The MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour

Intro ROBERT MacNEIL: Good evening. Leading the news this Thursday, President Reagan is scaling down his contra aid request to Congress. Israel eased curfews for Palestinians and the Red Cross reported no critical food shortage. The Soviets called for action to set up an international conference on Middle East peace. We'll have details in our news summary in a moment. Judy Woodruff is in Washington tonight. Judy? JUDY WOODRUFF: After the news summary, we turn first to the subject of air safety and new maintenance guidelines issued today by the FAA. FAA head Allan McArtor and critic Congressman Jim Oberstar join us. Then, the growing tragedy of babies born with AIDS. We talk with two doctors who confront the problem daily. And finally, the town that built U. S. Pershing missiles gets ready to destroy them under the just signed U. S. /Soviet arms reduction agreement.News Summary WOODRUFF: The White House confirmed today that it will cut down the size of its request to Congress for funds to aid the Nicaraguan contras. Spokesman Marlin Fitzwater told reporters the $270 million package prepared by the Administration last year has been pretty much overtaken by events in Central America. Fitzwater said, ''We want to tailor our request to the situation we find ourselves in in Nicaragua. '' The Associate Press quoted a senior Administration official as saying the final package will be close to $50 million worth of mostly nonlethal items, although Fitzwater insisted no amount had been settled on yet. Even so, Congressional Democrats, including House Democratic Caucus Chairman Tony Coelho said even the scaled down request will provoke a confrontation with Congress when it is sent up next week. Meanwhile in San Jose, Costa Rica, contra leaders criticized the Sandinista government of Nicaragua for suddenly sending an official team to what was supposed to have been a preliminary non negotiating meeting with Nicaraguan Cardinal Obando y Bravo. One contra official called the move a ''strategy to destroy the talks. '' Formal negotiations were not supposed to begin until next Thursday. But Sandinista officials said direct talks should begin as soon as possible. Robin? MacNEIL: The Reagan Administration today criticized Israel's use of beatings to suppress Palestinian disturbances. Israeli officials have said using clubs instead of guns is intended to reduce casualties. State Department spokesman Charles Redman had this comment.

CHARLES REDMAN, State Dept. Spokesman: We are disturbed by the adoption of the policy by the government of Israel that calls for beatings as a means to restore or maintain order. We believe that Israel can carry out its responsibility to maintain order in the West Bank and Gaza through the use of humane measures, which do not result in additional civilian casualties. We also call on the Palestinian inhabitants of the West Bank and Gaza to preserve order and avoid acts of violence. MacNEIL: Israel eased curfews in some refugee camps while a visiting Red Cross official said there appeared to be no critical food shortage in refugee camps under curfew. This contradicted the United Nations position and supported Israeli claims. The Soviets today referred to the Palestinian disturbances as a popular uprising, and called for an international conference on Middle East peace. In a letter, the United Nations Secretary General Javier Peres de Cuellar and Soviet Foreign Minister Eduard Shevardnadze, proposed that the Security Council meet at Foreign Minister level to set up such a conference. WOODRUFF: One day after Shiite Amal militiamen ended their siege of two Palestinian refugee camps in Lebanon, dozens of Palestinian men emerged from the camps outside Beirut today, most of them for the first time in three years. The camps are home to some 30,000 people. They will now be protected by Syrian troops. Amal militia leader Nabih Berri said that he was lifting the siege as a gift to Palestinians, who are protesting Israeli's occupation of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. A doctor at one of the camps described conditions during the siege.

CHRIS GIANNOU, camp physician: (unintelligible) is very, very humid, is very cold. There's no electricity, not a single dwelling has been left intact over the last 2 l/2 years of fighting in the camp. (unintelligible) has been done in the past, so that there's not a dry room in the camp (unintelligible). The water supply's irregular and not very clean, the sewage system has been destroyed. It means that most of the diseases we have to deal with are contagious diseases, infectious diseases. We've had our third break of typhoid fever in the last year. WOODRUFF: A medical worker also said confinement and constant shelling had caused some residents of the camp to suffer nervous breakdowns, and a few to attempt suicide. MacNEIL: The United States has protested to the government of Haiti over the arrest of an opposition political leader Louis Dejoie. Dejoie was one of four opposition figures who boycotted Sunday's national elections. He was arrested and jailed when he returned to Haiti yesterday. State Department spokesman Charles Redman said the arrest was unwarranted, and the U. S. embassy has asked for his release. In the Philippines, President Aquino had to reshuffle her Defense Chiefs after a key resignation. Defense Secretary Rafael Ileto quit, charging that the efforts to fight communist insurgents were ineffective. Mrs. Aquino replaced him with Chief of Staff General Fidel Ramos, and said defeat of the communists was a key aim of her government. WOODRUFF: The Navy's new Trident II submarine missile suffered its first failure in nine test launchings today. In a test from Cape Canaveral, the missile appeared at first to be doing well. But an hour after its early morning launch, the Navy reported that a problem had developed just two minutes and 43 seconds after liftoff, many miles away from the launch site, and that the missile had had to be destroyed by ground controllers. MacNEIL: The Federal Aviation Administration today warned airlines not to put inexperienced pilots together in the cockpit. The warning grew out of concern about the experience levels of pilots in the Continental Airlines crash at Denver last November. Twenty eight people, including the two pilots were killed. The FAA also tightened restrictions on aircraft maintenance and released figures showing a 40% increase last year in reports of near collisions involving a commercial airliner. WOODRUFF: President Reagan received a clean bill of health from his doctor today. White House spokesman said the laboratory report from the President's latest physical checkup showed no recurrence of any prostate problem. The tests were conducted last Friday at Bethesda Naval Hospital where just about a year earlier Mr. Reagan was operated on for an enlarged prostate gland. That wraps up our summary of the day's top stories. Just ahead on the NewsHour, new guidelines for air safety, babies born with AIDS, and the town that made and will now destroy U. S. Pershing II missiles. Maintaining Safety MacNEIL: First tonight, airline safety. 1987 wasn't a good year for aviation. Eleven hundred and forty six people died in plane crashes, private and commercial, compared to 1,030 in 1986. Today, the head of the Federal Aviation Administration, Allan McArtor delivered a major speech on the state of aviation. He said, ''We're experiencing a crisis in public confidence in flying,'' but said the airways are safe and health. He reported that the number of aircraft collisions decreased last year. However, he said near midair collisions rose to over 1,000, compared to 840 in 1986. The number of air delays attributed to the air traffic control system declined by 15% last year. But that statistic isn't necessarily good news for passengers, since it doesn't measure all delays. For example, some delays caused by maintenance problems in an air crash would not be counted. And on the subject of maintenance, the FAA chief said he is acting to correct what critics say is a major loophole in the regulations that govern aircraft maintenance. Administrator McArtor is here to talk about these and other matters in a moment. But first we have a background report on the maintenance issue from correspondent Tom Bearden.

TOM BEARDEN: Few airline passengers are conscious of how complex a modern jetliner is. Or the enormous behind the scenes organization it takes to keep it flying. Even a small breakdown can affect safety and should be repaired quickly. But at the same time the Federal Aviation Administration recognizes that airlines can't have repair facilities at every airport they serve. And the agency has long had a system that allows planes to continue flying when some backup systems aren't working. It's called the Minimum Equipment List, or MEL. Suppose a plane is scheduled to fly from Odessa, Texas to Dallas and then on to Tulsa. But one of the three electrical generators doesn't work. The MEL says it's okay to fly, but not indefinitely. The policy says the plane can't depart a station where repairs or replacement can be made. If this airline has a maintenance base at Dallas, it's okay to fly the plane from Odessa to do the repairs at Dallas. But no further. The ambiguous phrase is ''can be made. '' Suppose the parts aren't available at Dallas, or the right mechanic isn't on duty. Is that a station where repairs can be made? Or isn't it? Critics say the intense competitive pressure of the deregulated airline environment has resulted in a number of major airlines pushing the limits of the regulations so that systems go unrepaired for months, to the point where safety is impaired. Capt. DONALD McCLURE, Airline Pilots Association: What concerns me most is that I see the margin of safety in the industry as well as at Eastern being whittled away because it's being dictated by the bottom line.

BEARDEN: The House Government Operations and Transportation Subcommittee held two hearings last year into Eastern Airlines' interpretation of the minimum equipment list policy. The Airlines Pilots Association charged that Eastern and other airlines were violating the spirit, if not the letter, of the regulations by not repairing items for long periods of time, even though the planes frequently passed through maintenance facilities. Capt. JACK BAVIS, ALPA, Eastern Airlines: The extent with which that airplane was allowed to continue its service without being fixed brought it through Eastern maintenance station Atlanta thirteen times, Newark six times, Tampa four times, Boston eight times, San Juan four times, Miami four times, Washington National three times, etc.

BEARDEN: Eastern wasn't alone in the practice. The FAA surveyed the Minimum Equipment List performance of eleven major airlines last year and found a wide variation in how many and how long items stayed unrepaired. Some airlines had few items and fixed them promptly. Others allowed planes to fly for months with broken equipment. The FAA concluded that the policy was too ambiguous. Associate Administrator for Aviation Standards, Tony Broderick. ANTHONY BRODERICK, Ass. Administrator, FAA: Let's take a big airport like Kennedy Airport, where you might have a maintenance hanger at one side of the airport and a loading gate for passengers at your terminal. If you fly in on a 45 minute turnaround to the passenger gate, are you at the maintenance base where repairs can be made? Different people interpret it that differently.

BEARDEN: Broderick says the way airlines do business today contributed to the problem. Most have adopted the hub and spoke system where flights from smaller airports feed into big hub airports. People then change planes, which often depart in waves Fo; scheduling efficiency. Mr. BRODERICK: You certainly cannot stop an airplane unless it's really necessary for safety and have that system flow smoothly. Our maintenance system, or MEL system, wasn't designed to cope with that. Years ago you went from one airport to the next to the next, and if an airplane was late for half an hour or 45 minutes, it didn't disrupt another 20 or 30 airplanes. With the hub and spoke system today, you can ruin 20 or 30 schedules by one late airplane.

BEARDEN: But the Pilots Union says there were more serious problems than disrupted schedules. ALPA told the House Committee that Eastern not only delayed repairs, but said it was part of a policy to keep planes flying at any costs. ALPA said Eastern pressured pilots to take planes even when they didn't think they were safe. Capt. DAVIS: That then puts us in the position of making a judgment about safety of flight or our job. Because frankly when the chief pilot or management says to you that you should take the airplane and justify what you're saying, if you don't, you're going to be terminated, there's a form of subtle intimidation.

BEARDEN: Eastern Vice President Steve Kolski hotly disputed those charges. STEPHEN KOLSKI, Vice President, Eastern Airlines: I am suggesting that all of the media hype, all of the attention that the pilots have presented to members of Congress and the Senate, the FAA, etc. , is a direct result of Eastern's request of them to sit down and restructure labor costs. UNIDENTIFIED COMMITTEE MEMBER: Yes, or no, is this a labor issue or a safety issue? Mr. KOLSKI: It is a labor issue.

BEARDEN: Kolski said that out of dozens of incidents where pilots have refused planes, only four pilots have been disciplined, and then by counseling when management had found the reason for refusal unacceptable. Mr. KOLSKI: Not one pilot at Eastern Airlines has lost one minute of pay since January 1, 1987, because he refused to fly an airplane. Not one minute of pay. That's not coercion, and that's not intimidation. If management doesn't have the right to inquire of an employee and have him explain his reasoning, then something is going to be lost in this industry and in this business.

BEARDEN: But the pilots weren't alone in making that allegation. Some Eastern mechanics like John King, who was fired from his job with Eastern in Boston, and others who complained anonymously, said management was pushing employees to keep aircraft flying despite maintenance problems. Eastern has long maintained that charges like those come from disgruntled employees out to embarrass an airline that has lowered wages in an effort to become competitive and survive in a cutthroat environment. But last August, the FAA, which must be neutral in labor/management disputes, issued a report with similar findings. The investigation covered the FAA's Eastern region and was prepared by flights standards manager Thomas Accardi. He says one of the reasons for the inspection was his own experience on an Eastern flight in May, when the crew aborted a takeoff because of engine problems. THOMAS ACCARDI, Eastern Region, FAA: When we came back to the gate there appeared to be a lot of pressure from the maintenance personnel. They spoke to me in terms of ''We've got to get this aircraft out. '' They were looking in terms of trying to sign the log book and to move the airplane. And there was a dispute actually between the captain and the maintenance personnel as to whether the aircraft was safe. BEARDEN: Would you characterize that as an unusual kind of situation? Mr. ACCARDI: I think for the FAA, in front of an FAA inspector, I thought that that was significant.

BEARDEN: Accardi's inspectors did find evidence, as Eastern contended, that some of the complaints were made by people with grudges. But some weren't. Mr. ACCARDI: Some of them we found to be problems that were actually just labor generated, if you will. And did not have any basis of validity in our public service role as government inspectors. Others we found to be valid and we did file violations on them. BEARDEN: Were they serious violations? Mr. ACCARDI: Yes, some of them were. They involved aircraft being flown with discrepancies that were open, that were not allowed under the Minimum Equipment List. BEARDEN: For example? Mr. ACCARDI: For example, we had aircraft that had items that were deferred for some -- in excess of 100 days, 145 days. And we went ahead and filed violations on those. BEARDEN: Eastern declined an interview request to discuss the FAA report. The airline said it would stand on its lengthy written rebuttal to the FAA. We asked Accardi about some of their responses. Mr. ACCARDI: They contend that nothing in the report indicates any problems with air worthiness or with safety. BEARDEN: True? Mr. ACCARDI: I don't believe that's true. BEARDEN: So there were problems with air worthiness and safety? Mr. ACCARDI: Yes. In my opinion there were. BEARDEN: Associate Administrator Broderick says the problems weren't unique to Eastern, and had been building for a very long time. Mr. BRODERICK: Eastern isn't the only one that we've had an MEL problem with. As a matter of fact, it's the non standardization has been pervasive among the carriers in the airline industry.

BEARDEN: Although the problem surfaced over a year ago, the FAA's response was inconsistent. The Southern region twice tried to change the policy, but rescinded a tougher crackdown on orders from Washington. Critics charged the FAA was slow and indecisive. Mr. BRODERICK: The policy has varied. And in fact it's been a little bit confused in the last ten years. It's been confused because there's been a large growth in the number of airlines, there's been a large growth in the number of people in the FAA interpreting the regulations, and in the early '80s we had some difficulties with staffing in the FAA when we were understaffed, and allowed things to get out of control. BEARDEN: Should it have been changed earlier? Mr. BRODERICK: Oh, sure. I would love to have done this two or three or four years ago. I wasn't smart enough, and the people that proceeded me weren't smart enough. And it wasn't done. WOODRUFF: Here now to discuss the changes in the maintenance requirements and to give us the government's report card on aviation in 1987 is FAA Administrator Allan McArtor. First of all, Mr. McArtor, what do these new rules on maintenance mean and how are they different from what is currently being required? ALLAN McARTOR, FAA Administrator: Well, Judy, I've asked our agency actually to modernize ourselves as well as our procedures. And just like we're modernizing our radars and our computers, we need to look at the procedures and rules and see if they're modern. They're not modern. The MEL policy, the minimum equipment list policy, as we just saw, was not really designed for the hub and spoke system. So we're going to rewrite that rule. But in the interim, we're going to set time limits so we don't have this misinterpretation of does it have to be fixed at this base or not. We'll set time limits, goes for three days, must be fixed, goes for ten days, must be fixed. That way there won't be any confusion as to whether a tape of avionics or equipment needs to be fixed or not. WOODRUFF: Do you agree with your colleague at the FAA, Mr. Broderick, who was quoted as saying -- you just heard him -- that he wishes this had been done earlier. Mr. McARTOR: Yes. You see, the policy we had invited abuse, because it was not well understood by the carriers, and not well enforced really by the FAA. It's time to change it, and we're changing it this year. WOODRUFF: Who was abusing it? Mr. McARTOR: Well, all carriers would interpret it with their own spin to it. Just like we saw -- was this a base where maintenance could be done, or was it not. And someone interpreted it differently than others. Or they'd take the inventory out of a base and say it can't be fixed there because they took our spare parts away from there. We don't want to play those games. We want to have definite time when things have to be fixed, and that's what we're going to start in March. WOODRUFF: Was safety being jeopardized, are you convinced of that as a result of this? Mr. McARTOR: The safety margin may have been jeopardized. You see, this applies to equipment that has redundancy, so if there's three systems onboard, and one is inoperative, you can fly the airplane with no safety problem. WOODRUFF: Redundancy meaning a backup -- Mr. McARTOR: Meaning a backup system. So if the backup system is not available, it doesn't mean you have a safety problem, but you're eroding into that margin of safety if you don't get it fixed on a timely basis. We're going to make sure that timely basis now is well understood and is an (unintelligible) time. WOODRUFF: Do you have any reason to think you're going to have a problem in enforcing this with the airlines? Mr. McARTOR: Absolutely not. Because it's an easy thing for us to check. We can check the log book, and you can look at the calendar, and if it's three days past and it hasn't been fixed yet, that's a problem. WOODRUFF: How much of the problem you were having up until now do you think was attributed to competitive pressure andthe pressure on the airlines now from other airlines, the pressure to get the planes out on time and so forth? Mr. McARTOR: Judy, I think we saw competitive pressures maybe eroding some of the margin of safety a few years ago. We also saw some very dramatic finds levied for people who thought they might be able to pick that maintenance pocket in order to gain a competitive advantage. But that isn't true anymore. We see airlines being much more mindful of their obligations under their maintenance programs. We still have a very healthy enforcement program. More surveillance people out in the field than ever before. But I think airlines now know that they must be accountable for their maintenance programs. And they're doing by and large a pretty good job of it. WOODRUFF: One of the other issues you raised in your speech today was this business of midair collisions increasing in number. Why is that happening? Mr. McARTOR: Well, let me just correct the statistic. The midair collision itself is not increasing. They've actually been pretty constant over the past 10, 15 years. WOODRUFF: I'm sorry, I mean to say ''near. '' That's a very important distinction. Mr. McARTOR: The near midair collision report is a report that we encourage pilots to report to us when they think that they're too close to another airplane. Now, pilots are participating in that program, and the reason we're getting more reports -- one reason, of course, is that they know we're serious. We're doing something about it. They can see it in our rule making. So they're not apathetic. They know we need that data. But the statistic is rising. and that's concerning to us. It also points out that we think we're right on track this year with our emphasis on mode C altitude and coding transponders, more rules regarding -- WOODRUFF: What does that mean? Mr. McARTOR: That's a transponder that identifies the location and altitude of that aircraft on a controllers scope. Now, we're insisting that all aircraft, small aircraft and large carry that piece of avionics in a terminal control area around a major metropolitan area. We're talking about having more terminal control areas. We've redoubled our efforts in training pilots to make sure that they understand the necessity of vigilance and professionalism. WOODRUFF: How much of the problem is this -- the one you heard brought up over and over again, this business of not having enough air traffic controllers -- people -- watching the plane? Is that a problem? Mr. McARTOR: No, that really doesn't contribute to the near midair collision problem as such. Most of these near midair collisions occur with small aircraft with another small aircraft. A very small percentage in the total actually occur with air carriers and only 47 last year occurred between two air carrier aircraft. But nevertheless we have to keep a focus now on cockpit crew performance, pilot education and these new pieces of avionics, as well as working with our air traffic controllers to make sure that we reduce the risk even further. WOODRUFF: So you feel the FAA is doing everything it can do at this point to keep the system as safe as -- Mr. McARTOR: Yes, I'm convinced. Because this year I've called for a renewed focus and renewed emphasis on these very things. And we're seeing activity on it right now, and the industry's participating with it. WOODRUFF: Are you at all concerned that the increasing emphasis and publicity being given to delays on the part of the airlines is in conflict with trying to keep flying as safe as it can be? Mr. McARTOR: Well, we would hope not. Because the reporting of delays for maintenance problems is not a part of the Dept. of Transportation statistics that they seek. And it was done just for that reason. We don't want to apply pressure on maintenance problems in order to meet a dispatch. But I think it's a good start. I think this reporting by airlines of delays is a good start to try to get more information to the public before they buy their tickets. WOODRUFF: But still, the fact that the airlines is publicized -- what is it, every month or two now, which airlines are running on time and which ones aren't -- clearly that must put pressure on these airlines to get these planes out and doesn't that by necessity put pressure on them to rush through some maintenance? Mr. McARTOR: Pressure, yes. But part of our job is to make sure that that pressure, that competitive pressure, does not bleed over into safety and security issues. And that's what we're working with the airlines to make sure that that doesn't happen. But yes, there is pressure on the system. We just don't want it to erode safety. WOODRUFF: All right, Mr. McArtor, stay with us. Robin? MacNEIL: Now we talk to a frequent critic of the FAA, Democratic Congressman James Oberstar of Minnesota. He's Chairman of the House Public Works and Transportation Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight, which held hearings in October on the airline maintenance issue. On the maintenance issue, Congressman, are you satisfied now today? Rep. JAMES OBERSTAR, (D) Minnesota: I think this is a very important first step. But we have to recognize that it is a first step. It's in the right direction. It's the beginning of perhaps a new era of relationship between the FAA and the airlines and our subcommittee. It's a step in the right direction, but it's an interim step. And there are other steps that are going to have to be taken before we can say we're really on track in dealing with this maintenance issue. MacNEIL: Other steps to be taken after you see how this one is working, how effective it is, or that need to be taken anyway. Rep. OBERSTAR: Need to be taken anyway. First of all, I think the administrator has taken a very bold step, one that he committed to do and his agency committed to do at our hearings in October. They said they'd have this new MEL statement out in two months, they did it in three, and that's faster than the FAA has operated in the past on these items. But I'd like to see the administrator use his very great persuasive powers to jawbone the airlines to operate above minimums. Remember, the first word is minimum equipment list. That's the very basic you need to get out of town, as the airlines say, to get that aircraft in the air. We want them to operate with those margins and cushions of safety. Second, there are some discrepancies. The basic Federal air regulations says there are certain items that have a time constraint on them. The 747 public address system, for example, must be, if inoperative, must be repaired within 15 hours. But the new order in current regulations says you got three days to correct the ground proximity warning system. Now, I think that you ought to have a shorter time frame and a shorter leash on that repair time frame than now exists. MacNEIL: That ground proximity warning system is that signal which tells the pilot he's too low or there's some obstacle? Rep. OBERSTAR: Yes, it says, ''Pull up. You're too low. '' MacNEIL: Now, what's led to the state of affairs up to now? Has the FAA simply not been policing the thing enough, and watching it enough, or have the airlines been stretching the loopholes? Where do you come down as to why we have the situation we've had up until now? Rep. OBERSTAR: I think we've seen an extraordinary period of growth in the era since 1978, when Congress deregulated airlines. But remember, Congress deregulated the economics of air traffic, not safety. And the airlines have had a hard time reconciling the deregulated era with the first line responsibility they have towards safety and maintenance of those aircraft. In the regulated era, it was easy to maintain adequate stocks and spare parts and to do maintenance in the timeframe required. It's a little more difficult when you've got competitive pressures of other airlines breathing down your necks. At our hearings in October, witnesses testified that Eastern's spare parts inventory declined from $15 million to $10 million. That says something about where they're placing their priorities. MacNEIL: You introduced legislation to make the FAA an independent agency. What is the motive? What's wrong with the FAA's present connection with the Dept. of Transportation that is causing it to do less than you think it should do? Rep. OBERSTAR: I think we need an independent FAA because there's a level of bureaucracy above Administrator McArtor that he has to respond to and his predecessors had to respond to that interfere with decisions that delay, obfuscate and cause perhaps movement in the wrong direction, or at least movement not fast enough. MacNEIL: And politicize? Rep. OBERSTAR: Yes, and to some extent there are the politics of not recognizing that we need to add more air traffic controllers because there was a decision made in 1981 that was a tough one. And if you're saying well, the system is safe, then there's pressure on you not to add all the air traffic controllers that you really need. If you're saying the system is safe, there is a little bit of a political pressure not to add all the inspectors. I think there are 700 or 800 inspectors short of what they need to carry out the order the Administrator's just issued today. MacNEIL: What about one other thing they covered today, and that was the warning to the airlines not to put two inexperienced pilots together on a team in a cockpit? Is a warning enough? Or should that be something mandatory, in your view? Rep. OBERSTAR: The very first hearing I held as chairman of this investigation subcommittee was on the crash of Galaxy Airlines in Reno, Nevada, that killed 69 people from my state of Minnesota. They had an experienced pilot with 23 years service and a copilot with one or two years experience. They didn't have a game plan when they went into that cockpit, who was going to do what, if you got into trouble. They were trying to do each other's job and by the time they figured out what was wrong, one minute and three seconds into the flight, they crashed. Sixty nine people lost their lives. I think you need to be tougher. I think you need to be aggressive in this area. And if that means setting regulations, and doing it by regulation, fine. I think it can be done by job owning. I think this administrator's going to be tough enough to do that. And I'm going to urge him to get tougher. I'd like to see an independent Allan McArtor without his hands, or at least one hand, tied behind his back, having to report to somebody else up the ladder. MacNEIL: Okay. Thank you. Judy? WOODRUFF: Well, we'll bring that question right back to you, Mr. McArtor. What about that, do you think the FAA could function better if it were an independent agency? Mr. McARTOR: I don't really think that that is the core issue here. The core issue, of course, is funding, continuity of funding, and executive commitment, really, to get on about the business of streamlining our nation's airspace. Secretary Burnley and I actually have a very good relationship, and he has already empowered the FAA with respect to procurements to allow us to procure equipments and technologies up to $150 million without some of the other bureaucracy that had occurred in the past. So I think we're getting there. It requires more executive commitment than it does in institutional change. WOODRUFF: Congressman Oberstar, he says they've got a good working relationship over there between the FAA and the -- Rep. OBERSTAR: It shouldn't depend on who's Secretary of Transportation now, and who's going to be next year, and who was last year. The FAA's responsibility is so great -- that's almost a -- a little over $5 billion program. Very few corporate executives run a program that big. It handles millions of people's destiny every year. And it ought to have a separate independent status that it deserves, and this administrator ought to have the respectability and the accountability for the leadership entrusted to him. WOODRUFF: Is that mainly, as you just said, because of the bureaucracy over him, or -- Rep. OBERSTAR: I think this is an important issue. It is not the cure all for the problems that we've been looking at over the past several years. But I think having an independent FAA, cutting out a level of bureaucracy, where this administrator can go to the Congress, to the people, and state a case of what he needs to keep aviation safe, is very important. WOODRUFF: I'm sure politically it'd be very difficult for you to comment on that. But do you think there's any chance something like that might happen? Mr. McARTOR: Well, it's really not politically difficult at all. And I might say that Secretary Burnley is very committed to investigating these very same issues. I mean, this is a widely discussed topic in Washington right now, and he's just as concerned as anybody of making sure that the FAA is housed in a proper structure in order to do its job. So he's just as committed as anybody to investigate this particular issue. Rep. OBERSTAR: Let me just add one point -- when Congress in 1966 created the Department of Transportation, and brought into it the old Federal Aviation Agency, and created the National Transportation Safety Board, it put the safety board in the DOT so it would be truly independent. Eight years later, Congress moved the NTSB out of DOT into its independent status because it couldn't function, it couldn't do the safety job that it was supposed to do independently. The same needs to be done now for the FAA to enhance their work. WOODRUFF: All right. Back on these earlier points about these new maintenance guidelines issued today. Congressman Oberstar said good first step, but there's some other things you ought to be doing, and one of the things he said is you need to jawbone the airlines not just to operate at the minimum, but to operate above the minimums. Can you do that? Mr. McARTOR: Yes, of course we can. And I might add that we're not operating at the minimum now. There are several other programs that we really haven't discussed here this evening that I think are going to contributed significantly to airline safety. One such program is developing along with the airlines a recording mechanism, a self audit and reporting mechanism, so that airline executives can be accountable for compliance with the FAA approved maintenance program. I think that's going to go a long way, coupled with our surveillance and inspection program, to really restore public confidence in our aviation system, but confidence that maintenance is being adhered to. WOODRUFF: Is that satisfactory for you? Rep. OBERSTAR: Well, that's one of several steps that need to be taken. We need more air traffic controllers. We know that, the administrator knows that, we've got to improve the training. We need more inspectors to keep the airlines honest. WOODRUFF: You're talking about a (unintelligible) budget there, aren't you? Rep. OBERSTAR: Congress has never hesitated when it comes to adding air traffic controllers. The initiative has come from the Congress, and not from the executive branch on air traffic controllers and adding additional maintenance inspectors. So that's going to cost something to do, but the public is willing to pay for safety. WOODRUFF: So there's no disagreement here about how much money is going to be forthcoming for what you need. Mr. McARTOR: Judy, this is an expensive venture that we're on to recapitalize our nation's airspace and to improve it, and to get ready for unprecedented growth, just like we've experienced in the past. We've created a rather dramatic initiative this year -- I call it Impact '88, because it's a collection of programs designed to show positive impact in this fiscal year. WOODRUFF: The other point the congressman made -- he said what you need to address are what he called discrepancies, and there are certain things, I think he mentioned a public address system has to be fixed within hours while this warning system that tells you you're getting too close to the ground, you've got several days to fix. Is that the way it is? Mr. McARTOR: Judy, anything that is vital to flight must be fixed right away. If it's a redundant system and can be deferred, it may be deferred so that the airplane can depart, or dispatch that airfield. All the -- WOODRUFF: What are the specific examples -- Mr. McARTOR: Well, the specific example is that if that item is necessary for flight, you can't fly without it. But if it must be fixed, we're going to set a time certain -- on a time that it must be fixed. No exceptions. WOODRUFF: Does that suit -- Rep. OBERSTAR: The point is that the current regulation says three days for ground proximity warning systems. I'm saying you've started something -- good. Tighten it up. Get after it. And then watch over those airlines. Don't just rely on the paperwork. We've had testimony before our committee, my FAA inspectors have said, ''We're just looking at paperwork, not engine work, and fuselage. '' We need more of hands on. And they're moving in that direction. But I want them to move faster. WOODRUFF: Did the FAA move fast enough in your view on these new maintenance guidelines? Rep. OBERSTAR: They moved fast enough in my judgment. I'm not going to quibble about a month. They set their own timeframe, two months, it took three. But this whole, this issue was highlighted ten months ago, and should have been resolved way back then. WOODRUFF: Why wasn't it? Rep. OBERSTAR: Mr. McArtor wasn't the administrator then, and let s absolves him. But the point is that the system dragged on too long, the organizational structure is wrong. And that is why we need a new reorganized FAA. WOODRUFF: Is that something that can be taken care of? Mr. McARTOR: It's one of our priorities, Judy, and we're working, like I say, on modernizing ourselves and our procedures. And I might say that the airlines were also very cooperative with us in identifying the need to really upgrade and establish a MEL that's easily understood. WOODRUFF: Why was it necessary to issue this warning today to the airlines not to put inexperienced pilots in the cockpit? Mr. McARTOR: Judy, we did a similar notice to our commuter industry about a year ago. And certainly the tragedy in Denver made us think more focused on this particular issue. And this is a common thing that we do with our air carrier industry is we will issue notices of concern or guidance to them. And we think that they ought to be mindful of the pairing of two inexperienced crews and try to set some type of minimums there so that we don't end up with a problem. WOODRUFF: But again, why wasn't that done before now? I mean, Congressman Oberstar talked about his being aware of this years ago -- Rep. OBERSTAR: Three and a half years ago -- WOODRUFF: Three or four years ago -- Mr. McARTOR: Well, when I came into office in July, I immediately called for a complete review of pilot training proficiency standards, and cockpit resource management emphasis. And so we're on a program right now with our air carriers looking at how captains and first officers interact with one another in the cockpit. It's very, very important that we make sure that crew maintains vigilance and professionalism at all times and is well trained. WOODRUFF: Are you satisfied that they're on the right track on this? Rep. OBERSTAR: We're looking at that, and Administrator McArtor will have an opportunity to discuss that before our subcommittee hearing later this year. WOODRUFF: Well, we will look for that, congressman. Thank you for being with us, Congressman Oberstar, Mr. McArtor, thank you both. We appreciate it. AIDS Babies [public service commercial] MacNEIL: What you've just seen is a public service commercial that's been aired in the New York area in recent months, and with good reason. Babies with AIDS are a tragically increasing sight in several of the city's hospitals. Just last week, New York State health officials announced that one out of 61 babies born in the city tests positive for the AIDS antibody. But the problem isn't limited to New York. Nationally, the Centers for Disease Control estimate that the number of children who have contracted AIDS will grow from the current total of 778 to 3,000 by 1991. Drug abuse, specifically the sharing of needles by addicts, is at the core of the problem in New York.

Dr. STEPHEN JOSEPH, NY City Health Commissioner: What we're seeing again is the evolution of the epidemic. We've now gotten to the point where many more women have been infected by either their own drug use or the drug use of their current or former sexual partners, and more of them now are having children, and so we're seeing more infected children. These women are largely black and Hispanic women. We've had 1400 women now with fullblown AIDS diagnosed in the city, and four or five months ago that number was 1100 women. So those totals are going up. MacNEIL: And as the numbers increase, so do heavy costs associated with AIDS treatment. It costs an estimated quarter of a million dollars to care for these babies in a hospital setting. And many have nowhere else to go. We turn now to two doctors in the front line of this battle against AIDS. Dr. Margaret Heargity is director of pediatrics at Harlem Hospital and a professor of pediatrics at the Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons. Dr. Janet Mitchell is director of ambulatory peri natology at Beth Israel Hospital in Boston. She's an assistant professor of medicine at the Harvard Medical School. She joins us from Public Station WGBH in Boston. First of all, Dr. Heargity, did the size of the findings of that survey in New York finding one baby in 61 testing positive for the virus surprise you? Dr. MARGARET HEARGITY, pediatrician: Those of us who are working with this problem were not particularly surprised by that number, but we were glad to have it made public, and we had an intuitive knowledge that the numbers of children that we were seeing were escalating sharply. That meant that the numbers of pregnant women who had been exposed to this virus were increasing sharply. But there's something very -- we're a quantitative society, and to have a number to place upon it, I think gives it a reality -- MacNEIL: Makes it real, right? Gets it into the headlines, for one thing. And do you agree with that, Dr. Mitchell, you weren't surprised by the figure? Dr. JANET MITCHELL, obstetrician: Not at all. I was not surprised. MacNEIL: Dr. Mitchell, clear one thing up for us. A baby, a newborn baby tests positive for the AIDS antibody. What proportion -- first of all, is it inevitable that that baby will actually get AIDS disease, the symptom of AIDS? Dr. MITCHELL: Well, what I really want to clarify is that what that figure really is a marker for is that one in 61 women who are delivering in New York are -- in fact, it would be -- have the antibodies. Now what percentage of those babies will go on to develop the antibody themselves and therefore a reflection of their own disease is estimated at this time to be about 50%. But that survey that was done by New York State is really a marker for the number of women who are infected. MacNEIL: Do you agree with that estimate, is that a fair estimate of --? Dr. HEARGITY: Well, I think that's the going estimate average now -- that the absolute number is really not known. I would say that somewhere between 30 and 50% of the infants born to women who have been exposed to the virus are likely to have children who are themselves in fact infected. MacNEIL: But some of these babies born, who were tested in the survey, who tested positive to the antibody, they will grow out of that, and not develop the disease? Dr. HEARGITY: That's true. And -- MacNEIL: What determines that, do you have an idea? Dr. HEARGITY: Well, unfortunately, it's -- as Dr. Joseph just said on your film clip, we're really in very early days of this disease, and we don't know what conditions or factors in the mother or in the infection are predictive of which babies will in fact become infected themselves. We simply don't know. MacNEIL: I see. Dr. Mitchell, do babies -- we saw some of them in hospital in those taped clips -- do they experience the AIDS disease the same way adults do? Dr. MITCHELL: Well, that's a better question for Dr. Heargity to answer. Actually, what I do is I am an obstetrician. And the way I got into this was taking care of pregnant addicted women. So that I actually deal with the mother and all of the problems that are surrounded with -- MacNEIL: Well, thank you. I'll ask Dr. Heargity that. What -- does the baby get the disease the same way an adult does? Dr.HEARGITY: The baby gets the disease presumably during pregnancy, or during labor and delivery. The exact moment of transmission is not clear. MacNEIL: I mean get the disease in the colloquial sense of how do they show it and feel it? Dr. HEARGITY: Yes. There are some differences between children and adults that I think are related to the child's immaturity. So, for example, infants and children with the disease are much more likely to come down with serious, acute bacterial infections because their defense mechanisms, their immune system is less sophisticated and less able to combat such bacterial infection. On the other hand, children do not show anything like the prevalence or incidence of cancer that is seen commonly in the adult form of the disease. MacNEIL: How long does a baby live with the disease? Do you know enough, generally speaking? Dr. HEARGITY: It depends really upon the type or the manifestation of the disease, first. Secondly, I think it's probably true that as we have gone along in this infection, we have become better able to diagnose and recognize it. And secondly, are better able to treat it, barring a specific cure, a specific drug that will treat the viral infection itself. We're more competent in treating the infections of a variety of source to which these children come -- are prone to. And therefore, their longevity increases. But in general, this is -- and so we have to begin to view this disease not as an immediately fatal disease, but as a chronic disease which will linger, and the children may survive at least into preschool, into the preschool period, if not longer. A very young infant with a severe form of the disease, though, it can be a fatal disease, I have to say. MacNEIL: Dr. Mitchell, back into the area that you are expert in. Obviously, a woman doesn't knowingly want to bring -- I presume -- a baby into the world with the antibody and the danger of getting the disease. If a mother testing positive for the antibody comes to you and is pregnant, what kind of advice do you give her? Is she a candidate for terminating a pregnancy the way people with some other conditions are that can affect her fetus? Dr. MITCHELL: Well, yes she is. But I think what's more important is the demographics of the woman who is most likely to be infected presently. And as Dr. Joseph on this tape mentioned, these are minority women and these are women who are involved in the drug culture either by themselves using drugs or the sexual partners of a drug user. And these are poor, disenfranchised women where pregnancy may be the only time in their lives that they feel any normality or feel good about themselves. So when given the information of producing a child who has a 50% chance of more or less of getting sick, a lot of these women take that chance. MacNEIL: But what kind of medical advice do you give in this case? Dr. MITCHELL: Well, I give medical -- MacNEIL: I know you're giving in a way sociological advice there, too -- Dr. MITCHELL: That's what I was about to say -- MacNEIL: Yeah. Dr. MITCHELL: I think that it's important to understand what this pregnancy, or that pregnancy, means to that woman. And that decision has to be hers and hers alone. And that's what I do is I give information and support and allow her to make the decision that she feels is best for herself, even if someone else feels that that might not be the best decision. But it has to be a decision that that woman and her family are most comfortable with and what they feel is best for them. MacNEIL: Do you have an observation on this? Is a woman testing positive for the antibody, a pregnant woman, is she in your view, if she wishes it, a candidate for termination of the pregnancy medically for that reason? Dr. HEARGITY: Well, I'm not sure I understand your question, but I certainly would agree with Dr. Mitchell that this -- in our society at least -- this is a decision that has to be made by the woman in question. And our job is to present her with the data as we know it now. And she has to be left, clearly, to make the decision for herself. And since we're neither judge nor jury, we must be prepared as caretakers to support her in that decision, whatever it is. MacNEIL: Do you have any ideas beyond the ideas that have become conventional now of more education about careful sex and/or safe sex, and of abstaining from drug abuse and sharing needles? Do you have any ideas on how to prevent this particular part of the AIDS problem? Dr. HEARGITY: No, I really don't. I think that we need to be very vigorous, put considerable resources into getting the information out about this disease, and its implications, to the childbearing population of the city. After all, we're talking about one and a half plus percent of the pregnant women in this city as exposed to the virus. MacNEIL: I'd like to ask you the same question, Dr. Mitchell, but I've run out of time here. Thank you very much for joining us from Boston, and Dr. Heargity in New York. Pershings Come Home WOODRUFF: Next week the Senate begins hearings on the intermediate range nuclear force treaty signed in December by President Reagan and Soviet leader Gorbachev. If the treaty is ratified, the U. S. will have to eliminate all of its Pershing II missiles among other things. And as Tom Bearden reports from Pueblo, Colorado, that may end up being done by the same people who built the missiles in the first place.

TOM BEARDEN: It is one thing for President Reagan and General Secretary Gorbachev to eliminate an entire class of nuclear weapons with a stroke of the pen. It is something else again for the U. S. Army to actually dispose of some 300 32 foot long Pershing II missiles, each one loaded with 13,000 pounds of highly volatile solid rocket fuel. This is how the army would like to do it -- blow the rockets open and let them burn in open pits. They tested the idea in late November at the Tuela Depot in Utah. Army spokesman Dave Harris explains. DAVE HARRIS, public affairs director: You take the motor down in the pit on a truck, lift it off with a crane, set it down on wooden shocks in the pit, put small explosive charges down the top of the motor case and on the nozzle which is at the other end of the motor case. Back off and detonate the charges electrically. When you do that, the motor case which is made of plastic splits right down the middle and the propellant (unintelligible) inside ignites and burns in the hole.

BEARDEN: This is where the Army would like to dig those pits and burn the motors, the sprawling maintenance and supply depot near the city of Pueblo in South Central Colorado. The Pershings deployed in Europe are routinely shipped back to this facility for regular maintenance. The Army says the special facilities for handling the rockets makes this the best place to comply with the treaty. Mr. HARRIS: Pueblo has been here for many, many years. It works on Pershing rocket motors, it works on the Pershing missile and has done that for decades. Ideally we would like to do as much of the demilitarization as we can here, where there are people and facilities and understanding, who know how to do what must be done.

BEARDEN: Public Affairs officer Mary Wilson said the workers at the Pueblo Depot are excited about perhaps being part of the fulfillment of the treaty. MARY WILSON, public affairs officer: There's a sense of history and a sense of doing our bit for peace and bringing peace if we're assigned the mission in some small way. BEARDEN: After spending so much time in keeping it working, is there a sense of perhaps loss to have to destroy the same system? Ms. WILSON: Well, maybe in a sense. But I think the overriding virtues of peace that come out of this really overcome any sense of loss. BEARDEN: The depot is located about ten miles outside the city limits of Pueblo, an industrial city of 100,000, a city that has seen hard times recently. The CF&I Steel Mill used to be the biggest employer, until it virtually closed down in 1983. Unemployment remained high until incentives attracted substantial new industries like McDonnell Douglas over the last couple of years. The Pershing demilitarization project would also create some jobs and bring some new money into the economy. That's welcome news to the people who run Clark's Western Store on Main Street, a fixture on this corner for 90 years. Owner Alex Clark says the impact may not be much, but every bit counts. ALEX CLARK, businessman: Well, it's about $8. 8 million -- in a city this size that's not a tremendous amount of money, but let's be honest, the more people you have working the better off things are.

BEARDEN: Even though the economic impact isn't enormous, most residents, like commercial photographer Walter Martin think destroying the missiles is a great idea. WALTER MARTIN, photographer: I'm a father, I have two children, and so there's a lot more important things for an eight and six year old to be concerned about in this world than whether they're going to have to face annihilation every day that they wake up in the world. The Treaty is perhaps the single most great event that's occurred in the past -- well, since the advent of the birth of the bomb.

BEARDEN: But there is one problem with burning the Pershings. It releases several different kinds of toxic materials into the atmosphere. Utah granted permission to test the procedure at Tuella. But the Colorado Health Department has twice rejected the Army's application to do it at Pueblo. Both states are now waiting for the results of the tests in Utah before proceeding. That leaves people like Martin in something of a dilemma. He supports the treaty, but he's worried about the environment, too. Mr. MARTIN: We have a particular problem here in this part of the country in terms of air pollution. I think that is more so than in some other areas, having to do with our altitude. So that if a choice needs to be made, it would appear that it could be done perhaps in another area that would be better suited to absorb the ill effects of the material going into the air. BEARDEN: Would you care to say then that you support the idea of destroying the missiles, but you're a little concerned about maybe doing it in your back yard? Mr. MARTIN: Yeah. I guess that's what I'm saying, yes.

BEARDEN: But the Army says not to worry. There isn't all that much fuel to burn in the first place. Mr. HARRIS: The propellant from all of those motors added together comes out to about 4. 3 million pounds of propellant, which must be eliminated over a three yearperiod. By comparison, a space shuttle solid rocket motor has about 1. 1 million pounds of propellant in it. So what I'm saying in essence is all the Pershing motors that we would eliminate over a three year period have less total propellant than four space shuttle booster rockets.

BEARDEN: City Council Chairman Mike Occhiato says Pueblans trust the Army. MIKE OCCHIATO, City Council Chairman: We have a lot of confidence in Pueblo Depot activity, and the Army, to insure that whatever destruction or whatever potential hazard it may create will be addressed. Those risks will be addressed. Mr. CLARK: If it's safe for the environment, and if it's overall good for the community, I say let's do it.

BEARDEN: The Pentagon says it won't burn the missiles unless the program complies with all federal and state laws. But it also has a deadline. Eliminate the Pershings within three years of the ratification of the treaty. The clock starts when and if Congress ratifies the agreement. Recap MacNEIL: Again the main stories of the day. President Reagan will scale down his request to Congress for more contra aid because of changing circumstances. Israel eased curfews in some Palestinian refugee camps, while the U. S. criticized the use of beatings to quell disturbances. The Soviets called for an international conference on Middle East peace. Good night, Judy. WOODRUFF: Good night, Robin. That's our NewsHour for tonight. We'll be back tomorrow night. I'm Judy Woodruff. Thank you and good night.