an obvious attempt to make an emergency landing in the Everglades?
3. Why is the NTSB not mentioning that there was a major electrical emergency on board the airplane (Captain Kubech, referring to the electrical systems said: "we're losing everything") (ref.pg.000051), as opposed to NTSB's representation that the pilots "discussed an electrical problem" (ref.pg.000059)? The major, multiple electrical failures was the initial reason Valujet flight 592 was returning to Miami. (ref.pg.000051)
4. Why is it that it appears the NTSB is trying to lead people to believe that numerous calls of "fire", which appear to have been made instinctively when people saw smoke, were made after the first officer told Air Traffic Control (ATC) they had: "Smoke in the cockpit, Smoke in the cabin", when, in fact, the word fire was heard seven times before the pilot reported "Smoke in the cockpit, Smoke in the cabin" to ATC. Is it for the purpose of nurturing the "oxygen generator & helpless calamity theory"? (Compare the NTSB accident summary on page 22 and 23 of Volume 1 of the Hearing transcript [ref.pg.000059 & 000060] with the Cockpit Voice Recorder transcript, pages 26-29 [ref.pg.000051 & 000052]).
5. Why did the NTSB present the dramatic and sensational fire video which, in spite of NTSB disclaimers, led the media and the public to believe oxygen generators caused a horrendous fire on flight 592, when there is no proof of such. In fact, independent laboratory tests of oxygen generators, packaged in cardboard, tissue paper, and plastic bubble wrap and soaked in jet fuel, grease and highly flammable WD-40 could not start a fire (reg.pg.000061-000070). Moreover, the forensic chemist said that the probability of the oxygen generation canister involvement is "about as likely as a snowstorm in Miami" (ref.pg.000069)
6. Why did the NTSB show the sensational fire video when the Fire & Explosion Group Chairman's report had not even been completed, nor even released, and no one in the audience was allowed to ask any questions of how the FAA/NTSB fire experiments were conducted?
7. We had been told that the NTSB Valujet Hearings were delayed for several months, until November, because of the additional workload from the TWA800 accident and the need to fully prepare for the Valujet Hearing. Yet, in spite of the long delay, some of the most critical and important reports, such as Aircraft Systems and the Fire and Explosion Group reports, as well as a coroner's report were not presented in the Hearing. (We were recently told by the coroner that there were no remains of victims found with any signs of burns) Instead, in a most unprofessional manner, the audience is shown a dramatic Hollywood style pyrotechnics show, basically leading the audience and victims relatives to believe that the passengers were incinerated. Why?
8. Emergencies of all kinds well inevitably continue to occur. Pilots are therefore provided FAA approved procedures to deal with known, recurring emergencies. Whether or not oxygen generators, hot wired circuits, sabotage, or whatever other cause created the emergency aboard flight 592, it seems any questions of whether this should have been a manageable emergency were carefully avoided. Why? Certainly, when there is a lot of smoke in the cockpit, caused by an electrical short, or other fire, rendering the pilots unable to see to safely control and land the plane, the cause of the accident is not the electrical short or the fire. The cause of the accident is the fact that the pilot cannot see to safely control and land the plane. In other words, they are unable to manage the emergency. The NTSB refused to deal with these issues claiming there was not enough time to do so. How can there not be enough time to investigate the fundamental explanation the pilot gave for returning to Miami: "Smoke in the cockpit. Smoke in the cabin"?
9. No questions were raised of whether the pilots were able to see to safely control and land the plane, in spite of the fact that they reported "smoke in the cockpit" and there were clear indications one or both cockpit windows were opened. Why? (The only reason for opening a cockpit window in flight is in a futile attempt to cope with excessive smoke)
10. There was no inquiry in the Hearing into the possible causes of death of the passengers. Is it possible or probable they were asphyxiated by the heavy smoke because of the absence of basic safety equipment (passenger protective breathing equipment on the aircraft)? Of course it is. Why was this not discussed and investigated? When the possible or probable cause of death is asphyxiation, the unsafe condition must be eliminated. Banning the transport of oxygen generators (the involvement of which is still pure speculation) won't eliminate the unsafe condition, because there are other countless other known sources that generate smoke. But it seems that is the approach the FAA has convinced the NTSB to take. Why? Because the airlines do not want to provide smoke protection for passengers. It is easier to dupe the public into believing the problem is solved by blaming it on oxygen generators.
11. Smoke protection has been provided for many years for passengers on many hundreds of corporate aircraft, and all U.S. Air Force transport aircraft are now also being equipped with passenger smoke protection (ref.pg.000071 & 000072) U.S. airlines do not provide this protection. Why was this not discussed in the Hearing? The NTSB claimed there was not enough time to do so. Instead, the NTSB spent the majority of the Hearing on hazardous cargo. Yet, there is no proof that hazardous cargo had anything to do with this accident. At this stage it is all speculation, promotion and propaganda to get public scrutiny and attention away from the far more likely explanations: electrical fire, blind pilots, and asphyxiated passengers.
12. When the NTSB had the first press briefing, after listening to the Cockpit Voice Recorder (CVR) (ref.pg.000073 & 000074), nothing was said by the NTSB of the major electrical failure the pilots mentioned (which evidently precipitated the return to Miami). Why? (This is peculiar because the NTSB was at the time heavily focused on searching for evidence of electrical problems or any connection they could find relating to the oxygen generators. Instead, the NTSB announced that there were calls of "fire" and calls for "oxygen" but did not mention the pilots comments about the major electrical failures. Why?
13. As you know, from the complete copies provided to you, Member Goglia and Mr. Feith, a lengthy complaint (ref.pg.000084-000087) were filed with the Inspector General of the Department of Transportation about two weeks before the Valujet accident (and shortly thereafter with the U.S. Attorney General), concerning the FAA deliberate refusal to enforce the existing FAA smoke in the cockpit safety regulations for smoke that can't be stopped. Considering the grave (& substantiated) allegations in the complaint, and that this accident clearly involved "smoke in the cockpit", it is quite clear that there are substantive motives for the FAA, and others, to try to sway the NTSB to focus on the oxygen generators and to promote a calamitous fire and a helpless plunge from high in the sky into the Everglades, in the hopes that the very incriminating complaint and the "smoke in the Cockpit", "smoke in the cabin" and scorched and sooty parts from the cockpit and the electrical bay will be forgotten. Very disturbingly, a review of the record since the accident now shows a clear pattern of this. How can this be allowed to go on?
14. Moreover, there are also substantive motives to try to down play the major electrical failures that occurred on the flight as well as the inexcusable long history of recurring electrical problems, especially with this aircraft and in particular with the left AC buss circuits. The hand writing was on the wall for a major electrical fire, but nobody bothered to get to the bottom of the problem.
15. First it was told that the circuit breaker for the auxiliary hydraulic pump (which is on the left AC buss), which was malfunctioning earlier in the day, had been exchanged in Atlanta prior to the plane's departure for Miami. (ref.pg.000076) This story was changed later. Why? Perhaps, given the short time period the plane was in Atlanta, there was not enough time to replace the circuit breaker? Or perhaps, there simply were no replacement circuit breakers available? Or both? Is this why the story was changed?
16. The new explanation, recited by the NTSB (Vol.1, page 20 of the Hearing transcript (ref.pg.00057)was that the electrical Canon plug to the pump had been cleaned and that this supposed corrective action (which sounds good for the public, most of whom don't understand such things), was said to have stopped the circuit breaker from tripping (this is a very heavy electrical circuit: 115 Volt AC, 400 Mhz, 50 Amp). The "Canon plug" explanation is simply ridiculous. It has no scientific or technical basis whatsoever-dirty Canon plugs don't make circuit breakers trip. Electrical overloads are what make circuit breakers trip. They reason they trip is to prevent prolonged electrical overloads and serious electrical fires (which generate copious amounts of sooty smoke).
17. It is shocking to learn that a witness (Exhibit 6E (ref.pg.000077-000083)) told the NTSB and FAA that "The Valujet mechanic working on the aircraft had by-passed two circuit breakers behind the captain's seat." Moreover, "He also indicated that because the circuits had been jumped, there would be no way of shutting off certain electrical circuits." In other words, there was no way to stop an electrical overload and no way to stop an electrical fire. (nor can the copious amounts of sooty smoke be stopped) in these circuits because they were "hot wired". Why did the NTSB tell the public and media the ridiculous and unacceptable that cleaning the "Canon plug" solved the circuit breaker problem, when any expert knows that this has nothing to do with why a circuit breaker trips and such a procedure cannot solve the underlying electrical defect. Replacing the circuit breaker(s) would not correct a defective electrical circuit. Without correcting the electrical defect, the only way to provide power to the circuit is to by-pass the circuit breaker. But this is illegal and dangerous because it may start an electrical fire (and lots of sooty smoke) that can't by stopped. Why didn't the NTSB bring into the public spotlight the shocking information, and seemingly only viable explanation from this witness, that a Valujet mechanic bypassed the circuit breakers and hot wired the circuit(s)? Why did the NTSB explain, discuss and investigate the consequent serious safety issues and the possible and probable contributing causes of the accident such an irresponsible, illegal, and criminal action poses?
18. There are a number of highly improbable events required to implicate the now infamous oxygen generators in this disaster, including, among many other things, the fact that independent laboratory tests show that the external skin temperature of the canister is not sufficient to initiate a fire, even when the packing materials are soaked with highly flammable liquids (ref.pg.000067 & 000068). First it was said that there were no safety caps and that the safety pins fell out when cargo shifted on takeoff. But witnesses stated that the safety pins and lanyards were taped to prevent the pins from falling out. Next, the rumor was that a lanyard was sticking out from one of the boxes and got snagged, thereby triggering the firing mechanism. Given that the flight was only in the air for about eleven minutes, this scenario did not work either because the temperature would not be high enough to start any kind of fire, let alone the time required for a fire then to get out of control. The revised scenario is that several canisters were triggered. What next? Did they add match heads to cause a fire? (match heads, teak oil and hay can ignite at the skin temperatures encountered when oxygen generators are functioning). This raises the question of sabotage or, that a shipping clerk, or somebody, just happened to drop a box of matches in one of the cartons of generators. The scenarios are becoming more and more improbable. With the long history of electrical problems on this aircraft, why was there no inquiry in the Hearing of the effects of an electrical fire causing soot and heat damage in the cargo hold? Could an electrical fire have ignited items in the cargo hold?
19. There is substantive evidence and testimony of many months of continuing and unbelievable shoddy maintenance practices and continuing serious electrical problems, especially with the accident aircraft . Ultimately, in flight, there are major electrical malfunctions with "smoke in the cockpit" and "smoke in the cabin" on the ill fated aircraft. Heavy sooty smoke that can't by stopped (because circuits have been hot wired). Pilots, relying on FAA approved emergency procedures in the Aircraft Flight Manuals (AFM) which lead pilots to believe they can see to land the plane when the smoke can't be stopped. But, who can't see to safely control and land the plane because the FAA approved emergency procedures do not work when the smoke can't be stopped-the FAA does not test (certify planes to cope with such emergencies. [ref.pg.000097, 000170, 000184]). Then opening the cockpit window and finding this does not get rid of the smoke either. Adding insult to injury: the FAA knows that the FAA approved smoke procedures as will as opening the window do not work when the smoke can't be stopped, but has refused to tell any pilots and refused to amend the AFM's to warn pilots of this serious safety deficiency.
20. The distressed passengers (and flight attendants) most of whom believe "the little yellow cup" that drops down from the ceiling will provide life saving oxygen and protection against the toxic and lethal smoke invading the cabin, discover that there is no protection. The Senior Flight Attendant is apparently in the cockpit, because she is heard on the Cockpit Area Microphone (CAM). She says (ref.pg.00053): "OK, we need oxygen, we can't get oxygen back there" Most pilots know the passenger oxygen masks do not provide smoke protection (they only provide a small amount of supplementary oxygen to protect against decompression). Possible the pilot informs the flight attendant that they don't work. (there is supposedly an interruption from the interphone at this point on the cockpit voice recorder tape). Then, the flight attendant asks: "..ba.., is there a way we could test them?" (Test what? The oxygen masks? What else would she want to test?) Ten seconds later, still apparently in the cockpit, she says: "completely on fire" (What is on fire? Something in the cockpit? Something in the cabin? Something in the galley? A circuit breaker panel outside the cockpit? (scorched and sooty wreckage was found from this area) Or, since she apparently is in the cockpit, has one of the pilots pointed or asked her to open the floor hatch behind the captain's seat to look down in the Electric and Electronics (E&E) compartment, finding it "completely on fire"? Leaving the public and media to believe there was a fiery inferno and a helpless plunge from thousands of feet into the Everglades, when it is quite clear that the pilots were attempting to make an emergency landing. Scorched and sooty parts from the cockpit, electrical and electronics bay and the circuit breaker area by the forward restroom behind the cockpit were retrieved shortly after the accident but have now mysteriously disappeared. No coroner's report, no Fire and Explosion Group Report, and no Aircraft Systems Report. On and on it goes. Why? Why not be forthcoming with all the facts? Why not tell people it appears they were trying to make an emergency landing? Why? Whatever caused the emergency; oxygen canisters, electrical fire, sabotage- whatever it was, why was the emergency not manageable? Why did the emergency landing attempt fail just seconds before they could have landed? An inferno? Severed control cables? Severe smoke so the pilots could not see to safely control and land the plane? The foregoing are just a few of many more serious questions and comments regarding the fairness, thoroughness and impartiality of this, so called, NTSB investigation.
Member Goglia made the following opening remarks (Vol.1, page 7, of the transcript) at the Hearing: "Public hearings such as this are an exercise in accountability. Accountability on the part of the Safety Board, that it is conducting a thorough and fair investigation..." We trust you will encourage Member Goglia, and all others involved, to truly live up to this credo and to seriously review all the facts and leads in this tragic accident and to provide a fair and truthful representation thereof to the public and media. We and many others are of the firm belief that the NTSB continues to be unduly influenced by the people and entities the NTSB, by law, is supposed to be able to be critical of. This is sadly, once again, exemplified in the current NTSB Valujet investigation.
Presently, the NTSB investigation, disclosures, or lack thereof, are unfair, incomplete, biased and simply unacceptable. We look forward to your prompt response on these serious legal and safety matters and your confirmation that this letter and all enclosures have been fully incorporated in the original and all written and computerized copies of the public docket.
Sincerely,
Bert Werjefelt President
Enclosures: pages 00008-00487