Yeah, the one that starts the word "aeronatics". NASA does a lot of research in air flight as well as space, but you hardly hear about it. Funny– you sometimes don’t hear much about their space stuff until something goes wrong… and evidently the same is true for that first "A" too.
NASA started a long-term program to interview pilots about safety issues they personally had experienced (scary landings, near hits, that sort of thing), and evidently the results were so harrowing that NASA officials closed the investigation and wouldn’t release the results.
Um, what?
They wouldn’t even release it when faced with a Freedom of Information Act request! According to Thomas S. Luedtke, "a high NASA official "*:
… releasing the data “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.â€
Again I say: um, what?
Why on Earth (or slightly above it) would anyone — least of all NASA — worry more about public perception of air travel over the actual danger of travel? That doesn’t sound like the NASA I know. Sounds more like the work of another political appointee. I’m guessing here, and I will happily eat crow if proven wrong ]Edit to add: He was appointed in 1999, by Clinton apparently]. But geez, protecting corporations over people?
And it does sound like things were bad:
One person familiar with the results told The A.P. that that pilots reported at least twice as many bird strikes, near midair collisions and runway incursions as other government monitoring systems show.
Yikes. It would be nice to know that if there are problems, then the airlines are told so they can maybe do something about it.
And this ticks me off for another reason: it’s not like NASA is enjoying overwhelming public support right now. They need to do a better job at informing the public, not worse. Hello?
And geez, will I hear it from the goofy Moon Hoax crowd too. Like they need encouragement.
At least Mike Griffin made a statement saying this was bogus. But why wasn’t he in on this from the get go? Seems like such an important announcement should have gone by his desk first. And he made this statement:
"I regret the impression that NASA was in any way trying to put commercial interests ahead of public safety. That was not and will never be the case."
Um, Mr. Griffin? It’s not an "impression": it’s what your senior official actually said.
Cripes, I hate the politicization of important science, and I hate the spin after it gets outed. Why can’t people just be honest and do the right thing in the first place?
Hat tip to Space Law Probe and the zillion of BABLoggees who emailed me about this.
* Yeah, "high official" made me laugh too.
October 25th, 2007 at 6:26 pm
The scary thing is that our air travel system desperately needs to be upgraded as more and more people are taking to the skies in more and bigger planes, but the funds don’t exist to accommodate this growing problem.
October 25th, 2007 at 7:00 pm
“could materially affect the public confidence in–”
Too late.
October 25th, 2007 at 7:06 pm
He’s not a Bush appointtee. It appears from his bio that he was appointed by Clinton.
http://www.acquisition.gov/comp/aap/documents/Bio-Sketches%2002%2027%2006.pdf
October 25th, 2007 at 7:24 pm
The program being referred to is ASRS.
It is well known to pilots, and the information gleaned from it is both useful and utilized to improve flying safety. These reports are essentially available to the public, but with identifying features (names, registration numbers, &c) removed.
These reports are filed voluntarily by active pilots. For each filing, the pilot gets a receipt number.
The whole point of this is that they are anonymous. Without that anonymity, and a promise that these reports will not be used for prosecution, pilots WOULD NOT FILE these reports. Indeed, within fairly strict limits (they will not exempt one from deliberate or criminal violations, for instance), these reports can be used to exempt oneself from (some, administrative) prosecutions (up to once every five years), but only if a report was filed for the particular event.
The problem is not that releasing the data would affect the air carriers or general aviation companies whose pilots participate (for the most part, they probably don’t care about the program), it’s that releasing unredacted reports would destroy much of the utility of the program, and substantially reduce the quality of the data it collects. It would affect the pilots directly, and they would stop participating.
eyesoars
October 25th, 2007 at 7:25 pm
I don’t care who he was appointed by. He needs to go.
October 25th, 2007 at 8:06 pm
@eyesores
Quite true, pilots love those things.
It would be nice if whenever you broke the speed limits on a highway, that if you called the National Road Administration and explained it, you wouldn’t get in trouble ‘just this once’ because you were helping a study on road traffic problems…
Wait… is that a good idea I just had?
Oh god, I’m becoming a bureaucrat!
October 25th, 2007 at 8:27 pm
Why can’t there be some good news for a change?
October 25th, 2007 at 8:46 pm
Ah, there’s a simple enough fix here. Just have the Unitary Executive declare this report “vital to national security” or some such thing, and the report and all records of its existence will be dropped into memory holes at the Ministry of Truth. Anyone seeking additional information will be directed to the Ministry of Love.
BTW, do you think the Moon Hoax people hang out with the “Building 7 Was Brought Down By A Controlled Explosion” people? You know, do mixers, go bowling together, friend each other on MySpace, that sort of thing?
October 25th, 2007 at 8:47 pm
I read this last week and thought many of the same things. We paid tax money to have this data collected, we darn well better get to see that data. Additionally, who cares what the public perception is? If there is a danger in flying (in addition to the already known risks) then the airlines had better take whatever actions are necessary to minimize such danger. And they should do it BEFORE the public hears of it, if they want to stay in business.
What really irks me is when people cry to the government to protect them from the evil airlines. You know, the ones that raise ticket prices on a whim, and keep people waiting on runways for 8 hours. Then with the next breath these same people say that the government should bail out the airlines when they can’t seem to make a profit! What ever happened to letting the process of supply and demand decide which companies are going to succeed and which ones are not? Perhaps if we quit bailing out the airline companies that can’t make money, then they might actually learn how to reduce costs, improve their quality, and make a profit, the same way Southwest Airlines and the rest of the business world has to.
Shhh… Here’s a secret: The best way to solve these problems is to stop using the airlines that have these problems, and quit giving them money when they fail.
October 25th, 2007 at 9:13 pm
As is typical, this seems to be a sloppy reporter being sensationalist in his claims. As I said, the program is called ASRS (Aviation Safety Reporting System), and you can find a web site for it:
http://asrs.arc.nasa.gov/
There you can find a description of the program, a program overview, search their database, file reports &c. The program has been around for many years, and provides much useful data. Pilots, air traffic controllers, mechanics, flight attendants, ground personnel and controllers, and pretty much anybody involved in aviation can file a report with ASRS.
This database is entirely separate from, both administratively and legally, from aviation enforcement activites, which are monitored and regulated by the FAA, the NTSB and others. The NTSB also has a very useful database of aviation incidents:
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/query.asp (for querying the database)
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/month.asp (all incidents, chronologically)
These are reports filed by NTSB and FAA personnel on all reported aviation accidents and reportable incidents. Pilots are required to report these events, and government personnel file these reports in response.
As should be clear, the ASRS database contains a great many more filings than the NTSB database. Its focus is substantially different, and it does not include those incidents that pilots are required to report to the NTSB; such events when filed with ASRS are not exempt from being forwarded to the NTSB or FAA, and may result in action against the pilot.
What the ASRS database does contain is as specified: any incidents noticed or participated in by aviation-related personnel that they feel may have compromised or reduced flight safety in any way. As such, they are useful for helping the government, pilot organizations, and others understand the weaknesses of the air traffic control system, pilot training, aviation procedures, &c. Towards that end, it has been very successful, and many changes in pilot training, ATC procedures, &c have resulted.
As for “TAMU Student”’s claim:
It would be nice if whenever you broke the speed limits on a highway, that if you called the National Road Administration and explained it, you wouldn’t get in trouble ‘just this once’ because you were helping a study on road traffic problems…
This is wonderful conjecture, but doesn’t fit reality very well. In order for this to work, you’d need to file a report every time you sped in order to have any hope of getting your amnesty. Most drivers I know speed or commit other moving violations at the rate of one every minute or two. (The statistics I’ve seen suggest this is an underestimation.) Two, it does not exempt you from deliberate violations, which is at least implicitly suggested here. Nor does it exempt pilots from actions related to any reportable incident, so if you had an accident while speeding, an ASRS report receipt would provide no cover.
I don’t know that I’d say “Pilots love these things”. Pilots certainly appreciate them, however. Flying regulations are complicated (the part 91 (general aviation), 135 (commercial aviation), and 121 (commercial air carrier operation) run to several hundred pages of dense legalese) and maintaining a proficiency in today’s airspace requires a lot of work and study. Most of the pilots I know are conscientious and safety oriented, and work hard to keep their flying safe. Filing reports with ASRS is one way for the bureaucracy to become aware of shortcomings in particular areas (e.g., pilot training, aviation procedures, overcrowded airspaces, …), before accidents and deaths result.
There is an enormous belief among many that every problem has a simple fix. (And many a bureaucrat and legislator believes that another law will fix any problem.) In computers and aviation in particular this is frequently and decisively false: it is commonplace that a ’solution’ introduced without careful study will make problems worse rather than better, sometimes spectacularly so. Avoiding such “solutions” requires careful study and analysis. The ASRS database provides a large dataset of relatively unbiased data for safety personnel to work with. Destroying its unique qualities without careful consideration would be stupid.
eyesoars
October 25th, 2007 at 10:09 pm
eyesoars, that does look like the correct study. But the NYT op-ed says that plans to talk to others besides pilots were “scrapped”, so I’m not sure what that means. If the database is online and searchable (and it is; I did a search on in flight bird encounters, for example), then I’m not sure what this all means. Perhaps only the totals are not available for release. Something sure as heck was held back, otherwise Luedtke wouldn’t have said what he did.
Either way, Luedtke’s comments were chilling, and Mr. Griffin’s followup less than satisfactory, in my opinion. He started off fine, but then tried to downplay what Luedtke said. I hate having to get my info through other journalists, since there can be bias, misquotes, and the like, but in this case I have to rely on the info as shown. And given the response from Griffin and Luedtke, it seems that something is indeed up.
October 25th, 2007 at 10:34 pm
“the one that starts the word “aeronatics”. ”
“U” key broken on the keyboard?
If you want your confidence in the safety of air travel shaken, go to Chicago’s Museum of Science and Industry and walk through their Boeing 727 hanging over the train layout. They’ve peeled away the layers to show you the skeleton of a commercial jetliner. As a mechanical engineer, I’m familiar with lightweight structures design, but to actually see how frail-looking the innards of an airplane really are was a bit nerve wracking…
October 26th, 2007 at 12:14 am
“Why can’t people just be honest and do the right thing in the first place?”
C’mon Phil, you know there’s no real money in that.
October 26th, 2007 at 12:42 am
eyesoars says: “the program is called ASRS (Aviation Safety Reporting System)”
Thank you for defining that. I’m familiar with that acronym as “Automated Storage and Retrieval System.”
>>Most drivers I know speed or commit other moving violations at the rate of one every minute or two. (The statistics I’ve seen suggest this is an underestimation.)
October 26th, 2007 at 12:47 am
Hmmm, the comment at the end of my last post was cut off. What it said was:
My brother-in-law, a career police officer, says the rule of thumb in law enforcement is that the average driver commits 2,000 infractions between every time he’s cited.
- Jack
October 26th, 2007 at 1:32 am
>>> Cripes, I hate the politicization of important science,
Then why go off half cocked at a NYT op ed piece that is politicizing something? When you get political, you sometimes become what you once debunked, and it’s can get ugly.
>>> Why can’t people
>>> just be honest and do the right thing in the first place?
Honestly, Phil, you come across as a fantastically naive sometimes.
>>> it seems that something is indeed up.
And how is this any better than any other woo woo conspiracy theorist? Even after “eyesoars” presented a clear and rational response, you still cling to “Ooooo, something is afoot!”
October 26th, 2007 at 2:38 am
>>> And how is this any better than any other woo woo conspiracy theorist? Even after “eyesoars†presented a clear and rational response, you still cling to “Ooooo, something is afoot!â€
If a NASA official made a statement like “We didn’t really land on the moon” and then his boss made a statement such as “We didn’t mean to give the impression that we didn’t land on the moon” then your comparison would be valid. However, to my knowledge this hasn’t happened yet.
Whether or not any data other than personally identifiable information (which is typically withheld from any sort of aggregate report for reasons of privacy) was withheld, the official statements are at odds. And if the only data withheld was in fact the personally identifiable information, then why would NASA feel the need to make any statements at all? It may be nothing (in fact, it probably is), but that doesn’t mean it isn’t worth looking at.
October 26th, 2007 at 3:33 am
Feynman’s quote that wrapped up the Challenger commission report:
“For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled.”
Seems like we haven’t learned much since then.
October 26th, 2007 at 5:21 am
I love that when a Bush appointee does something stupid an entire blog entry is written. When a Clinton person does something stupid all we get is a small little edit line.
It seems to me that this anti-truth incident has a more direct effect on public safety that the other stuff Phil has written about. Where is the huge outrage? Where are paragraphs railing against this guy and how evil he is for hiding the truth?
October 26th, 2007 at 6:00 am
“I’m guessing here, and I will happily eat crow if proven wrong…”
Does Bill Corbet know this?
Well, long as you don’t say you’ll eat Tom Servo…
Anyway, this is rather disturbing. And freakish.
I do hope whoever made this descision gets a new job, and that someone else takes this to full disclosure.
After all, these are serious issues that MUST be addressed.
-”When a Clinton person does something stupid all we get is a small little edit line.”
Phil didn’t know this was a Clinton person.
This subject also isn’t about anti-science, but NASA’s public image.
October 26th, 2007 at 6:51 am
OK, folks, let’s set a couple things straight.
The NASA study so widely commented upon is/was entirely separate from the ASRS, which is still in place and serving a useful purpose.
Second — and more important — there are some significant issues with the methodology of the study, at least, what we know of it. The Commercial Aviation Safety Team – a joint FAA/Industry group that identifies precursors to accidents – was briefed on the survey process and top-level preliminary results in 2003. The FAA has questions about the usefulness of the data because the pilot perceptions it contains apparently lack the specificity we would need to compare the NASA information to our objective data for the same time period.
We (the FAA) have developed data collection and risk analysis tools/program used to spot potential accident trends. In fact, risk analysis and accident PREVENTION is the cornerstone of our safety efforts. The proof that our efforts are working can be seen in the historically low accident rate and the reduction of the commercial fatal accident rate by 65 percent over the last decade.
Les (Friendly Airplane Asylum flack)
October 26th, 2007 at 7:34 am
@UmTutSut
If the results of a publically-funded study are questionable then the study should be published *along with the questions*. If nothing else, a well critiqued study is a valuable learning tool.
That’s not what’s being done here. The study was suppressed for undisclosed reasons, and the contractor that performed the study has been told to destroy all of the data related to it. Those actions give the appearance of impropriety.
October 26th, 2007 at 7:42 am
It should be noted that the definition of “near-miss” and “danger” will always change to suit the current reality. If things are more dangerous, people will only consider the most dangerous things dangerous. If things are less dangerous, people will consider even slightly dangerous things dangerous.
Hey, it’s why surface cleaners compete primarily on their power to kill 99.99% or 99.999% of germs that you aren’t in any danger from anyway.
I find it very likely that most pilots will happily jaw on about that “near miss” at a mile away, or that “near miss” that the air controllers specifically set up and were monitoring, such as two planes landing nearly simultaneously on different runways.
However, the report should be released. NASA should never act like it is has been acting recently.
October 26th, 2007 at 7:56 am
I’ve been waiting for some responses like eyesoars and umtutsut since I first saw the article a couple of days ago. It sounded like a reporter trying to create a big story then and it still sounds like that now.
I was also shocked to learn that flying is dangerous and that there are things that happen that would make people less comfortable if they knew about them. I’m thinking right now of something our government does that a bunch of you might freak out over if you knew about it. Personally, I just think it’s a fact of life. While I’m for making things safer and better, not everything is %100 safe.
Phil, when you turn every government problem back on Bush I think it’s time to admit you have a problem.
And while we need to keep an eye on things and keep improving them, don’t you think if things were that bad there’d be more planes falling out of the sky?
October 26th, 2007 at 8:11 am
@Ken 8
“Phil, when you turn every government problem back on Bush I think it’s time to admit you have a problem.”
Umm.. when did he do that? He said “Sounds more like the work of another political appointee.” And he was right. It was a Clinton appointee.
Ken, if you turn every criticism of the government into a personal attack on Bush, I think it’s time to admit *you* have a problem.
October 26th, 2007 at 8:34 am
No problem here Brett, other than reading Phil’s sentence incorrectly. Upon rereading it it appears Phil is just blaming political appointees in general and not a specific party. After so many of his other posts I guess when he was complaining about a political appointee I assumed things I shouldn’t have. I stand corrected and will give him the benefit of the doubt.
And on second thought, I do have problems. Lots of them. But probably not the ones you think.
October 26th, 2007 at 8:35 am
@Ken S
Most of your statements were irrelevant, except for one ad hominem attack on Phil and the following:
“And while we need to keep an eye on things and keep improving them, don’t you think if things were that bad there’d be more planes falling out of the sky?”
This is logically fallacious, and I can give a simple example that shows why. All of the first 12 Apollo missions had the same design fault as Apollo 13, don’t you think the oxygen tanks on them would have blown up as well?
There are many small things that can go wrong on a flight that could contribute to a disaster. It is wrong to ignore them because they haven’t caused a disaster yet.
October 26th, 2007 at 8:45 am
http://cectic.com/058.html
A rather fitting comment about Hoagland. Sorry about the off-topic
October 26th, 2007 at 8:52 am
A few comments, to clear things up:
The reason I think something is still odd here is that we have a highly-=placed official saying something really egregious, and then a high-placed official spinning it. Worse, if this survey is public, then why did Luedtke talk about not releasing the data? So clearly there is something weird here.
TruthSeeker, As I said in the entry itself, if it turned out Luedtke was not a political appointee, I would “eat crow”. When it was pointed out that he was appointed, but by Clinton, I made that clear by updating the entry. I don’t think I need to rend my garments here. And you may note that the thrust of nearly this entire blog entry is about the suppression of the results of the survey. So TruthSeeker I don’t think your point holds water.
UmTutSut, you are saying the NASA study in question is NOT the ASRS survey? That would make more sense, but it opens up new questions. What is the NASA study? Is there any more info on it? I guess the Congressional hearings might clear that up.
October 26th, 2007 at 9:29 am
I wonder if maybe NASA isn’t releasing it’s study because they discovered that the self-reported incidents were skewed and corrupted by the airline pilots union members and air traffic controllers union members over-reporting incidents or just making stuff up in order to futher their own agendas.
That is the only scenario in which Luedtke’s statement and NASA’s suppresion of the study and trashing the data makes any sense.
October 26th, 2007 at 9:43 am
“If the results of a publically-funded study are questionable then the study should be published *along with the questions*. If nothing else, a well critiqued study is a valuable learning tool.”
I can’t help being reminded of an episode in Yes Prime Minister where Sir Humphrey (head of the civil service) is telling the Prime Minister how to get around a scientific report with unwelcome conclusions. One of the tactics was to refuse to release the report on the grounds that the results and/or methodology was questionable – and if nobody had questioned them, then to do so!
October 26th, 2007 at 9:53 am
The ASRS reports are frequently cited in flying magazines, books, and NASA summarizes them as well so that pilots can learn from the mistakes of others. The current summary on ramp safety is a good example. Flying is a tremendously complicated endeavor that requires constant communication between pilots and controllers, pilots and other pilots, and between pilots and ground crews. This Callback article collected ASRS reports on ground communications and adds some commentary. None of these reports contain violations of regulations per se but point out that accidents can happen if full attention is not given to flying the airplane, even if it is on the ground. Since most accidents are the result of multiple missteps, if you can remove one misstep in the chain you can prevent an accident.
It’s not clear what the issue is in this case but NASA has always been open about the data that has been collected and pilots have learned a lot from it over the years.
October 26th, 2007 at 9:56 am
Doc,
Much like I misunderstood Phil, thus resulting in my ‘ad hominem attack’ which I already apologized for, I think you may have misunderstood my statements.
What I was quickly trying to say was that when I first read the article I felt that the reporter was more interested in stirring up people’s emotions than telling the important information. It seems to me that you’re reading way too much into my comment on planes falling from the sky and taking it too literally. The article I read, not Phil’s post, made it sound like we should all stay on the ground and not fly again until this mess is cleaned up. You are correct that just because a plane hasn’t crashed doesn’t mean there isn’t a problem. There’s also a point where if you ignore too many problems, things start failing. It will then become hard to ignore the problems if planes are falling out of the sky. Most ( or at least some ) companies are smart enough to figure out that that is bad for business and will try and avoid it.
I try and stay on topic. If you think my comments are irrelevant I’m not offended by you ignoring them.
And generally i think studies should be released, whether the results and/or methodology is trustworthy or not.
October 26th, 2007 at 10:23 am
I have posted followup information on this now. Read all about it.
October 26th, 2007 at 10:26 am
“NASA started a long-term program to interview pilots about safety issues they personally had experienced (scary landings, near hits, that sort of thing)…”
We call them “near misses” not “near hits.” I have no idea why.
JP
October 26th, 2007 at 11:16 am
@JetPilot
Well, it depends on the use of the word “near”, which can be used to mean physical proximity, or as a synonym for “almost”. So a “near hit” would be a case of planes which “almost hit”, and a near miss would be a case where “planes missed, but were very near to each other”.
Or, I could just be rationalizing.
October 26th, 2007 at 12:31 pm
Doc says: “This is logically fallacious, and I can give a simple example that shows why. All of the first 12 Apollo missions had the same design fault as Apollo 13, don’t you think the oxygen tanks on them would have blown up as well?”
I can’t tell if you are using this as an example of a logical flaw in Ken’s argument, or as a statement of fact. If it’s the latter, you’re wrong.
The oxygen tank that ruptured on Apollo 13 (and, BTW, there were not 12 missions ahead of it, only six manned ones) was not the same as the others. It had been shelved after a minor accident (being dropped), but was later examined and cleared for flight. Unfortunately, between the time it was built, and the much later time it was incorporated into the SM that went on Apollo 13, they’d had a design change in the instrumentation system from 24 V to (I think) 65 V. The tank was still wired for 24 V and during ground testing some of the wires overheated and burned their insulation. This wasn’t a problem until they were in zero-gee and the wires started floating around at random. They just happened to be touching when they started the “tank stir.” The resulting short boiled the LOX around it and caused a pressure bubble that ruptured the tank.
Just keeping the record straight.
- Jack
October 26th, 2007 at 1:25 pm
DennyMo writes: “As a mechanical engineer, I’m familiar with lightweight structures design, but to actually see how frail-looking the innards of an airplane really are was a bit nerve wracking…”
Assuming you are an engineer, and assuming you are reasonably competent— are you saying you don’t trust your own knowledge or the science behind it? In fact, isn’t that structure in the museum an impressive example of materials science and engineering? In fact, the 727 had a long and illustrious career, favored by many pilots as their favorite airliner because, among other reasons, it was so robust.
Why are apparently educated people more willing to believe their emotions than they are willing to accept reality and science? Why will they publicly suggest that their colleagues, and they by association, don’t know diddly?
October 26th, 2007 at 1:59 pm
Tailspin:
This is the internet. The accepted qualifications for stating opinions, even opinons as fact, is having a compatible telecommunications connection, some sort of computer, and a keyboard (caps lock key broken or not).
This is how it should be. Really. People can look at a spiderweb and see a marvel of natural ‘engineering’ with a material with a greater tensile strength than steel, evolved to meet a particular purpose, or they can see a frail gossamer web. The glass is simultaneously half-empty and half-full, an airplane is not a reinforced concrete bunker or a tank. Disagreements over these things, or the importance of these things, is how advancements are made.
October 27th, 2007 at 10:26 am
I work for an aerospace company, and each year we have to undergo refresher training on the handling of “privileged” information, which safety investigations fall into. Privileged information is exempted by the Freedom of Information Act. There has been legal precedent set (by U.S. Supreme Court I believe) where any leaked privileged information becomes public and open to scrutiny/lawsuits. Whenever my company is involved in a safety investigation, everyone must treat the privileged information as Special Access Required. If someone leaks information without permission from the lead safety investigator, they will be fired. That may be why they seem to be choosing their words so carefully.