The MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour

Intro JIM LEHRER: Good evening. Leading the news today, President Reagan makes a nationally televised speech on the Iran contra affair. Another mine was found in the waters near the Persian Gulf. And officials of the striking Black Miners' Union were arrested in South Africa. We'll have the details in our news summary in a moment. Judy Woodruff is in Washington tonight. Judy? JUDY WOODRUFF: After the news summary, we turn in other directions for our three main focuses. Starting with questions about how safe it is to fly in the wake of a rash of recent near accidents. The new FAA administrator, and spokesman for the Air Controllers, the pilots and the airlines join us. Next, a report on how accurate medical tests are. And finally, a newsmaker interview with the Nicaraguan ambassador.News Summary WOODRUFF: After months of mostly silence on the Iran contra affair, President Reagan will go on television tonight to comment on the recently ended public hearings. And from the sound of some quotes from the speech released this afternoon by the White House, it may strike a conciliatory tone. At one point, the President will say that he is the one who is ultimately accountable to the American people, and that no president should ever be protected from the truth -- an apparent reference to former National Security Advisor John Poindexter's decision to keep the diversion of Iran arms sale profits to the contras a secret from Mr. Reagan. At another point, the President will talk of the need for the executive and legislative branches of government to regain trust in each other. The speech is scheduled for 8:00 p. m. Eastern time. Jim? LEHRER: On the Persian Gulf story today, another mine was found floating in the nearby waters of the Gulf of Oman. It brought the count to five. Patrol boats from the United Arab Emirates found and destroyed the fifth. It was located near where the supertanker Texaco Caribbean struck a mine Monday. Reuters reported that the patrol boats lost track of three mines spotted yesterday, and failed to detonate another after pounding it with gunfire. Meanwhile, the British prepared to send its four minesweepers to Persian Gulf duty. We have a report from Clive Ferguson of the BBC.

CLIVE FERGUSON, BBC: With only four minesweepers and one support vessel, the flotilla which will head for the Gulf has still aroused interest similar to when the task force sailed to the Falklands. The four mine hunters, HMS Brecken, Brucklesby, Hereford, and Bister, are already at a high state of readiness. They represent the state of the arts in mine hunting and destroying. Each ship can search for mines in several ways. But its primary system is the sophisticated sonar to sweep and to find the mines and the two remote controlled minisubmarines, complete with TV cameras, which are carried by each ship. Once in the Gulf, each ship will share the information which they'll all collect from the underwater radar or sonar, that should enable them to pinpoint the position of possible mines. Once they find something, one of the minisubmarines will be dispatched. Its operator will use its TV cameras to help position an explosive charge in the mine and then retreat to allow the mine to be detonated. TIMOTHY HILDESLEY, Flotilla Commander: You have the capability to minesweep and mine hunt. And we don't specifically know the extent of our role out there.

FERGUSON: They don't carry much in the way of armament, the boofer's gun being cleaned today dates back to the First World War. But extra light machine guns will be fitted before the flotilla sets sail. LEHRER: Radio Teheran served notice on Britain today. It said British ships would be subject to attack in the event of Iraqi trouble making. The report said the same applied to ships belonging to France, which also ordered minesweepers to the Gulf yesterday. WOODRUFF: The Soviet Union today stressed its support for a United Nations cease fire demand in the Persian Gulf war. The word came in a letter from Soviet Foreign Minister Shevardnadze to the West German Foreign Minister. West Germany currently chairs the United Nations Security Council. Last month, the Security Council passed a unanimous resolution demanding that Iran and Iraq call a truce in their seven year old conflict. For its part, the Reagan Administration today accused Iran of trying to obstruct and delay U. N. peace keeping efforts. State Dept. spokesman Charles Rudman referred to the way Iran responded to that resoluttion.

CHARLES RUDMAN, State Dept. Spokesman: Regrettably, that Iranian response seems to be essentially a denunciation of the resolution, and a diatribe against the Security Council and the United States. It appears to be the same kind of obstructionism and delaying tactic that Iran has engaged in in the 3 1/2 weeks since Resolution 598 was approved. We would still welcome some sign of Iranian interest in compliance with Resoltion 598. And the door is still open to Iranian acceptane. WOODRUFF: Spokesman Rudman was also asked about Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega's meeting yesterday with some members of the opposition. Ortega said the meeting was the first practical step towards compliance with the peace plan signed last week in Guatemala City. Redman said he assumed the meeting was the start of a process to establish a national reconciliation comission. But he added that the real test of the sincerity of the Sandinistan Government would be concrete moves to restore democratic freedom. Elsewhere, Nicaragua told the World Court today that it is dropping its case against Costa Rica. Nicaragua had accused Cost Rica of tolerating contra rebel operations on its territory. Nicaragua cited the Guatemala City pact as the reasson for dropping the case. LEHRER: South African police today arrested 78 officials of the Black Miners' Union. The union's 340,000 coal and gold miner members have been on strike since Monday. The miners' union put the number of arrests at 86. And it said the roundup was an attempt to break the strike.

CYRIL RAMAPHOSA, National Union of Mineworkers: We have seen the level of repression against our strike rising quite alarmingly. It is clear that the management, the Chamber of Mines, is in cahoots with the South African police. They have planned quite clearly that they are going to crush this strike. LEHRER: A South African mine officials denied that charge, and said the arrests were made to protect workers who refused to take part in the strike. Several of South Korea's major automobile and other manufacturing plants remained closed today by workers strikes. Anti government protestors also clashed with riot police in Seoul. The strikes are over demands for higher wages and better working conditions. WOODRUFF: Some bad news today for proponents of President Reagan's Strategic Defense Initiative, also known as Star Wars. A distinguished group of weapons experts released a study showing that first generation Star Wars weapons, anti missile missiles, due for deployment in the early 1990s, will not shield the U. S. from newer Soviet missiles. The study was sponsored by Christopher Cunningham of the Lawrence Livermore Laboratory. He is a leading developer of the Administration's SDI idea. That wraps up our summary of the day's news. Still ahead on the NewsHour, questions about air safety, the reliability of medical tests, and a talk with Nicaragua's ambassador. Fright Flights WOODRUFF: During the past five days, there have been at least five near midair collisions, an average of one each day. On Saturday, an Air Canada jetliner and a small corporate plane passed within 300 feet of each other, while both aircraft were being directed by Chicago air controllers. On Sunday, a Pan Am airliner and a TWA jumbojet came within 600 feet of a collision near New York' LaGuardia Airport because of a mixup in flight numbers. On Monday, a Delta Airliner narrowly missed a small Cessna, while on a landing approach at Ft. Worth. The identity of the Cessna is still unknown. And yesterday, two small planes almost collided over Chicago. While in Los Angeles, the pilot of an American Airlines jet had to make a violent turn to avoid a collision with a small plane. With us tonight to examine what all this says about the safety of our skies are representatives of the Air Traffic Controllers, the Pilots Association, and the Air Transport Association, which speaks for the commercial airlines. But first, we talked with the new head of the Federal Aviation Administration, Allan McArtor. He is the Reagan Administration's point man on this issue. Mr. McArtor, thank you for being with us. Are you concerned about all this? ALLAN McARTOR, Federl Aviation Administration: Of course we're concerned. The safety indices of near midair collision reports, operational errors, are valuable to us as indices, if you will, of how the system is operating. And because of my concern, today, as a matter of fact, I issued an emergency order to our system that affects the air space over the Los Angeles area. The terminal control area -- WOODRUFF: What does that mean? Mr. McARTOR: Well, that controlled air space over Los Angeles, called the TCA, or the Terminal Control Area, had a ceiling on it of 7,000 feet. I've moved that ceiling now to 12,500 feet and further restricted the ability of aircraft flying under visual flight rules -- which we have a tremendous mix of those in Southern Caifornia -- restricted their ability to fly through this area. Because it is a small aircraft under visual flight rules in conflict with larger aircraft under controlled or IFR conditions -- instrument flight rules -- that provide a certain threat -- and would minimize this threat. WOODRUFF: So this primarily deals with the problem that may be created by small aircraft at a big airport. Mr. McARTOR: Yes, it does. We're also investigating these terminal control areas around metropolitan areas all across the country, and have proposed similar type terminal control area restrictions. We're proposing expanding this three dimensional air space and require special transponders with altitude encoding devices so that the controller can see the position of the aircraft on his screen and the altitude of that aircraft. WOODRUFF: Well, before we get into some of the more specifics -- why do you think -- clearly because of what you've just described you think that the small airplane may be a problem -- but in general, why are we seeing more -- are we seeing more near accidents in the sky? Mr. McARTOR: Well, the events themselves of course are somewhat random. You know, over a million passengers fly our system every day. And I think most of them know that we have the safest system in the world. But that's not really what they're asking right now. They're asking is it safe enough? And part of the increase in reports of course is we're encouraging more reports. But we take each event and investigate it separately to see what we can learn from that operational error or near midair collision. Keep in mind we've got three parts to this system. We've got people, equipment, and procedures. And we've got to make sure that all three of those elements are modernized and up to the professional standards every day. WOODRUFF: But do you think we're having more near accidents? And do you think that is a problem? Mr. McARTOR: I think it is a problem. That's why we're taking this immediate corrective action in Los Angeless. That's why we have an entire restructring of the Southern California Terminal Air Control area from San Diego on up past Los Angeles. That's in the proposed rule making right now. And while we've reconstructed terminal areas across the entire United States as proposed rules making. WOODRUFF: So you think the FAA -- that you are doing all you can do to keep this problem to a minimum -- is that what you're saying? Mr. McARTOR: Well, we're not satisfied that we're doing all we can do, because every day we try to find better ways to do things. And so we are contantly searching for more efficient ways and safer ways to make our air system protect our passenger flying public. But you know, the level of understanding of our public is not as high as I'd like it to be -- of how safe the system is and what we're doing to preserve that safety. WOODRUFF: What do you mean? Mr. McARTOR: Well, part of my job, I think is to try to better communicate the things that we're doing within the FAA, and the airlines themselves to increase safety and security in our national air (unintelligible). WOODRUFF: But you're aware, I'm sure, of criticisms that there aren't enough air controllers, that there are too many planes that are permitted to fly at one time near an airport -- I mean, is the FAA dealing with those issues? Mr. McARTOR: Oh, yes, we're -- WOODRUFF: Let's take the air controllers -- Mr. McARTOR: We're doing a lot about that, and we're also very concerned about it. You know, we've been rebuilding our air traffic control work force since the strike in 1981. And I can honestly say that in any given period of the day when we require a qualified controller at a certain station, we have a controller there at that station. But we're trying to get out ahead of the growth curve. We're experiencing an nprecendented growth in our aviation, our air commerce in this nation. And we need morecontrollers to meet that growth. So we're trying to get out ahead of the curve, and meet the problem coming head on. WOODRUFF: So what message then do you give to the average airline passenger? Should they feel safe about flying anywhere any time? Mr. McARTOR: Well, they should feel safe, because, you know, 99. 999% of them never experience an operational error during their flight. That's a tremendous safety record. But it's not good enough for us. We still want to make it even better. WOODRUFF: But you still have this increase in these near accidents. Mr. McARTOR: Well, we have increases in the reporting of these accidents -- or near accidents. WOODRUFF: You're saying just in the reporting -- Mr. McARTOR: Well, keep in mind in our striving to find more detail about the system, we have encouraged more reporting. But I don't want to imply that that's the only reason that the reports are increasing. This is a busy system that we run. It's busier than ever. We're managing capacity. Where before we just managed separation between aircraft. That's why we instituted flow control, by the way -- so that we do not exceed operational limits within our system. WOODRUFF: All right, Mr. McArtor, we'll come back to you. Jim? LEHRER: Three second opinions now on what's causing the current rash of problems -- from John Thornton, National Coordinator for the National Air Traffic Controllers Association, the new union authorized by controllers in June; William Hoover, Executive Vice President for the Air Transport Association, the trade association of the major U. S. commercial airlines; and John O'Brien, Director of Engineering and Safety for the Airline Pilots Association, the union for 40,000 U. S. commercial airline pilots. Mr. O'Brien, what's going on? What's causing all this? JOHN O'BRIEN, Air Line Pilots Association: Well, first of all, we have many more aircraft flying today than we ever had in the past. We have fewer controllers working these airplanes. The overall experience level is lower, both on the ground and in the air, because the airlines are going through a rapid expansion as well. When you combine all these factors, the possibility for human error, operational error and technical error is obviously greater. So therefore we have more of these incidents. That's not to say that the situation is unsafe. It's just that there are more incidents occurring today than there ever have and that is more reason for us to do some of the things that the administrator McArtor had mentioned. LEHRER: Is it enough reason to cool it for a while? I mean, on both levels? If you say you got too many airplanes and not enough controllers, then is it serious enough to reduce the number of airplanes until the number of controllers have been increased? Is that what you're saying? Mr. O'BRIEN: No, I think what we need to do is support the FAA's measures of flow control. The FAA has the ability to implement slowdowns at certain areas around the country, certain facilities, certain geographic areas, and they can sense whether or not a situation is growing to the point where a facility -- which may be understaffed -- can't handle that traffic demand. And they have the ability to slow flow down. If we support that, the pilots -- our association -- supports that kind of measure on the part of the FAA. It is going to cause delays. It is going to inconvenience passengers, but it is an indication that the FAA is doing something to promote safety. LEHRER: What about these incidents, though, Mr. O'Brien,that involved pilots landing at wrong airports, on wrong runways, losing track of where they are over the Atlantic, near collisions -- what's happened there? Is that inexperience in the air? Mr. O'BRIEN: Yes, sir, it certainly is. And we have petitioned the FAA to upgrade the standards for the air transport rating -- that is the basic qualification standards to be an airline pilot. We also suggested back as late as August of 1984, several suggested improvements to basic minimum airline training standards. Now, none of these have been implemented yet. Basically because of costs involved in improving the training standards. LEHRER: Mr. Hoover, let me bring you into this. Do you agree with Mr. O'Brien? Have we got a situation with too many airplanes and not enough controllers and inexperienced both in the air and on the ground? WILLIAM HOOVER, Air Transport Association: Well, first of all, we're not going to put an airplane into the air in an unsafe situation. The airlines cannot turn a wheel without the authority and the approval of the FAA, and they're not going to allow flights to be conducted in an unsafe situation. So at any given time when an airplane is flying, there is sufficient controllers. The problem is that there is a greater demand out there, and sometimes people are experiencing delays because they can't fly when exactly they would like to. LEHRER: Well, we're not talking about delays here tonight. We're talking about airplanes almost colliding in midair, and hundreds of people dying as a result. We're not talking about delays. So is your industry as concerned about this as others are? Mr. HOOVER: Well, we certainly are concerned, and we think that some additional things need to be done. We certainly applaud Administrator McArtor's recent emergency action to increase high density areas. We think other areas should be brought into the high density system. I think it should be recognized that in a number of these near miss situations that alert, swift action by airline pilots has caused a less disastrous consequence. But we think that see and be seen now needs to be augmented by more modern equipment. We think -- as Administrator McArtor just mentioned -- aircraft that fly in high density areas should be equipped, and the pilots should be trained and experienced to fly in those areas. And we think we need things -- such as collision avoidance systems on scheduled airliners and -- LEHRER: So in other words, you're saying -- if I'm -- I don't mean to put words in your mouth, but what you're saying is the present system is inadequate in several major ways. Correct? Mr. HOOVER: No, it's not inadequate, because no one is going to be allowed to fly in the system if it's unsafe. LEHRER: But, then what explains these near accidents, these near tragedies? Mr. HOOVER: Well, we've just completed 23 months without a major fatality in a U. S. scheduled airline. That's unprecedented. There are going to be near misses that occur. Each one should be examined. I don't think we have a situation where there should be undue concern raised. We need to look at what needs to be done to make the system even safer in the future. LEHRER: All right. Mr. Thornton, many of the near misss problems and a lot of these incidents have been blamed on air controller error. You've just heard what Mr. O'Brien said -- that there's a lot of inexperience on the ground at certain times, although others have said there is a qualified air controller. From your perspective, what's the problem? JOHN THORNTON, National Air Controllers Association: We think there's a problem with staffing vs. the amount of traffic allowed in the system at peak hours. Our organization when we started organizing called for an additional 3,000 controllers over the next three years. We also said that the rate of growth should be reduced somewhat so that as more controllers come on line we can allow more aircraft into the system. And it's true, there are experienced and able controllers on duty at all given hours. The problem is to do this, to staff this system, we're using 7 to 800,000 hours of overtime each year. You have controllers out here in Washington Center, up in New York Tracon, working six day weeks. And this has been going on since 1981. The system's crying out for more staffing. The increase in reporting is a symptom of a system that needs help. We think it's staffing with new equipment also. LEHRER: Yeah. What is your reading of the reporting thing. You heard what Mr. McArtor said -- that there are a lot more incidents being reported. He didn't mean to suggest that there weren't more incidents also. How would you place the importance of the reporting factor in this? Are people more aware of it now than they have been in the past? Mr. THORNTON: Well, obviously, people are more aware -- the general public -- the flying public -- and the media itself. I'm very encouraged to listen to Mr. McArtor say that there are problems in the system and things have to be done. For the last six years, we've heard that everything was fine, that maybe another person here and another person there. But I think it's encouraging to hear that there are problems and somebody's going to stand up and attack these problems. As far as the reporting goes, we're still underreporting. Somehow, we have to get a method of reporting out so that controllers -- LEHRER: Wait a minute -- underreporting -- you mean there are more incidents going on out there than we've been told about? Mr. THORNTON: That's my opinion, yes. What we have to do is find a means -- Chairman Burnett of the NTSB called -- LEHRER: That's the National -- Mr. THORNTON: National Transportation Safety Board -- And he sees the problem also. Controllers are really not participating in this reporting system. Because they're afraid of punitive activity on the part of the FAA. They're concerned for their careers. And that's understandable. But what we should be doing is form a system where controller and pilots alike can report for the next two or three years. We can get an idea of what's going on in the system. Many changes have to be made. LEHRER: Meaning if Controller A makes a mistake, and there is a near tragedy as a result of it, that he or she can report that without fearing some kind of punishment? Mr. THORNTON: That's what I'm calling for. LEHRER: All right. Mr. O'Brien, what's the situation among pilots as far as reporting these incidents? Do you believe the pilots are now reporting more than in the past? Or do you think that they are also worried about their careers and are also not reporting everything? Mr. O'BRIEN: I think that in general pilots are reporting more today, because the pilots have the availability to use the FAA/NASA/Aviation reporting system. This system provides a certain amount of immunity and anonymity to the reporter of an incident. So they're encouraged to make these reports. The Air Traffic Controllers don't have this same ability. LEHRER: Did you shudder a little bit when you -- on that incident over the Atlantic -- where one of the pilots suggested to the other pilot, ''Let's not report this. ''? Mr. O'BRIEN: I think it will be interesting to actually see the official transcript of that communication. And see exactly what reporting they were talking about. They may have been talking about, ''Are you going to fill out a NASA safety reporting form?'' which is not required, it's not mandatory. LEHRER: But is it your impression -- do you agree with Mr. Thornton that there are more incidents going on out there than we know about? Mr. O'BRIEN: Oh, yes, certainly. LEHRER: And why are we not being told? Because of the problem with the controllers? Mr. O'BRIEN: Well, there are many different reasons. You can take the situation of a near miss where neither of the crews actually are aware of the near miss situation. And the only time -- LEHRER: They just didn't see each other, you mean? Mr. O'BRIEN: They just didn't see each other. Now, the air traffic controller may have seen that situation, or it may have been caught in the automatic reporting system, and it may or may not get into the system as an official near miss as far as the FAA is concerned. LEHRER: Well, gentlemen, thank you. Judy? WOODRUFF: Mr. McArtor, let's come back to you with some of the points that were just made. What about this point -- the air controllers are working overtime, they've been working overtime for years -- they're working here in Washington and at other major airports six days a week. Does that bother you? Mr. McARTOR: Well, Judy, what bothers me more perhaps is the time on the scope. What we don't want to do is give overtime beyond the bounds of reasonableness. Overtime has always been a management tool for training and it's an administrative thing. But we do have some facilities where the overtime level are greater than I would like to have them. And that's why we're making such a concerted effort to get out ahead of this problem. We had 955 controllers that we announced we're going to hire this summer -- to help -- along with our support personnel. Next year's budget -- WOODRUFF: But there's still a shortage -- I mean, if what we're hearing -- Mr. McARTOR: Well, you can only field nine baseball players on a field at one time. And we have each scope in our system and each tower position covered as we need them. But I'm not satisfied that we have enough to provide a complete complement to take care of overtime, sick leave, and training programs. That's what we're trying to get out ahead. But we have the number of controllers on the system every day when we need them. WOODRUFF: All right. Let me bring that question back to -- well, you, Mr. O'Brien. One of the points you made was that we need more controllers. Do you think the FAA is doing enough in that regard? Mr. O'BRIEN: The FAA itelf is doing as much as it's able to do. There's more involved than just the FAA here. There's the Administration and Congress. We have to go through an appropriations process to get additional people on board. And the basic problem of getting more people is money. It's (unintelligible) appropriations. And you can't just take a position that may be for maintenance, and make an air traffic controller into that position. You've got to provide the capability (unintelligible) to bring the kind of people on board they need, and just not manipulate the positions. But in addition to what the new administrtor has said, we might disagree to some extent with the actual manning and availability of full performance level people at all positions. We have in certain facilities situation today where we have operational controllers, or controllers that aren't available for all positions in a certain facility. Now, when that position -- WOODRUFF: You mean they can perform some tasks, but not all controller tasks -- Mr. O'BRIEN: Right. So this makes it very difficult in a situation of sick leave, or vacation, to get adequately trained people for all the positions -- the supervisory people at the facilities are hardstrapped on occasion to do the kind of coverage they need to do. WOODRUFF: Well, what you're saying is there's still a shortage. And this is a question, Mr. McArtor, we've put many time to your predecessor, Mr. Engen. And that was, is the administration in your view responsive enough when it comes to putting out the money that's required for air traffic control? Mr. McARTOR: Well, Elizabeth Dole, Secretary Dole, has never varied from her promise to provide as many controllers as asked in the system. And that's why I'm not at all afraid to ask for as many controllers that I think we need. And we have asked for more controllers and are going to get more controllers. But the system has a capacity, the capacity is established by airport capacity, by weather during the day. We know how many aircraft can be handled in sectors, we have flow control to meter the aircraft in these sectors. We know the capacity of our system. It does contribute to some of the delays experienced in the system. But it does not contribute to an unsafe condition. WOODRUFF: All right. What about another point that we heard here -- and that is that -- yes, there's more reporting, but there still isn't all the reporting that there should be? Mr. McARTOR: Well, unless it would involve two small airplanes out in a rural area, I'm convinced that we do have reported all the near midair collisions that might occur within a -- in our air space. So I'm not concerned about underreporting of that. And of course, our operational errors are pretty well scored automatically by our computer systems. An operational error being when two aircraft reach within five miles of each other, we score one against ourselves, but that's hardly an unsafe condition. WOODRUFF: Mr. Thornton, you're the one who made that point. Is that an adequate explanation? Mr. THORNTON: Well, the errors that happen through the enroute structure are reported automatically. But of course there's some ways of expanding the parameters off on that reporting, so there's some underreporting there. My point is this -- we're not getting all the information we need to change the system. There are some emergency situations after the strike, some of the enroute sectors were greatly expanded. Those sectors remain in place today. I think we ought to go back and look that whole structure over, reduce the sizes of the sectors. There'll be one controller today working traffic that was handled by two and three controllers prior to 1981. And there's the people there when we need them, but when you're spending $28 to $30 million a year on overtime, there's a definite problem there. WOODRUFF: The other point that we heard -- I think it was from Mr. Hoover -- was this question about needing more modern equipment. What can the FAA do in that area? Or anything? Mr. McARTOR: No, absolutely no question about it. We need more modern equipment. We have an obligation to modernize the equipment in our program, we have an obligation to modernize the procedures and concepts, and even management techniques within the FAA. We have a national aerospace system plan, which is an enormous modernization effort to recapitalize our system. Over $12 billion will be spent on this program. And we're well underway with it. As an example, we've put in host computers now across our country in the various FAA centers. And this computer is far faster and far greater capacity than the older computers we've been using. WOODRUFF: Is that the sort thing you were talking about, Mr. Hoover? Mr. HOOVER: Definitely. But we think that the rate of the modernization can be increased. And we think that the procurement process takes too long. We think there's equipment that can be brought on in a shorter time period. For instance, instrument landing systems, which would help all weather flying. We think that those are fairly inexpensive systems, they could in effect add the equivalent of five airports in this country if we would go out and purchase 16 instrument landing systems today. WOODRUFF: Well, let me just put a question to all of you gentlemen. And that is -- a lot of people hear this news, and they get nervous. And even seasoned flyers get nervous when they hear this sort of thing. What word of assurance can you give? Is there anything passengers can do? Do they just continue to fly as they have been? What do you say to them? Mr. McArtor? Mr. McARTOR: Well, I would say to them that we do have the safest air system in the world. And they can be rest assured that the FAA within its responsibility, providing safe and secure air space system, and the airlines, under professional management and pilots that operate the air cruise and our airlines -- these are all professionals. Our air traffic controllers, our pilots, our technicians in the national air space -- we're all working together to provide a safer, more secure air space for our public. WOODRUFF: Mr. Thornton, what do you say to those people? Mr. THORNTON: When you consider where we came from since 1981 until today, I think if anybody had to look forward six years at that time, there was -- this would have been impossible to be where we're at -- to have the amount of growth we've had. The controllers who are in the positions today have done an excellent job, and they're to be commended. It's a shame that the only time they make the headlines is when there's been a narrow or near miss reported. WOODRUFF: Are you saying we emphasize the negative? Mr. THORNTON: The negatives, yes. WOODRUFF: Mr. O'Brien, what do you say to those people who are nervous when they hear all this news? Mr. O'BRIEN: Basically two points. First, remember we pilots are there with them in that airplane. And we're not going to go into some area we feel is unsafe, or into a situation that's not safe. So passengers, rest assured that if you're traveling with us, we're not going to take you into an unsafe situation. The other point I want to make is we look at all this trend information. We know there are things that have to be done. We're working with a group of users now and the FAA to attack problems tht exist out there that we've identified with these trends, the near misses, the operational errors. We can solve these problems with the support of the administration and congress through proper appropriations. WOODRUFF: All right. Mr. Hoover, you get the last word. What do you say to those people who hear these reports and really don't like the idea of getting on an airplane? Mr. HOOVER: First of all, it's very safe. Second, I think, we have to listen to those people. There's a lot of peopleout there who want to fly and don't want to be denied that by any arbitrary capacity restraints. I think we need to really work together. There's a lot to be done by everybody -- the FAA, the Administration, the Congress, the airlines -- to provide that kind of additional capacity and provide it safely. And it can be done. WOODRUFF: All right. Well, we thank you all, gentlemen. Mr. Hoover, Mr. McArtor, Mr. Thornton, Mr. O'Brien. Thank you all very much for being with us. Lax Labs? LEHRER: Next, Medical lab tests. From cholesterol counts to AIDS, to drug use, people are turning more and more to medical tests for information about their health. With more testing have come questions about quality and standards of the medical testing system. We'll talk about that with the editor of the Journal of the American Medical Association right after this report from Kwame Holman.

KWAME HOLMAN: More than 25,000 samples arrive each day at just this one Metpath lab in northern New Jersey. Test tubes containing blood, urine, samples of human tissue. Each sample will be subjected to two or three different tests, sometimes many more. Medical testing is a critical part of the health care industry, and Metpath president Andrew Baker says accuracy is essential. ANDREW BAKER, President, Metpath: A mistake can be obviously catastrophic. And that's a concern -- and I think (unintelligible)

HOLMAN: But Metpath is only one of about 15,000 labs around the country where samples are sent to be tested. According to some critics, not all the labs maintain high standards of quality work. Dr. Sidney Wolfe is the Director of the Public Citizen Health Research Group in Washington. Dr. SIDNEY WOLFE, Public Citizen Health Research Group: We have in this country ranging from the very best labs, the best doctors, to the very worst labs and the very worst doctors. And unfortunately, most patients don't know where they're going -- or where their blood is being sent, or whether their tissue sample is being sent to a good lab or a bad lab. It's too much of a roulette wheel with too many disastrous consequences to be left as it is. And unfortunately, nothing is being done about it.

HOLMAN: Many things can go wrong in a medical lab. A sample can be sorted incorrectly and get the wrong tests. The calibration on machinery can slip, testing chemicals can get old and useless, and technicians can get careless. Any of these problems can lead to two very different situations. Either the patient is told there is disease when there is not, or that there is no medical problem when in fact one exists. Both outcomes are dangerous. Metpath President Baker remembers one such mistake. Mr. BAKER: We gave some extraordinary glucose readings -- extraordinary in the sense that the physician did take a course of action which led to an operation, which on retesting found out that our glucose, the way we'd done it, we could have got a better result. It was a difficult specimen to do. And the patient clearly suffered unnecessary surgery and we were part of the process of trying to sort out what happened and why it happened.

HOLMAN: In that case, the misread glucose level led to the amputation of the patient's leg. But Baker says mistakes are rare at Metpath. Only about ten per 750,000 tests. Five years ago in Seattle, 35 year old Pamela Parrish was the victim of a medical testing error by a different lab. She was given a clean bill of health by her doctor. The doctor based that analysis in part on results from a Pap smear test done by the Puget Sound Institute of Pathology. Six months later, a second doctor discovered a well developed case of cervical cancer. The cancer was incurable. Before she died in early 1984, Pamela Parrish hired Seattle attorney Mike Hunsinger to look into what happened. Hunsinger sued the laboratory for negligence, a charge the lab denied. Just days before the trial, the laboratory agreed to a settlement that provides for the financial future of Mrs. Parrish's daughter. Hunsinger doesn't question the overall quality of work done at the lab. But he does say that sometimes tedious routines of analyzing Pap smears may allow mistakes to happen. MIKE HUNSINGER, attorney: You have these technicians in this lab, every four minutes for an eight hour work day, looking at slide after slide -- 60 to 80 slides a day. I don't know how many -- I can't recall how many people actually work there, but you're looking at three to four hundred slides a week, per technician. And Pam's was one of those 300 to 400 a week.

HOLMAN: Even the best labs concede that errors are occasionally, but infrequently, made. Critics are worried about the number of labs where errors are more common. The College of American Pathologists sent identical samples to 5,000 medical labs to be tested for cholesterol. Half the labs misread the cholesterol level by 5%. Some labs were off by 100%. Dr. WOLFE: No one is really talking -- nor am I -- about getting to 100% accuracy. We are so far from that right now that I'd be happy if we improve by a big quantum leap.

HOLMAN: The wide range of quality and accuracy of medical testing may be due in part to spotty regulation of the industry. Federal laws only govern labs that accept Medicare reimbursements or that perform tests on samples that cross state lines. As a result, about a third of the nation's 15,000 labs go unchecked by federal regulators. And there are 18 states that don't regulate medical labs at all. So many labs are subject only to their own system of quality controls. Dr. WOLFE: We think that the time is long overdue where there be a federal standard. That does not mean that there's a big federal agency that does all of the testing itself. It just means that in order to stay in business, a doctor has to either in their own office, or in the lab that they send the samples to, make sure that outside quality control meeting at least certain minimum standards exists. And this has to be required, not voluntary.

HOLMAN: Wolfe is particularly concerned about a new trend in testing, doctors performing their own tests. According to the Centers for Disease Control, about 60% of all testing is being done in doctors' offices. But only 13 states have any laws regulating those procedures or setting standards for the work being done. And the frequency of doctors' office testing is increasing, due to improvements in technology. Testing equipment is becoming smaller, cheaper and more profitable. Dr. WOLFE: Not a week goes by that I do not get a solicitation in the mail from a company trying to sell me an in office lab testing procedure. It might be a stress test, or detecting heart disease. It might be a lab test for checking out blood, for checking out respiratory function, how well someone breathes, or how poorly someone breathes. And most of these ads are ''create a new profit center in your office. ''

HOLMAN: But some doctors argue that doing your own testing helps them make a diagnosis more quickly. That's especially important in rural areas -- like Julesburg, Colorado. Until recently, Dr. Omar Lopez had to wait three days for laboratory test results. Now his wife Vivian runs tests for him while the patient wait. A few drops of blood go into the plastic cassette. The cassette is dropped into the machine, and 10 or 15 minutes later, the results are printed out. Vivian Lopez says the decision to buy the new equipment was easy. VIVIAN LOPEZ: The breaking point was one day we had a patient who had out with a big toe just bulging with pain, and the lab -- the mail was out for that day, and my husband wanted a uric acid to help us -- it was like draw it this evening, send it in tomorrow in the mail, and wait for the result. Which he had to do and give him the treatment and then wait for the result. And now that was the straw that broke the camel's back. And now we have the machine and in 12 minutes I can give him his uric acid result, and he can send the patient right on the way.

HOLMAN: The Lopezes said they had no problems using the new technology, and that they rely on the manufacturer, Abbott Laboratories, to make sure the equipment is giving accurate results. But they operate in a state where there is no regulation of in office testing. Dr. WOLFE: Most of those labs aren't under careful outside quality control by the federal government or by someone else who really doesn't have any bias in it.

HOLMAN: Metpath president Baker agrees. Mr. BAKER: I'm not saying that all physicians do bad work. But that is an unregulated area. You hear of mistakes. We come across it ourselves. And that's the problem area to me. And in fact, I would want to make sure my work was sent to a large lab, such as ourselves, or to a large hospital lab. We can afford some stuff that's very expensive, and we can afford normal training.

HOLMAN: With an ever increasing number of people seeking medical tests in free screenings at the local mall, or in doctors' offices, and in medical laboratories, Dr. Wolfe urges patients to take an active role in the testing, in the results of the testing, and in the treatment. Dr. WOLFE: Doctors who refuse to answer legitimate questions from patients on why an x ray or blood test, or a urine test, is necessary, are doctors patients really shouldn't go to. There are more and more every year -- too many doctors. And I think patients should take advantage of this, and pick out the doctors who really are willing to be partners with the patient in terms of deciding what is necessary and what isn't. WOODRUFF: With us tonight to discuss what we all should know about medical testing is Dr. George D. Lundberg, the editor of the Journal of American Medical Association, and a pathologist. He joins us from Chicago. Dr. Lundberg, how concerned should people be about the accuracy of these medical tests? Dr. GEORGE LUNDBERG, Journal of American Medical Asso. : I think people should be very concerned about the accuracy of medical tests, because the tests are being done on them, and from materials taken from their body, be their either tissues or fluids will come the information that will either confirm a diagnosis, make a diagnosis, or rule out a particular diagnosis. People should be very interested in these results being correct. WOODRUFF: Well, what are the odds then that test results may be wrong? Dr. LUNDBERG: Well, the odds are that the test results will be right in most situations. Laboratories in this country are extremely good in general. They'e the best that they've ever been in the history of the world, and they're the best in this country that they are anywhere, I'm quite sure. However, there are good labs, and there are labs that are not so good. Just like your film clip said. And a patient does have a problem to try to figure out whether a particular lab that's doing their tests is a good one. WOODRUFF: Well, how does a patient go about doing that? Or can they? Dr. LUNDBERG: I think a patient has a difficulty doing this. The patient probaby has to rely on the physician in most instances. So you might ask further how does a physician go about determining that. And I would say that a physician should realize that laboratories should participate in external quality control, as Dr. Wolfe said, what we call proficiency testing, of which there are several voluntary proficiency testing services available. One performed by the College of American Pathologists may well be the best. It's certainly the largest. And laboratories should participate in such. Laboratories really ought to employ qualified people to do the laboratory tests. There are no magic black boxes. The box that you say there in Colorado is not a magic black box. People who use the boxes have to be educated, trained, and preferably pass a certifying examination given by the American Society of Clinical Pathologists, to determine that the person's competent to do this work. WOODRUFF: What about this trend for more doctors doing testing themselves in their own offices? Dr. LUNDBERG: Yes, in contrast to what your film clip said, testing within offices by doctors is not new. It's been around for a very long time. It is, however, now growing, because there are a lot of new machines coming on the market that look extremely simple. And many of them are really quite good. So the trend is growing. The good part about that is that it's possible to get an answer ver quickly. And to make a decision for the patient in a rapid mode. WOODRUFF: But you're saying in general, a patient shouldn't be concerned if his own doctor is doing a test in that office. Is that --? Dr. LUNDBERG: I think -- no, I did not say that. I said there are good doctors office labs, and there are other doctors office labs that are not so good. Our recommendation is that a physician who is setting up an office lab should either have special training to know how to do it, or should have a consulting pathologist or other laboratory professional to help set up the quality control at least, and should participate in external proficiency testing. And probably laboratory inspection and accreditation. Fortnately, the American Society of Internal Medicine, the American Academy of Family Practice, and the College of American Pathologists, together are setting up voluntary proficiency testing programs now which should be available for physicians office laboratories. WOODRUFF: Let me ask you about some specific tests real quickly. The AIDS test, for example, received a great deal of publicity recently. Do these in general tend to be accurate test results when people get them? Dr. LUNDBERG: In general, yes. The (unintelligible) test, which is a screening test has 98 --99% sensitivity, specificity. And then, however for every one that's positive, one needs to do a confirming second test which is normally the Western blot, which also has high sensitivity and specificity. However, the problem with the HIV test is when it's applied in a population that has a low prevalence of the virus, the potential for a substantial number of false positives is there and is very real. And that's what's wrong with the current proposals to do such things as mandatory premarital testing for the AIDS virus. I think this would be extremely bad, because it would pick up very few people that have this in most states in this country, and it would unfortunately find a lot of people to have the virus who really don't have the virus, the false positive problem of the low prevalence situation. WOODRUFF: What about something very different. Many people get tests of course for their cholesterol level -- we heard some reference to that. That there were half of these lab that were given a sample and I think they aid half the labs misread it by 5%. Dr. LUNDBERG: Well, 5% doesn't make much difference unless you're at a break point. And we, of course, are trying to get the American people to change their diet habits entirely, to live a healthier life and to eat much less saturated fats, etc. And along that way, it's a good thing for a person to know what their blood cholesterol is. But it's good to be done by a laboratory which has proper standards, that they're tied in with the NIH system, with the CAP system, and has external proficiency testing and internal quality control. So you know the results are likely to be accurate. WOODRUFF: Just quickly, Dr. Lundberg, there was reference there to a need for more regulation. Do you think that is a possible solution? Dr. LUNDBERG: I think voluntary peer review is the best way. And education is very important as well. However, there are data that indicate that those few states that have gone into the regulation of physicians office laboratories in a substantial way do result in a higher quality of testing being the result. WOODRUFF: Well, George Lundberg, thank you for being with us. Nicaragua's View LEHRER: Finally, a newsmaker interview with the Nicaraguan ambassador to the United States. Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega signed the Central American Peace Plan last week in Guatemala. And ever since, the key question has been whether his Sandinista government would abide by his provisions for bringing democracy to his country. Yesterday, correspondent Charles Krause talked to Nicaraguan Ambassador Carlos Tunnerman. The conversation took place at the Nicaraguan Embassy in Washington.

CHARLES KRAUSE: Mr. Ambassador, on the NewsHour Monday night, President Arias himself expressed skepticism that a Marist government like yours would undertake the democratic reforms that his plan calls for. Is he wrong? CARLOS TUNNERMAN, Nicaraguan Ambassador to U. S. : First of all, we are not a Marxist government. We are a Sandinist government. We are now under a new constitution, a democratic constitution that established that Nicaragua is a country with political (unintelligible), (unintelligible) economy, and not alignment in the political foreign relations. We have now seven political parties participating in our national assembly. The democratization of Nicaragua is now in process. And this new accord will improve and reinforce our process of democratization. KRAUSE: Arias' plan calls for complete freedom of the press. That would mean, according to President Arias, that La Prensa would be allowed to publish again uncensored, that the Church would be given back its radio stations in Nicaragua. Do you anticipate that your government will carry out those things -- if this new agreement is signed? Amb. TUNNERMAN: All those freedoms are contemplated and included in our constitution. But now some of these freedoms are subject to some restrictions, because we are under emergency law. Because we are in a real war. But when the war ends, we are committed to lift all these restrictions, and we will have all these freedoms, including freedom of the press. KRAUSE: Why do you think the Reagan Administration has rejected direct talks with your government? Amb. TUNNERMAN: First of all, because the Administration is seeking a military solution with the (unintelligible), not a negotiated solution. But also because the Administration believes that we are a threat to the security of the United States, that our revolution is a threat to the interests of the United States in Central America. But really, we think that our revolution could co exist with the U. S. interest. And our revolution is not a threat to our neighbor. KRAUSE: But is the Administration still rejecting direct talks now that the Arias plan has been signed? Amb. TUNNERMAN: Yes, but I think honestly that in the future, sooner or later, the United States will talk with us. Because we have some bilateral problems. KRAUSE: Such as? Amb. TUNNERMAN: Well, we could assure to the United States that it is not our intention to have military bases in our territory. It is not our intention to have foreign military bases in our territory. That could be part of the negotiations with the United States. KRAUSE: To what extent has the war been responsible for your government's decision to agree to the Arias plan? Amb. TUNNERMAN: Well, we take into consideration that through peace (unintelligible) all this killing and all this economic problem. But that was not a principal reason. The principal reason was our belief in this, and our determination to achieve this through negotiation and dialogue. KRAUSE: If the Arias plan falls apart, if there is not a cease fire, if there is not the peace that is envisioned under the Arias plan, what's going to happen in Nicaragua? Amb. TUNNERMAN: We know in general that the road to peace is a road with many obstacles. But with the political will that the President demonstrated in Guatemala, I am sure, because I am optimistic, with all this political will, all these obstacles will be surpassed. WOODRUFF: A final look at the main stories of this Wednesday. In a nationally televised speech, President Reagan said he is ultimately accountable to the American people for the Iran contra affair. The President criticizes those who he said protected him from the truth. And he restates his support for the Nicaraguan contras. In other news, a mine was found near the Persian Gulf, and leaders of the striking Black Miners Union were arrested in South Africa. Good night, Jim. LEHRER: Good night, Judy. We'll see you tomorrow night. I'm Jim Lehrer. Thank you and good night.