PDA

You are viewing a trimmed-down version of the SkyscraperPage.com discussion forum.  For the full version follow the link below.

View Full Version : NASA Sits on Air Safety Survey



BTinSF
10-22-2007, 06:01 PM
NASA Sits on Air Safety Survey
By RITA BEAMISH, Associated Press Writer
Monday, October 22, 2007
(10-22) 08:31 PDT MOFFETT FIELD, Calif. (AP) --

Anxious to avoid upsetting air travelers, NASA is withholding results from an unprecedented national survey of pilots that found safety problems like near collisions and runway interference occur far more frequently than the government previously recognized.

NASA gathered the information under an $8.5 million safety project, through telephone interviews with roughly 24,000 commercial and general aviation pilots over nearly four years. Since ending the interviews at the beginning of 2005 and shutting down the project completely more than one year ago, the space agency has refused to divulge the results publicly.

Just last week, NASA ordered the contractor that conducted the survey to purge all related data from its computers.

The Associated Press learned about the NASA results from one person familiar with the survey who spoke on condition of anonymity because this person was not authorized to discuss them.

A senior NASA official, associate administrator Thomas S. Luedtke, said revealing the findings could damage the public's confidence in airlines and affect airline profits. Luedtke acknowledged that the survey results "present a comprehensive picture of certain aspects of the U.S. commercial aviation industry."

The AP sought to obtain the survey data over 14 months under the U.S. Freedom of Information Act.

"Release of the requested data, which are sensitive and safety-related, could materially affect the public confidence in, and the commercial welfare of, the air carriers and general aviation companies whose pilots participated in the survey," Luedtke wrote in a final denial letter to the AP. NASA also cited pilot confidentiality as a reason, although no airlines were identified in the survey, nor were the identities of pilots, all of whom were promised anonymity.

Among other results, the pilots reported at least twice as many bird strikes, near mid-air collisions and runway incursions as other government monitoring systems show, according to a person familiar with the results who was not authorized to discuss them publicly.

The survey also revealed higher-than-expected numbers of pilots who experienced "in-close approach changes" — potentially dangerous, last-minute instructions to alter landing plans.

Officials at the NASA Ames Research Center in California have said they want to publish their own report on the project by year's end.

Although to most people NASA is associated with spaceflight, the agency has a long and storied history of aviation safety research. Its experts study atmospheric science and airplane materials and design, among other areas.

"If the airlines aren't safe I want to know about it," said Rep. Brad Miller, D-N.C., chairman of the House Science and Technology investigations and oversight subcommittee. "I would rather not feel a false sense of security because they don't tell us."

Discussing NASA's decision not to release the survey data, the congressman said: "There is a faint odor about it all."

Miller asked NASA last week to provide his oversight committee with information on the survey and the decision to withhold data.

"The data appears to have great value to aviation safety, but not on a shelf at NASA," he wrote to NASA's administrator Michael Griffin.

The survey's purpose was to develop a new way of tracking safety trends and problems the airline industry could address. The project was shelved when NASA cut its budget as emphasis shifted to send astronauts to the moon and Mars.

NASA said nothing it discovered in the survey warranted notifying the Federal Aviation Administration immediately. Its data showed improvements in some areas, the person who was familiar with the survey said. Survey managers occasionally briefed the FAA during the project. At a briefing in April 2003, FAA officials expressed concerns about the high numbers of incidents being described by pilots because the NASA results were dramatically different from what FAA was getting from its own monitoring systems.

An FAA spokeswoman, Laura Brown, said the agency questioned NASA's methodology. The FAA is confident it can identify safety problems before they lead to accidents, she said.

In its space program, NASA has a deadly history of playing down safety issues. Investigators blamed the 1986 and 2003 shuttle disasters on poor decision making, budget cuts and improperly minimizing risks. NASA decided to go ahead with a 2006 shuttle launch and is moving ahead with one this week despite safety concerns by NASA engineers in both cases.

Aviation experts said NASA's pilot survey results could be a valuable resource in an industry where they believe many safety problems are underreported, even while deaths from commercial air crashes are rare and the number of deadly crashes has dropped in recent years.

"It gives us an awareness of not just the extent of the problems, but probably in some cases that the problems are there at all," said William Waldock, a safety science professor at Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University in Prescott, Ariz. "If their intent is to just let it sit there, that's just a waste."

Officials involved in the survey touted the unusually high response rate among pilots, 80 percent, and said they believe it is more reliable than other reporting systems that rely on pilots to voluntarily report incidents.

"The data is strong," said Robert Dodd, an aviation safety expert hired by NASA to manage the survey. "Our process was very meticulously designed and very thorough. It was very scientific."

Pilot interviews lasted about 30 minutes, with standardized questions about how frequently they encountered equipment problems, smoke or fire, engine failure, passenger disturbances, severe turbulence, collisions with birds or inadequate tower communication, according to documents obtained by the AP.

Pilots also were asked about last-minute changes in landing instructions, flying too close to other planes, near collisions with ground vehicles or buildings, overweight takeoffs or occasions when pilots left the cockpit.

The survey, known officially as the National Aviation Operations Monitoring Service, started after a White House commission in 1997 proposed reducing fatal air crashes by 80 percent as of this year. Crashes have dropped 65 percent, with a rate of about 1 fatality in about 4.5 million departures.

NASA had begun to interview general aviation pilots and initially planned to interview flight attendants, air traffic controllers and mechanics before the survey was halted.

In earlier interviews that helped researchers design the NASA survey, pilots said airlines were unaware how frequently safety incidents occurred that could lead to serious problems or even crashes, said Jon Krosnick, a survey expert at Stanford University who helped NASA create the questionnaire. Krosnick also led a Stanford team that paid for a joint AP-Stanford poll on the environment.

"There are little things going on everyday that rarely lead to an accident but they increase the chances of an accident," said Krosnick. "It's the little things beneath the surface that cause the very infrequent crashes. You have to tackle those."

NASA directed its contractor Battelle Memorial Institute, along with subcontractors, on Thursday to return any project information and then purge it from their computers before Oct. 30.

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/10/22/national/a001811D01.DTL

Daquan13
10-22-2007, 10:14 PM
They got problems of their own though.

Every damn time they send that friggen space stuttle out in space, those goddamn tiles come loose and fly off, causing them to possibly end up;

Needing
Another
Seven
Astronauts!!

BTinSF
10-22-2007, 11:58 PM
^^^I used to live in Orlando in the late 70's/early 80's. I remember when the first shuttle was delivered . . . and the tiles fell off. They had to invent a new glue to stock them back on. The problem now, though, isn't that they fall off spontaneously but that pieces of foam break off and knock off chunks of tile.

Capt AWACS
10-23-2007, 12:08 AM
NASA has little to do with this decision it goes up to the Commerce Dept, from all I have read. This survey will still be used and applied. I did the survey and will not be suprised by what they are withholding. It is basically ripping on the FAA for not updating ATC and airspace design around the USA.

NASA is a primary for Air Safety in the USA, not just the FAA, in fact NASA is always more proactive than the FAA.

Daquan13 your humour is weak. NASA is actually having a great run, you seem to only read the "bad" news.

Ciao, and Hook 'em Horns,
Capt-AWACS, been there, done that, got the t-shirt

Daquan13
10-24-2007, 12:20 AM
Daquan13 your humour is weak. NASA is actually having a great run, you seem to only read the "bad" news.


It really wasen't meant as humor or a joke.

It WOULD be nice if they work with this, but as of late, all they seem interested in is getting that friggen space shuttle back up there.

What a damn waste of money that is, when people like myself a jobless and can't find a damn job suitable enough to survive!! I NEVER was for that, and will never be. Yeah, it's a space program, but I never liked it and always felt that it was worthless a definite waste of money.

It's not helping ME any, so why should I go along with it? Spend that money finding affordable housing for the homeless or trying to find BinLaden, then they'll be doing something worth while!!:hell:

urbanflyer
10-24-2007, 12:33 AM
^
Um, this thread is about air safety and a report by NASA, not your employment troubles. NASA programs may be a waste of money, but that has absolutely nothing to do with your job situation. Your post screams 'me, me, me!'.

At any rate, the space shuttle program is directly responsible for nearly 25,000 engineering jobs. That's pretty significant if you ask me.

Anyway, in reference to the original post, AWACS and the other pilot respondents have highlighted what needs to be addressed most in this report: the current ATC system sucks and there should be absolutely no delay in deploying a more robust and manageable system.

JMancuso
10-24-2007, 02:07 AM
ya man...nasa isn't preventing you from finding a job.

Capt AWACS
10-24-2007, 04:25 AM
It WOULD be nice if they work with this, but as of late, all they seem interested in is getting that friggen space shuttle back up there.

What a damn waste of money that is, when people like myself a jobless and can't find a damn job suitable enough to survive!! I NEVER was for that, and will never be. Yeah, it's a space program, but I never liked it and always felt that it was worthless a definite waste of money.

It's not helping ME any, so why should I go along with it? Spend that money finding affordable housing for the homeless or trying to find BinLaden, then they'll be doing something worth while!!:hell:


The budget lines for the Space Shuttle and Air Safety are different at NASA and not related-#1
#2, THe Space Shuttle has been "getting up" just fine. In fact I watched it launch today with my own eyes then flew by CC this evening on a quick cross country to Daytona Beach. All is well at NASA
#3 your job woes have no bearing on this what so ever.

If the horrid quality of your aviation related posts are any indication, maybe you should be looking somewhere else for a job. Nothing you write about aviation is even remotely accurate...ever. None of it is based on fact, science, research, policy, or even proper experiance.

I am glad you think your views should run US and International Space policy :banana: luckily we have sanity running the show...

As for the report, I will say again, continue to modernise ATC. My only problem with this is destroying the data, which I think might not happen now that the story has "media legs".

Ciao,
AWACS

Chicago3rd
10-24-2007, 02:03 PM
As for the report, I will say again, continue to modernise ATC. My only problem with this is destroying the data, which I think might not happen now that the story has "media legs".

Ciao,
AWACS

Question:

Even though the data show higher numbers that what the FAA shows should we the public be alarmed or do you think as a pilot that the number is relative and and it is still very safe to fly? Guess I am asking you how it all really looks.

Daquan13
10-24-2007, 02:46 PM
ya man...nasa isn't preventing you from finding a job.



No, but it just plain wasteful the things they do.:rolleyes:

Capt AWACS
10-24-2007, 04:39 PM
No, but it just plain wasteful the things they do.:rolleyes:

man, just stop now while your behind and don't dig any more holes.


Chicago3rd, the reason the numbers are different is the FAA is more punitive than NASA. If a pilot has an incident, for example, they can report it to NASA and all NASA will try and do is see what a fix could be and find root causes. The FAA will look to punish first then investigate. My responses here are more geared toward general and corporate aviation but it is true for part 139 and 121 airline pilots also (those are FAA regs governing some airline operations). I think the "problem" or issue is just about as NASA has it noted, though it is not "unsafe", per se. There will always be the big plane, little sky, problems but pilots are operating tens of thousands of operations a day safely. So the sky is not falling...yet. There needs to be a big investment and overhaul of the ATC system meaning better computers (they still use paper strips printed on dot matrix printers in many areas) and higher speed redundant data links.
The FAA is talking about closing ARTCCs centres (these are Air Route Traffic Control centers in major cities around the US that control Class A and other airspace for cross country flights in IFR conditions). I think closing centres is a bad idea. Increasing workload in other areas is not the long term answer to save money. I could go on and on but overall things are safe.

But you know the reactive nature of the USA in many areas. God forbid it might take another problem before something serious is done. We should be more proactive like Euro control's new systems coming online. Euro control is actually implementing NASA recommended procedures before the USA is!

So things are safe IMO but as travel increases that could go to marginal by 2010-12 if action is not taken now.

Ciao,
AWACS

Chicago3rd
10-24-2007, 05:44 PM
man, just stop now while your behind and don't dig any more holes.


Chicago3rd, the reason the numbers are different is the FAA is more punitive than NASA. If a pilot has an incident, for example, they can report it to NASA and all NASA will try and do is see what a fix could be and find root causes. The FAA will look to punish first then investigate. My responses here are more geared toward general and corporate aviation but it is true for part 135 and 121 airline pilots also (those are FAA regs governing some airline operations). I think the "problem" or issue is about as NASA has it, though it is not "unsafe", per se. There will always be the big plane, little sky, problems but pilots are operating tens of thousands of operations a day safely. So the sky is not falling...yet. There needs to be a big investment and overhaul of the ATC system meaning better computers (they still use paper strips printed on dot matrix printers in many areas) and higher speed redundant data links.
The FAA is talking about closing ARTCCs centres (these are Air Route Traffic Control centers in major cities around the US that control Class A and other airspace for cross country flights in IFR conditions). I think closing centres is a bad idea. Increasing workload in other areas is not the long term answer to save money. I could go on and on but overall things are safe.

But you know the reactive nature of the USA in many areas. God forbid it might take another problem before something serious is done. We should be more proactive like Euro control's new systems coming online. Euro control is actually implementing NASA recommended procedures before the USA is!

So things are safe IMO but as travel increases that could go to marginal by 2010-12 if action is not taken now.

Ciao,
AWACS


Thanks! Great info!

Daquan13
10-24-2007, 08:28 PM
man, just stop now while your behind and don't dig any more holes.


Chicago3rd, the reason the numbers are different is the FAA is more punitive than NASA. If a pilot has an incident, for example, they can report it to NASA and all NASA will try and do is see what a fix could be and find root causes. The FAA will look to punish first then investigate. My responses here are more geared toward general and corporate aviation but it is true for part 139 and 121 airline pilots also (those are FAA regs governing some airline operations). I think the "problem" or issue is just about as NASA has it noted, though it is not "unsafe", per se. There will always be the big plane, little sky, problems but pilots are operating tens of thousands of operations a day safely. So the sky is not falling...yet. There needs to be a big investment and overhaul of the ATC system meaning better computers (they still use paper strips printed on dot matrix printers in many areas) and higher speed redundant data links.
The FAA is talking about closing ARTCCs centres (these are Air Route Traffic Control centers in major cities around the US that control Class A and other airspace for cross country flights in IFR conditions). I think closing centres is a bad idea. Increasing workload in other areas is not the long term answer to save money. I could go on and on but overall things are safe.

But you know the reactive nature of the USA in many areas. God forbid it might take another problem before something serious is done. We should be more proactive like Euro control's new systems coming online. Euro control is actually implementing NASA recommended procedures before the USA is!

So things are safe IMO but as travel increases that could go to marginal by 2010-12 if action is not taken now.

Ciao,
AWACS



Yeah, well, so sorry, and I'm not faulting any of you guys, but my beliefs are my beliefs.

Buckeye Native 001
10-24-2007, 09:27 PM
The local angle (Southern California):


http://www.ocregister.com/news/airport-incursions-faa-1901965-jwa-runway
JWA's runway safety scrutinized
While the aviation hub has not had serious mishaps lately, federal officials want its record improved, along with LAX and Long Beach.
BY JEFF OVERLEY
THE ORANGE COUNTY REGISTER
Comments 0| Recommend 4

Though it has not witnessed any serious mishaps in recent years, John Wayne Airport is among a small group of the nation's airports being targeted for lapses in runway safety, federal officials disclosed Monday.

Los Angeles International Airport and Long Beach Airport also made the list of 20 airports with high rates of runway incursions – when planes pass too close to one another or airport vehicles.

From 2002 to 2006, John Wayne Airport tallied 20 incursions, tying it for 12th place nationally. National data are not yet available for the 2007 fiscal year, but federal officials say JWA, the country's 24th busiest airport, recorded another nine incursions.

Unlike incidents in Long Beach and Los Angeles, none of the recent runway errors at Orange County's aviation hub were deemed serious by Federal Aviation Administration investigators.

Airport spokeswoman Jenny Wedge chalked the problem up to JWA's large number of private small-plane flights, which account for roughly 70 percent of operations.

"We would love to help with whatever we can do, but we're doing everything (the FAA is) suggesting, and still continue to have problems," Wedge said. Private pilots "could help by building their own awareness" of the airport and its safety guidelines, she added.

The revelation Monday came as part of a progress report issued by senior FAA officials, who in August unveiled new steps to chip away at incursions that have been recorded at consistent levels in the past decade.

In a conference call, acting FAA Administrator Bobby Sturgell outlined steps taken across the country to cut down on near-misses. Teams of inspectors have been deployed to the 20 airports, where runway markings have since been enhanced and training will be stepped-up, Sturgell said. Airlines are reviewing flight-simulator training and are simplifying cockpit procedures.

FAA spokesman Ian Gregor described recent meetings of airport and government officials, calling them "intensive and creative" settings where people were "encouraged to throw out any idea, no matter how bizarre it might sound," in hopes of reducing incursions.

"What we wanted to do here was sharpen the focus, have a very intensive brainstorming session to see if we hadn't considered all of the possible solutions, and quite frankly, all of the possible problems," Gregor said.

The FAA has long come under fire for its handling of incursions. Since 1990, the issue has remained on the National Transportation Safety Board's "most wanted" list of safety improvements. The board has sometimes called the FAA's response to the matter "unacceptable."

On Monday, the National Air Traffic Controllers Association issued a statement lambasting the FAA on staffing levels, which the association called dangerously low.

Many incursions are prevented, but "if we had the extra bodies, who knows how many more we could stop," said Rene Holliday, union president at the Long Beach Airport.


Since 1990, incursions have led to 63 deaths nationwide, according to the NTSB. When last year's crash of Comair flight 5191 in Kentucky is designated an incursion – the NTSB and FAA disagree on that point – 49 deaths join the total.

JWA's safety record compares well with its local counterparts since 1998, the longest period for which data were immediately available. In that time frame, JWA had one serious incursion, Long Beach Airport had four and LAX had 22, including an August incident in which two planes reportedly missed by just 37 feet.

Unlike large airports such as LAX, inspectors at JWA are focusing on recreational flights. Errors by small-plane pilots account for the majority of recent incursions at JWA, according to federal records obtained by The Register.

Wedge, the airport spokeswoman, said JWA has enhanced runway lighting and devised special guides to help small-plane pilots and is now adding extra runway markings.

JWA air traffic controller Dan Albanese, a vice president for the controllers union, said that while controller staffing is inadequate, the runways are "very safe."

Sturgell, the FAA administrator, also weighed in on LAX's incursions, saying its convoluted runway design might need to be altered.

Contact the writer: 714-445-6683 or joverley@ocregister.com

urbanflyer
10-25-2007, 12:58 AM
Well Daq, your beliefs are often confounding, bizarre and plain wrong.

Buckeye, I detect a bit of editorializing by the article writer there. I'd be interested to know if an FAA administrator actually referred to LAX runways as 'convoluted'. Interesting to note that the writer also neglected to mention the runway reconfiguration project currently under way at LAX :rolleyes:

The only good point in the article was the private pilots definitely need to be better about familiarizing themselves with their airport environment. When I was flying there were always a few guys around the field who would've helped us all out by being more situationally aware...

Daquan13
10-25-2007, 03:22 AM
Well Daq, your beliefs are often confounding, bizarre and plain wrong.

Buckeye, I detect a bit of editorializing by the article writer there. I'd be interested to know if an FAA administrator actually referred to LAX runways as 'convoluted'. Interesting to note that the writer also neglected to mention the runway reconfiguration project currently under way at LAX :rolleyes:

The only good point in the article was the private pilots definitely need to be better about familiarizing themselves with their airport environment. When I was flying there were always a few guys around the field who would've helped us all out by being more situationally aware...



Stop it, just stop it! When did this become YOUR problem? You're always putting me down with your negative talk. I can believe what I want to. I don't ride you for thinking whatever you want to think.

I said what I had to say, so stop dragging this on. You got your beliefs and I got mine. Put that stick away and stop poking me with it.:poke:

Daquan13
10-25-2007, 03:40 AM
^
Um, this thread is about air safety and a report by NASA, not your employment troubles. NASA programs may be a waste of money, but that has absolutely nothing to do with your job situation. Your post screams 'me, me, me!'.





This has gone far enough.

Buckeye Native 001
10-25-2007, 03:29 PM
Buckeye, I detect a bit of editorializing by the article writer there. I'd be interested to know if an FAA administrator actually referred to LAX runways as 'convoluted'. Interesting to note that the writer also neglected to mention the runway reconfiguration project currently under way at LAX :rolleyes:

The only good point in the article was the private pilots definitely need to be better about familiarizing themselves with their airport environment. When I was flying there were always a few guys around the field who would've helped us all out by being more situationally aware...


Well, it did come from the Orange County Register ;)

zilfondel
10-28-2007, 10:00 AM
In its space program, NASA has a deadly history of playing down safety issues. Investigators blamed the 1986 and 2003 shuttle disasters on poor decision making, budget cuts and improperly minimizing risks. NASA decided to go ahead with a 2006 shuttle launch and is moving ahead with one this week despite safety concerns by NASA engineers in both cases.


Goooo.... NASA!



Forums Directory