Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Nasa Won't Disclose Air Safety Survey  
User currently offline2175301 From United States of America, joined May 2007, 1074 posts, RR: 0
Posted (7 years 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 2541 times:

Interesting article. I can't imagine any real legitimate reason why the study could not be releases; nor why the contractor needs to destroy the data-base.



http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories...IMIL&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

31 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineHmmmm... From Canada, joined May 1999, 2104 posts, RR: 5
Reply 1, posted (7 years 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 2513 times:

Roaring condemnation from the A.net crowd in 3...2....1...

(Yes, we know, the Columbia disaster was 2003.)



An optimist robs himself of the joy of being pleasantly surprised
User currently offlineContrails From United States of America, joined Oct 2000, 1833 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (7 years 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 2455 times:

"Anxious to avoid upsetting air travelers".. ". . . the findings could damage the public's confidence in airlines and affect airline profits".

I have a news bulletin for you, NASA: Most of the air travelers I know are already upset. As for affecting profits, what are pax supposed to do, take a bus on their next cross-country trip? Not likely.

"NASA gathered the information under an $8.5 million safety project." There's $8,500,000 down the tubes.

Suggestion to all A-Netters: Go to http://www.house.gov/, and http://www.senate.gov/, and send a message to your Members of Congress. This can't be allowed.

I'm sending my messages now.



Flying Colors Forever!
User currently offlineHmmmm... From Canada, joined May 1999, 2104 posts, RR: 5
Reply 3, posted (7 years 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 2443 times:

Quoting Contrails (Reply 2):
I have a news bulletin for you, NASA: Most of the air travelers I know are already upset. As for affecting profits, what are pax supposed to do, take a bus on their next cross-country trip? Not likely.

You can't have it both ways. Either this report will, as you say, have no effect on public confidence in air travel, or it is something, which you also say, must not be released to the public.

Quoting Contrails (Reply 2):
This can't be allowed.



An optimist robs himself of the joy of being pleasantly surprised
User currently offlineContrails From United States of America, joined Oct 2000, 1833 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (7 years 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 2439 times:

Quoting Hmmmm... (Reply 3):
Either this report will, as you say, have no effect on public confidence in air travel, or it is something, which you also say, must not be released to the public.

Perhaps my last statement isn't as clear as I wanted it to be. I don't think NASA should be allowed to can an $8.5 million dollar study. I don't think it will upset pax any more than they are already upset, and I don't think it will affect airline profits. I think we should be able to see the report.

I'm sorry if my wording cause any confusion.



Flying Colors Forever!
User currently offlineFLYB6JETS From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (7 years 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 2434 times:

Quoting Contrails (Reply 2):
Suggestion to all A-Netters: Go to http://www.house.gov/, and http://www.senate.gov/, and send a message to your Members of Congress. This can't be allowed.

I'm sending my messages now.

How about sending them messages telling them to get their lazy asses in gear and fix the ATC system


User currently offlineMaverickM11 From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 17672 posts, RR: 46
Reply 6, posted (7 years 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 2360 times:

Quoting Contrails (Reply 2):
the findings could damage the public's confidence in airlines and affect airline profits".

Sounds like everything in the article is the fault of ATC or birds, not airlines.

Quoting FLYB6JETS (Reply 5):
How about sending them messages telling them to get their lazy asses in gear and fix the ATC system

Yep.

Quoting Hmmmm... (Reply 1):
Roaring condemnation from the A.net crowd in 3...2....1...

The survey is not about NASA



E pur si muove -Galileo
User currently offlineLAXintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 25786 posts, RR: 50
Reply 7, posted (7 years 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 2330 times:

I dont think everyone quite understands what NASA's role is with this.

NASA has and continues to be critical part of safety in the US aviation system. Matter of fact if a pilot or other certified airman position is involved in various sort of safety related issue or FAR violation they can immediately file a self disclosure NASA report and avoid punitive action by the FAA and their employers (as most union agreement stipulate). Instead of going after the specific person, NASA uses such data to help track industry trends and assist in various safety campaigns. This is quite a critical tool in learning about what really is happening and allows people to help the system without need to cover up, or be fearful.

As far as this study goes, NASA has always been involved and conducted various industry related studies including ones which certainly would not build confidence in the travelling public as a 1990s report on crew member fatigue that showed how pilots actually dozed off or fell asleep at the helm while flying.

Personally I find it quite appropriate that such studies should be used by those with a "need to know" and not the general public or the press whom will simply latch onto the best sound bites.
After all do we also expect the Pentagon or other US agencies to share information on various studies they are involved in and remotely effect us as well?



From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
User currently offlineMichlis From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 737 posts, RR: 2
Reply 8, posted (7 years 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 2313 times:

Quote:
Personally I find it quite appropriate that such studies should be used by those with a "need to know" and not the general public or the press whom will simply latch onto the best sound bites.

Amen! The press has a nasty habit of mis-representing things...especially on a slow news day.  Smile



If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the outcome of a hundred battles.
User currently offlineContrails From United States of America, joined Oct 2000, 1833 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (7 years 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 2239 times:

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 7):
Personally I find it quite appropriate that such studies should be used by those with a "need to know" and not the general public or the press whom will simply latch onto the best sound bites.

No disrespect intended, but I can't agree with this kind of reasoning. This suggests that we (Americans) aren't smart enough to interpret written English. I will be the first to admit that there are many in that category, but I believe the majority of Americans can read a report and understand it.

The media is in the habit of telling everybody how to interpret the news, but that doesn't mean that everybody buys into it. Most people I know take the news at face value and draw their own conclusions.

The issue here, I believe, is that NASA spent $8,500,000 for this study and now they're going to throw it away. I believe the study should be released unless - and only unless - there are national security concerns present. If that is the case then it should be distributed to those with a "need to know" and not to the general public.

I would like to see the report and draw my own conclusions, and I think most frequent flyers will agree with me.



Flying Colors Forever!
User currently offlineThorny From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (7 years 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 2209 times:

Quoting Contrails (Reply 9):
The issue here, I believe, is that NASA spent $8,500,000 for this study and now they're going to throw it away.

"Won't release to the general public" does not equal "they're throwing it away."


User currently offlineContnlEliteCMH From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 1464 posts, RR: 44
Reply 11, posted (7 years 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 2189 times:

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 7):
Personally I find it quite appropriate that such studies should be used by those with a "need to know" and not the general public or the press whom will simply latch onto the best sound bites.

I disagree. A fundamental freedom that we enjoy is to know what our government is doing, national security excepted of course. If this study does not affect national security, then I believe it is required (not merely appropriate) that this report be in the public domain. To avoid releasing it to prevent "latch[ing] onto the best sound bites" smacks of "We need to be protected from ourselves."

I'm a red-blooded capitalist and love profit. But to hold this report back because it might lower confidence and reduce profits? Are you kidding me? Who does NASA think it is? Since when are they the vanguard of the aviation markets and flier confidence? Is this the SAME agency populated with pointy-headed academics, so many of whose basic beliefs eschew profits for alternatives? Ridiculous.

Furthermore, this is a report on an industry whose governing entity is a Federal agency. It seems that we have every right and even an obligation to know what they're doing, or as the case is, not doing.

Release the report. Here's a one-upper. Put the database and its results online and as new data become available, update it. Want the FAA to change? Make public how poorly they do their job.



Christianity. Islam. Hinduism. Anthropogenic Global Warming. All are matters of faith!
User currently offlinePGNCS From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 2834 posts, RR: 45
Reply 12, posted (7 years 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 2189 times:

Quoting Contrails (Reply 9):
No disrespect intended, but I can't agree with this kind of reasoning. This suggests that we (Americans) aren't smart enough to interpret written English. I will be the first to admit that there are many in that category, but I believe the majority of Americans can read a report and understand it.

No disrespect intended here, either, but I think it suggests that the content of the report will be distorted by a sensationalistic media. The overwhelming number of people in the country wouldn't read the report, so would get whatever information it contains via the USA Today and other bastions of journalistic excellence. As for understanding it, I have not read the report, so I don't know what's in it, but most people don't have a solid enough background in the relevant issues to understand it; it is a fairly technical area.

Having said that, I actually believe the data should be preserved, and I do think the report should be public. The majority of readers will be academics, industry representatives, policymakers, and, unfortunately, reporters in search of a good story.

When this is made public be prepared for the histrionics from the media and congressmen who are eager to jump on the air safety bandwagon (while ignoring the real problems involved).


User currently offlineSh0rtybr0wn From United States of America, joined Aug 2007, 528 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (7 years 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 2165 times:

This is a disgrace, but it exemplifies how Americans have become allergic to bad news lately. How about having some guts and telling the public " You're not going to like this report, but its true, and its very important, so here it is" ?

The correct thing to do was release the report and actually warn the public that ATC needs to be upgraded and changes made now, before a disaster happens. But by not releasing the report, they do their part to continue the unacceptable safety level status quo.

It's really going to be a sad day when theres a safety related air disaster and people start asking about NASA's report, and why they didn't release it, and whether or not it could have prevented the current accident.

This sounds like a political decision to me.


User currently offlineThorny From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (7 years 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 2134 times:

Quoting PGNCS (Reply 12):
No disrespect intended here, either, but I think it suggests that the content of the report will be distorted by a sensationalistic media. The overwhelming number of people in the country wouldn't read the report, so would get whatever information it contains via the USA Today and other bastions of journalistic excellence.

Which is exactly the situation NASA experienced earlier this year with the "drunk astronauts" report. That report, commissioned after the Nowak love triangle scandal to find out how someone as nutty as Nowak (who is now claiming the insanity defense) could have gotten into the astronaut corps, had one paragraph in twelve pages that said, essentially, "oh, and we should watch out for alcohol abuse because one guy we interviewed said that another guy told him that one or two astronauts were drunk when they flew." By the end of that week, "NASA ASTRONAUTS FLY DRUNK!" was plastered all over U.S. newspapers and cable news shows.

NASA should release the report publicly, but it is understandable why they aren't going to until they're forced to.


User currently offlineContnlEliteCMH From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 1464 posts, RR: 44
Reply 15, posted (7 years 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 2134 times:

Quoting PGNCS (Reply 12):
When this is made public be prepared for the histrionics from the media and congressmen who are eager to jump on the air safety bandwagon (while ignoring the real problems involved).

Sure. That's what they do. Is that sufficient to keep NASA's work from being made public?

Quoting Sh0rtybr0wn (Reply 13):
This is a disgrace, but it exemplifies how Americans have become allergic to bad news lately. How about having some guts and telling the public " You're not going to like this report, but its true, and its very important, so here it is" ?

The investment community (and its press) could use some of this advice right now. Everybody is bullish, even when the fundamentals are bearish. It's just amazing! Then when things correct as expected, everybody jumps up and down and expects to be covered for their losses. The underpinnings of the financial markets are very, very shaky right now. Reminds me a bit of our ATC system... oh but, we don't want that report out, now do we?



Christianity. Islam. Hinduism. Anthropogenic Global Warming. All are matters of faith!
User currently offlineMach3 From United States of America, joined May 2007, 87 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (7 years 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 2125 times:

I've been on a so called rant (a.netter Mir's called it that) for awhile here on a. net. Mike Boyd has also made comment on the situation at the FAA. However we have been ignored!!!!! We here at a, net have the largest forum on aviation in the world, but yet its more important to discuss the pitch of seats and paint jobs of various airlines.


Thank GOD the media (i'm no big fan of the media) has brought the report to the fore front! Along with the NASA report there is also the story of controllers taking retirement at 30% higher rate the the FAA expected.

OUR LIVES are at stake here because the government can't get it right! I'm a Republican but hate G. W., hes not worth the powder to blow him straight to H--l! Cuts budgets, impose a new contract on the controllers and he and the FAA are putting out lives at stake. Senior management at the FAA can't get programs up and running, but they can tell a controller to ware a shit and tie.as he sits in a darkened room guiding our lives through the air.

Besides more near collisions what else is the FAA hiding from us. After all they are the ones in charge of the traffic. We all now (or should know) that being a controller is sitting in a pressure cooker during a shift.

30% higher retirement rate means 30% more demand for the FAA Academy to push young men and women out the door and into the towers and centers. No seasoning in the real world of ATC.

The FAA has even tried to offer a 25% bonus to retireing controllers to stay on but with very few takers. See the stroy in the Seattle Times on line.

With winter coming on this is cirtical to have seasoned controllers on duty. NASA is saying the the data is raw. However the study was stopped a year ago. Well a year is enough time to study raw data and come up with soild conclusions. After all the data is coming from those who should know. THE PILOTS.

Guy's get real Get Mad A.Nat can make a change is we collectivly use our heads. Call for changes at the FAA. Make the Faa more accountable for its actions. Get congress off its collective arse and oversee the FAA.



If you pull on the Tiger's tail, better be prepared for him to bite you in the ARSE
User currently offlineAndrewUber From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 2528 posts, RR: 40
Reply 17, posted (7 years 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 2108 times:

Quoting Contrails (Reply 2):
"NASA gathered the information under an $8.5 million safety project." There's $8,500,000 down the tubes.

And that's another $8.5 million that could have been used to build the aging ATC system in this country.



I'd rather shoot BAD_MOTIVE
User currently offlineMach3 From United States of America, joined May 2007, 87 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (7 years 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 2090 times:

8.5 million dollars of our money! We have a right to see the report regardless if its good or bad for th government and airlines. We deserve ACCOUNTABILITY!!!!!!!!!


If you pull on the Tiger's tail, better be prepared for him to bite you in the ARSE
User currently offlineSh0rtybr0wn From United States of America, joined Aug 2007, 528 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (7 years 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 2057 times:

Quoting AndrewUber (Reply 17):
And that's another $8.5 million that could have been used to build the aging ATC system in this country.

Well yes, but presumably they acquired large amounts of data and they can use this report as a guide to determine what areas get to the front of the line to be fixed first and last. So i think as long as this study is used to spur ATC reform action, its worth the money.

The study polled pilots opinions ( presumably in an anonymous manner ) , and I think its a good idea to get data directly and candidly from pilots, because they fly the most and put their lives on the line every day flying safely; so they have the most to gain by revamping the system with new protections and safeguards.

Besides it will take tens of billions to fix US ATC, so this nominal amount is only a drop in that bucket.


User currently offlineLTBEWR From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 13141 posts, RR: 15
Reply 20, posted (7 years 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 2038 times:

Apparently the AP has been trying to get this report for a number of months under the Freedom of Information Act, but keep getting denied. Perhaps NASA fears it would hurt the airlines as their staffs are part of the issue, so they don't want to tick them off and people in both parties lose their campaign funds from the industry as well as hurt their stock values.
I would perhaps suggest that the recent meeting to revise slots at JFK may be from a result of this report, so who know what else may be going on or being considered to deal with the issues the purpose and the data from this report have but not yet disclosed to the public.


User currently offlineBravoGolf From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 539 posts, RR: 1
Reply 21, posted (7 years 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 1993 times:

Quoting Mach3 (Reply 18):
8.5 million dollars of our money! We have a right to see the report regardless if its good or bad for th government and airlines. We deserve ACCOUNTABILITY!!!

From the, it's not our fault, FAA!!!


User currently offlineFuturecaptain From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 22, posted (7 years 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 1969 times:

without reading every post above...

As a pilot I agree with NASA NOT releasing the report to the public. I've always thought that if the general public really knew how often pilots have tense moments there would be outrage. This can only have more negative effect on flying and more pushing for GA to be banned in certain areas, irrational fear is never good.


User currently offlineMach3 From United States of America, joined May 2007, 87 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (7 years 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 1813 times:

Feture Captian you are wrong! GA has so little to do with the problem its not funny. The biggest culprit is the FAA and its non-accountability to anyone for not managing the system correctly. Not planning, not making sure that there is proper infrastructure in p;ace, lying to congress and having stupid managers. Second biggest part of the problem is the airlines. They are trying to be all things to all people. Cramming to many RL's into major hubs causing traffic delays.

Over all GA is safer then Commercial flight. Transit from less used airports to other smaller airports. If truth be known its the airlines and the FAA that have chased company officials from using commercial aviation.



If you pull on the Tiger's tail, better be prepared for him to bite you in the ARSE
User currently offlineJoness0154 From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 667 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (7 years 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 1803 times:

Quoting Mach3 (Reply 23):
Over all GA is safer then Commercial flight. Transit from less used airports to other smaller airports. If truth be known its the airlines and the FAA that have chased company officials from using commercial aviation.

No. Not close at all. I'm not even going to post the data for you, as it is easily out there.

After my internship at the NTSB this past summer I couldn't even begin to agree with you.



I don't have an attitude problem. You have a perception problem
25 TPAnx : Most, if not all of the reports which I saw reported that this was hearsay..and media outlets to which I had access carried the follow-up report whic
26 Post contains images Teme82 : Does that include us who aren't living in USA... You are correct that can't be allowed anywhere. Now I wont wonder why the ATC is a big mess in USA .
27 Post contains images Futurecaptain : Did you see what the study was about? Near collisions and runway interference surveyed from 24,000 GA and commercial pilots. IMO when you get high nu
28 Cactus742 : I disagree with NASA's logic that it should not be released to the public, but it's not as if the public cannot view this. Someone can and SHOULD make
29 Contrails : I appreciate that you're from Finland, a country I hope to visit one day. The study is about American aviation, was being done by the American agency
30 Mach3 : Joness0154 My remark about GA is that its not the HUGE part of the gridlock problem at major airports. Of course GA is filled with reports of complace
31 Post contains images Joness0154 : Sorry, I misunderstood then.
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Russia's Poor Air Safety Highlighted posted Tue Apr 17 2007 16:24:56 by Eirjet
Festival Air To Survey RFD Fliers-Wants 35 Cites posted Sat Mar 18 2006 16:08:51 by KarlB737
Tests Show Cell Phone Air Safety Risk... posted Fri Mar 3 2006 07:56:22 by BigMac
"Toxic Gas Threatens Air Safety" posted Sun Feb 26 2006 06:30:42 by Andz
Govt Reaction To Nigerian Air Safety. posted Tue Jan 17 2006 16:50:16 by Bennett123
Egypt Air - Safety Concern? posted Fri Jan 13 2006 19:38:11 by RichM
Watchdog Slams BA’s Air Safety posted Sun Jan 1 2006 20:08:29 by Noelg
Independence Air Safety Announcement Audio posted Mon Jun 14 2004 20:11:31 by FlyCMH
Canadian Air Safety posted Mon Sep 8 2003 22:57:08 by Lfutia
Near-crash Uncovers Crack In Air Safety System posted Tue May 27 2003 18:54:58 by LGB Photos