Smoke Hoods (No.2)

That this House agrees with the Civil Aviation Authority's assertion that smokehoods and water spray systems are not mutually exclusive, both having the potential to save lives; recognises, however, that the installation of water spray systems on new commercial aircraft is unlikely for several years, that due to cost implications spray systems are unlikely to be fitted to existing aircraft at all and that smokehoods meeting the exacting standards set out in the Civil Aviation Authority's specification 20 offer the most immediate way of improving passenger safety; notes the efforts of BP Ventures, Dowty, Life Support Engineering and Sabre Safety to develop smokehoods capable of protecting passengers against various suffocating and toxic environments, which are suitable for use both in a ground evacuation and for a prolonged period during an airborne fire, which do not hinder the vision of the wearer, can be made available for immediate use and are obvious and easy to operate by all types of passenger; regrets BP Ventures' decision to pull out; urges other manufacturers to continue developments; hopes that the Civil Aviation Authority will shortly be able to confirm that smokehoods have been tested and proved to comply with specification 20; notes with concern that following the Civil Aviation Authority's decision to seek an internationally agreed specification for smokehoods, airlines decided to abort attempts to comply with specification 20; and hopes that delays in achieving an internationally agreed standard are short lived and that it will be made mandatory by all aviation authorities in the next few months.