Fire-Resistance of Damaged Planes Is Vigorously Debated Safety Issue

WASHINGTON — The fire that broke out during the crash of a Delta Air Lines jetliner in Dallas Wednesday is certain to escalate a long-running debate over what the airline industry has done--and not done--to prevent such fires or make them more survivable.

It was not immediately known what caused the deaths of the 13 persons killed after the Delta plane plummeted moments after takeoff. But air safety experts say many air crash victims are killed by fire rather than by impact and argue that planes could be made safer by greater use of flame-resistant materials inside the cabin and by redesigning fuel tanks to minimize the chances of explosion and fire.

Industry officials contend, however, that such design changes would cost hundreds of millions of dollars while saving only a handful of lives. In the face of such resistance, government regulators have not always moved swiftly in pushing the industry to adopt stronger safety measures.

For example, the Federal Aviation Administration--after years of skirmishing with safety-minded congressmen on the one hand and cost-conscious airline executives on the other--finally adopted rules last Thursday aimed at making airplane cabins significantly more resistant to flames, smoke and toxic fumes after a crash.

Two More Minutes to Evacuate

However, the new rules, designed to give passengers two minutes more to evacuate a crashed plane before fire erupts, do not take full effect until 1990 and will apply only to newly built planes and the relatively few old ones that are extensively refurbished. Thus, most of the current fleet of 3,400 commercial passenger planes will not have to meet the new flammability standards for materials used in aircraft interiors.

Moreover, several consumer advocates and congressional aides said they expect the airlines to push for delays and relaxation of the standards, claiming the flame-resistant materials are unavailable or cost too much.

The Air Transport Assn., the airlines’ trade group, claimed two years ago that it would cost up to $400 million to make the changes.

The FAA, which originally estimated the cost at only $2.5 million, now concedes it could total $250 million. The agency figured the improvements would save 30 lives over a 15-year period.

“That’s about $6 million to save a life,” said Dick Tobiason, an engineer with the Air Transport Assn., the airline industry trade organization. “The FAA says the value of a life is $1 million. So the cost of this program will be six times the benefit.”

Meanwhile, the FAA, pushed by Congress, is studying other ways to reduce the likelihood and severity of post-crash aircraft fires. Among the solutions under examination are reinforced fuel tanks designed to withstand impact without rupturing and “breakaway” fuel lines that would seal themselves and prevent the leakage of highly flammable jet fuel.

Standard on Military Planes

Both systems have been in place on military planes for years, but the FAA has “dragged its feet” in requiring them on civilian jetliners, Democratic Sen. Howard M. Metzenbaum of Ohio charged Wednesday.

“We don’t need any more studying of this problem, we know the answer,” Metzenbaum said in a television interview. “Military aircraft does have fire-resistant fuel tanks and does have breakaway fuel lines. Commercial airlines ought to have them and the FAA should be requiring them pronto.”

In legislation sponsored by Metzenbaum and passed last December, Congress ordered the FAA to prepare a broad study and recommendations on reducing airline fire danger from all causes by this December. Such improvements would not be required on old airliners, only on newly built jets.

“There have been too many airline crashes where too many people have been harmed and have lost their lives by reason of the fire--much more so, in many instances, than the impact of the crash itself,” Metzenbaum said.

T. Allan McArtor, administrator of the FAA, assured Metzenbaum in a February letter that the agency had in place an “aggressive program” to reduce the danger of air crash fires. McArtor said the FAA plans to require flame arresting devices in fuel tank vent systems and to require strengthening of fuel tank access panels, which in the past have broken and caused massive fuel spills and fires.

In addition, McArtor said, the agency has hired the Lockheed-California Co. to develop new “fuel containment concepts.” He did not say how long it would take to receive recommendations from the study or to institute new rules for air carriers. Such regulations in the past have taken as long as a decade to impose.

‘Survivable Air Crashes’

The National Transportation Safety Board estimates that 20% of all fatalities in “survivable” air crashes are caused by subsequent fire or smoke. A “survivable” crash is defined by the board as one in which seats remain bolted to the fuselage, seat belts function properly and passengers are not hit by flying metal or other debris.

Such crashes constitute 80% of all air mishaps, according to Matthew M. McCormick, chief of the NTSB’s survival factors division. McCormick said he did not have enough information to say whether Wednesday’s Delta crash would be classified as survivable or whether the passengers who died were killed as a result of fire rather than traumatic injuries.

Chris Witkowski, an associate with the Ralph Nader-founded Aviation Consumer Action Project, noted that the FAA has required the airlines to institute a series of relatively inexpensive safety measures since a smoldering blaze became an inferno on an Air Canada jetliner in 1983, killing 23 out of 46 passengers and crew who tried to escape after the plane landed.

The airlines installed stronger overhead compartments, low-flammability seat coverings, evacuation lights and smoke detectors in lavatories.

“But the things that significantly reduce lives, the airlines oppose the most, saying they’re not worth the money,” Witkowski charged.

Those items, he said, include safer fuel tanks, stronger seats and a hooded breathing apparatus that passengers can use to avoid smoke and toxic fumes if a fire ignites.