Comments on: NASA suppressing aeronautic data: Part II http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2007/10/26/nasa-suppressing-aeronautic-data-part-ii/ I am an astronomer, writer, and skeptic. I likes reality the way it is, and I aims to keep it that way. My real name is Phil Plait, and I run the Bad Astronomy blog. Sun, 22 Nov 2009 08:56:50 -0600 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: David http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2007/10/26/nasa-suppressing-aeronautic-data-part-ii/comment-page-1/#comment-53127 David Thu, 01 Nov 2007 13:44:52 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2007/10/26/nasa-suppressing-aeronautic-data-part-ii/#comment-53127 The story continues: http://space.newscientist.com/article/dn12862-nasa-vows-to-release-aviation-safety-survey.html The story continues: http://space.newscientist.com/article/dn12862-nasa-vows-to-release-aviation-safety-survey.html

]]> By: Irishman http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2007/10/26/nasa-suppressing-aeronautic-data-part-ii/comment-page-1/#comment-53126 Irishman Tue, 30 Oct 2007 21:00:34 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2007/10/26/nasa-suppressing-aeronautic-data-part-ii/#comment-53126 Aubri, you appear to have missed this: <blockquote>Moving on, in the comments of the previous post, it was said that this study was the Aviation System Reporting Survey. That is not correct. The NASA study in question was different. Called National Aviation System Operational Monitoring Service, it was done through a contractor, and uses existing databases and other information (ASRS is just one of the sources involved) to develop tools to understand and alleviate possible sources of unsafe aviation situations. Also, while ASRS is searchable and public, the new study’s results are not, and it’s these results that Luedtke wants buried. </blockquote> The ASRS system does keep the identification secret, but the incidents are still public. The NASOMS results are currently all reserved and not available. They have not even been presented in full to the FAA, apparently. I agree it is sensible to automate where possible, and make policy and system changes to eliminate mistakes up front, and make remaining possible mistakes have limited consequences. It's a philosophy in Quality engineering referred to as "error-proofing". That is all irrelevant to the issue of restricting data solely because of negative PR. Aubri, you appear to have missed this:

Moving on, in the comments of the previous post, it was said that this study was the Aviation System Reporting Survey. That is not correct. The NASA study in question was different. Called National Aviation System Operational Monitoring Service, it was done through a contractor, and uses existing databases and other information (ASRS is just one of the sources involved) to develop tools to understand and alleviate possible sources of unsafe aviation situations. Also, while ASRS is searchable and public, the new study’s results are not, and it’s these results that Luedtke wants buried.

The ASRS system does keep the identification secret, but the incidents are still public. The NASOMS results are currently all reserved and not available. They have not even been presented in full to the FAA, apparently.

I agree it is sensible to automate where possible, and make policy and system changes to eliminate mistakes up front, and make remaining possible mistakes have limited consequences. It’s a philosophy in Quality engineering referred to as “error-proofing”. That is all irrelevant to the issue of restricting data solely because of negative PR.

]]> By: Aubri http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2007/10/26/nasa-suppressing-aeronautic-data-part-ii/comment-page-1/#comment-53125 Aubri Mon, 29 Oct 2007 12:42:35 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2007/10/26/nasa-suppressing-aeronautic-data-part-ii/#comment-53125 Edit: Yeah, the one eyesoars was talking about in the previous post. He's got more of the details from a pilot perspective... I can only speak to what I saw at the office. All such data is minimally secret, since having a person's mistake broadcast could destroy their reputation unfairly. ("Oh, he's that guy who pulled out in front of that 747, we don't want him..." and nevermind 10 previous years of safe service. A controller can easily lose a career over one such mistake, which is why one of the big pushes right now is to develop electronics that can look over his shoulder and warn him of a possible error.) The thrust of the Runway Safety program in general is to convert the system from a punitive mode to something that will help the everyone not make errors in the first place, and minimize the risk when mistakes DO happen. For example, by only letting planes cross an active runway at the far end, you minimize the risk of a collision; if someone should take the wrong clearance and cross while another plane is taking off, the departing plane will probably be several hundred feet in the air by the time it passes the crossing plane. Edit: Yeah, the one eyesoars was talking about in the previous post. He’s got more of the details from a pilot perspective… I can only speak to what I saw at the office. All such data is minimally secret, since having a person’s mistake broadcast could destroy their reputation unfairly. (”Oh, he’s that guy who pulled out in front of that 747, we don’t want him…” and nevermind 10 previous years of safe service. A controller can easily lose a career over one such mistake, which is why one of the big pushes right now is to develop electronics that can look over his shoulder and warn him of a possible error.)

The thrust of the Runway Safety program in general is to convert the system from a punitive mode to something that will help the everyone not make errors in the first place, and minimize the risk when mistakes DO happen. For example, by only letting planes cross an active runway at the far end, you minimize the risk of a collision; if someone should take the wrong clearance and cross while another plane is taking off, the departing plane will probably be several hundred feet in the air by the time it passes the crossing plane.

]]> By: Aubri http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2007/10/26/nasa-suppressing-aeronautic-data-part-ii/comment-page-1/#comment-53124 Aubri Mon, 29 Oct 2007 12:26:07 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2007/10/26/nasa-suppressing-aeronautic-data-part-ii/#comment-53124 I worked in an FAA Runway Safety office for 5 years (2000 - 2005), so if this is the same report that NASA Ames was working on when I was there, it was a free phone number where pilots could call to report their own mistakes and get amnesty* for them instead of waiting to see if a controller caught it. Naturally, controllers can't see every nose that pokes across the hold line; the great majority of runway incursions we saw in general (I can't speak to the report itself) were what we called "class D", meaning that TECHNICALLY the rules were broken but there was no real danger of a collision. So it's a bit misleading to say "the runways are twice as dangerous as we thought"; if there are twice as many incursions as we thought, fine, I can believe it -- but it's very rare for a really dangerous situation to go unnoticed. That's probably why they're hesitating to release it -- if you just go by the headline, it doesn't give you the right picture. * Except in the case of really dangerous stuff (class A or B, pilot action was required to avoid a collision), of course. They're trying to change the system to tolerate human error instead of punishing it. I worked in an FAA Runway Safety office for 5 years (2000 – 2005), so if this is the same report that NASA Ames was working on when I was there, it was a free phone number where pilots could call to report their own mistakes and get amnesty* for them instead of waiting to see if a controller caught it. Naturally, controllers can’t see every nose that pokes across the hold line; the great majority of runway incursions we saw in general (I can’t speak to the report itself) were what we called “class D”, meaning that TECHNICALLY the rules were broken but there was no real danger of a collision. So it’s a bit misleading to say “the runways are twice as dangerous as we thought”; if there are twice as many incursions as we thought, fine, I can believe it — but it’s very rare for a really dangerous situation to go unnoticed. That’s probably why they’re hesitating to release it — if you just go by the headline, it doesn’t give you the right picture.

* Except in the case of really dangerous stuff (class A or B, pilot action was required to avoid a collision), of course. They’re trying to change the system to tolerate human error instead of punishing it.

]]> By: Daffy http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2007/10/26/nasa-suppressing-aeronautic-data-part-ii/comment-page-1/#comment-53123 Daffy Sun, 28 Oct 2007 15:33:53 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2007/10/26/nasa-suppressing-aeronautic-data-part-ii/#comment-53123 Some people are actually arguing that the government should keep important data from us because they know what's best for us. This country is doomed. Some people are actually arguing that the government should keep important data from us because they know what’s best for us.

This country is doomed.

]]> By: Al http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2007/10/26/nasa-suppressing-aeronautic-data-part-ii/comment-page-1/#comment-53122 Al Sat, 27 Oct 2007 23:00:13 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2007/10/26/nasa-suppressing-aeronautic-data-part-ii/#comment-53122 I understand and agree with Centipede's view on the newsworthiness of plane crashes creating a perceptual illusion of increased danger. To be fair though, the statistic that the airline industry prefers to use in safety discussions, namely deaths per passenger mile travelled, is also inherently biased: no-one flies to go a couple of miles. Deaths per passenger journey would be fairer, and still favours aviation over other means of transit, if not quite so dramatically. I understand and agree with Centipede’s view on the newsworthiness of plane crashes creating a perceptual illusion of increased danger. To be fair though, the statistic that the airline industry prefers to use in safety discussions, namely deaths per passenger mile travelled, is also inherently biased: no-one flies to go a couple of miles. Deaths per passenger journey would be fairer, and still favours aviation over other means of transit, if not quite so dramatically.

]]> By: Kurt http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2007/10/26/nasa-suppressing-aeronautic-data-part-ii/comment-page-1/#comment-53120 Kurt Sat, 27 Oct 2007 15:41:01 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2007/10/26/nasa-suppressing-aeronautic-data-part-ii/#comment-53120 So we get some "High Ranking Official" from NASA, who says that if certain data is released it might undermine the publics' perception of the Airline industry. First off anyone with half a brain can see that the public ALREADY thinks that the airline industry is screwed. How many cancelled/late flights were there this year? How many more are there EXPECTED to be next year. I for one got a great taste of the airline industry's finest when I spent 24 hours on the cold hard concrete of New York's Laguadia airport. After that little fiasco I might just take the train if I need to travel anywhere in the 48 contigous states. I know I am not alone in this. The several million people who got bumped/cancelled/screwed from the airlines last year and this year will back me up on this. All in all I hope the Airline industry crumbles under it's own wieght, then we might have some room for smart travel systems. So we get some “High Ranking Official” from NASA, who says that if certain data is released it might undermine the publics’ perception of the Airline industry. First off anyone with half a brain can see that the public ALREADY thinks that the airline industry is screwed. How many cancelled/late flights were there this year? How many more are there EXPECTED to be next year. I for one got a great taste of the airline industry’s finest when I spent 24 hours on the cold hard concrete of New York’s Laguadia airport. After that little fiasco I might just take the train if I need to travel anywhere in the 48 contigous states. I know I am not alone in this. The several million people who got bumped/cancelled/screwed from the airlines last year and this year will back me up on this. All in all I hope the Airline industry crumbles under it’s own wieght, then we might have some room for smart travel systems.

]]>