NASA sits on air safety survey

[Calcas]

A true conspiracy or just the government "protecting" the public?

I think it's all about the airlines and possible lost revenues.

MOFFETT FIELD, Calif. (AP) — An unprecedented national survey of pilots by the U.S. government has found that safety problems like near collisions and runway interference occur far more frequently than previously recognized. But the government is withholding the information, fearful it would upset air travelers and hurt airline profits.

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

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."



http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jKO38hKOG37Omy4Iv7Bi9q_L98bQ

[The Silver Shadow]

This could also be a conspiracy by Airbus to make airlines order more of their A380 superjumbos in order to lessen air traffic and they make profits. OMFG! CONSPIRACY :D

[rwguinn]

This could also be a conspiracy by Airbus to make airlines order more of their A380 superjumbos in order to lessen air traffic and they make profits. OMFG! CONSPIRACY :D

Amazing, ain't it. AP has an article on it. Everybody knows it. But its super top-sekret.

IT appears the only thing governments can really, absolutely, hide is data concerning the truth about UFO's...

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Amazing, ain't it. AP has an article on it. Everybody knows it. But its super top-sekret.

What part of:

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.

do you not understand?

We may know about it, but the contents have not been officially released.

[TheDoLittle]

I wouldn't put it past the AP trying to drum up some fear mongering, but I am curious as to why NASA hasn't put out a press release rebutting claims that they are covering up anything.

[rwguinn]

What part of:



do you not understand?

We may know about it, but the contents have not been officially released.

Near Collisions are collisions that did not happen.
Actual events are investigated by the NTSB.
Every time you drive, you have a near collision or two--some you may not even notice, because the other involved folk(s) took action first..
The point is, there were no events that actually happened which were not reported and in public view.
Do we really need a report that has statistics to back up "Today at DIA, there were 3000 operations and absolutely no damage was done during any of them"?

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Near Collisions are collisions that did not happen.
Actual events are investigated by the NTSB.
Every time you drive, you have a near collision or two--some you may not even notice, because the other involved folk(s) took action first..
The point is, there were no events that actually happened which were not reported and in public view.
Do we really need a report that has statistics to back up "Today at DIA, there were 3000 operations and absolutely no damage was done during any of them"?

Well, for a start, that is a considerably different response than your previous one in this thread.

And, I can think of many different reasons to collect and analyse data about near collisions. The primary one might be to see what actions prevented them from being actual collisions and applying that knowledge to prevent such.

[Sabrina]

Near Collisions are collisions that did not happen.
Actual events are investigated by the NTSB.
Every time you drive, you have a near collision or two--some you may not even notice, because the other involved folk(s) took action first..
The point is, there were no events that actually happened which were not reported and in public view.
Do we really need a report that has statistics to back up "Today at DIA, there were 3000 operations and absolutely no damage was done during any of them"?

Just out of sheer curiosity, why mention DIA? DIA doesn't usually, to the best of my knowledge, run operations, military or otherwise; it's an intelligence agency.

Just curious though; feel free to not answer if you are so moved. :D

[rwguinn]

Well, for a start, that is a considerably different response than your previous one in this thread.

And, I can think of many different reasons to collect and analyse data about near collisions. The primary one might be to see what actions prevented them from being actual collisions and applying that knowledge to prevent such.
Not particularly different.
The reports NASA took are subjective. What one person might consider a near collision, another considers a wide margin. Anyone who has driven/been a passenger in a vehicle can relate. What my wife considers a close call is sometimes not even an issue, because I was watching the situation well in advance, and vice-versa. I sometimes feel we had a close call when she is not even aware a problem was developing. Same thing when she drives. Subjective issues are not science
Accident/incident reports are reality, documentable, measurable.
And we all know that NASA was checking on these things because they admit it. They just don't fel that it is publishable. Opinions can be damaging, and are strictly that- opinions. Why fuel the fire without hard ( or even reliable) evidence?

[SpaceMonkeyZero]

Wouldn't it be a CT if NASA said "What safety survey?"

Pretty much it's "protecting" the scared populace from seeing that there might have been X number of "near misses" in the past year.

While it's still safer to fly than crossing the street, some people get paranoid and think that they're that ONE unlucky person who will end up in a plane full of other unlucky folks, upside down in a ditch after banking just a little too hard, and almost clipping a commuter jet. (Wait... that's Brazil)

Anyways... if the average person feels that flying is unsafe, they may stop flying.

On one hand that means cheaper flights for me. (yay) on the other hand that means by 401k is gonna take a hit cause I'm sure it's got SOME stocks related to the over all economy which would take a hit if paranoid people stayed home.

I blame the lizard aliens.

[rwguinn]

Wouldn't it be a CT if NASA said "What safety survey?"

Pretty much it's "protecting" the scared populace from seeing that there might have been X number of "near misses" in the past year.

While it's still safer to fly than crossing the street, some people get paranoid and think that they're that ONE unlucky person who will end up in a plane full of other unlucky folks, upside down in a ditch after banking just a little too hard, and almost clipping a commuter jet. (Wait... that's Brazil)

Anyways... if the average person feels that flying is unsafe, they may stop flying.

On one hand that means cheaper flights for me. (yay) on the other hand that means by 401k is gonna take a hit cause I'm sure it's got SOME stocks related to the over all economy which would take a hit if paranoid people stayed home.

I blame the lizard aliens.

I'm glad you put that in quotes.
Because a close examination would show that a "Near Miss" is, in fact, a collision:D
Depending on the dictionary definition of the individual words one choses.

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Not particularly different.

No. IMHO. You said:

Amazing, ain't it. AP has an article on it. Everybody knows it. But its super top-sekret.

IT appears the only thing governments can really, absolutely, hide is data concerning the truth about UFO's...

This doesn't seem much like:

The reports NASA took are subjective. What one person might consider a near collision, another considers a wide margin. Anyone who has driven/been a passenger in a vehicle can relate. What my wife considers a close call is sometimes not even an issue, because I was watching the situation well in advance, and vice-versa. I sometimes feel we had a close call when she is not even aware a problem was developing. Same thing when she drives. Subjective issues are not science
Accident/incident reports are reality, documentable, measurable.
And we all know that NASA was checking on these things because they admit it. They just don't fel that it is publishable. Opinions can be damaging, and are strictly that- opinions. Why fuel the fire without hard ( or even reliable) evidence?

So the report was not released because the public is too stupid to understand it? OK. :boggled:

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

At a more basic level, why was NASA running the survey and not the TSA or NTSB or some such?

[rwguinn]

At a more basic level, why was NASA running the survey and not the TSA or NTSB or some such?
Congressional Directive, from back in the 1970's or 80's.
NASA was directed to gather data on close calls, incidents, "Near Misses", and other such incursions.
After all, "Aeronautics" is their first task, "Space" comes second.
This is probably part of the NWO directive that caused Congress to assure that The FBI, CIA, NSA, and all those super-sekret agencies never could legally share data..

[rwguinn]

No. IMHO. You said:



This doesn't seem much like:



So the report was not released because the public is too stupid to understand it? OK. :boggled:

Where I come from, :

Amazing, ain't it. AP has an article on it. Everybody knows it. But its super top-sekret.

IT appears the only thing governments can really, absolutely, hide is data concerning the truth about UFO's...

is called sarcasm. It is not a serious statement of position.
It seems that this is such a secret conspiracy that everybody know about the data, who recorded it, and the disposition.
Some conspiracy of silence...

[Calcas]

I'm glad you put that in quotes.
Because a close examination would show that a "Near Miss" is, in fact, a collision:D
Depending on the dictionary definition of the individual words one choses.

Very true. We used to call them "near misses" but it is, indeed, something of an oxymoron. "Near collision" is a more accurate description but controllers refer to them as "deals."

And it is not subjective as related to the "I almost had a crash in my car" scenario. There are very specific and detailed minimum separation standards that must be adhered to. If the minimum vertical separation calls for 1000 feet and you have 900, technically you have a "deal", or a near collision. However, pilots and controllers often don't report minor separation errors for fear of adverse disciplinary action being taken by their employer. After all, if separation is less than the minimum prescribed, someone screwed up. Since it my be ambiguous whether it is primarily the pilots or controllers fault, neither is likely to voluntarily report minor errors.

This is why when polled anonymously, pilots are more apt to report a higher incidence of problems than they otherwise would officially.

[SpaceMonkeyZero]

I'm glad you put that in quotes.
Because a close examination would show that a "Near Miss" is, in fact, a collision:D
Depending on the dictionary definition of the individual words one choses.

I quoted it for 2 reasons. One... scare quotes for effect and that it can mean a miss that was very close, or a collision that was a nearly a miss. :)

[rwguinn]

I quoted it for 2 reasons. One... scare quotes for effect and that it can mean a miss that was very close, or a collision that was a nearly a miss. :)

As my brothers tell me on the golf course all the time: You're just barely missing that ball".
Sigh.

I admit, "A miss in nearby space" is a trifle... awkward?:D:D

[HL7442]

Near misses, runway incursions etc happen all the time and have since the 1960s.
The FAA/NTSB would handle any investigation and would never hold back any information. If NASA was holding anything back an army of ground controllers would be on the news within hours saying how bad things really were.

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Where I come from, :

is called sarcasm. It is not a serious statement of position.
It seems that this is such a secret conspiracy that everybody know about the data, who recorded it, and the disposition.
Some conspiracy of silence...

And where I come from
Amazing, ain't it. AP has an article on it. Everybody knows it. But its super top-sekret.

is called a strawman. Because no one seems to have said that is is "super top-sekret" just that they won't release it. The OP's url records that a number of people more senior than I (and possibly you) say it should be released.

[jhunter1163]

Just out of sheer curiosity, why mention DIA? DIA doesn't usually, to the best of my knowledge, run operations, military or otherwise; it's an intelligence agency.

Just curious though; feel free to not answer if you are so moved. :D

I think he means an airport ID, not the agency.

[rwguinn]

Just out of sheer curiosity, why mention DIA? DIA doesn't usually, to the best of my knowledge, run operations, military or otherwise; it's an intelligence agency.

Just curious though; feel free to not answer if you are so moved. :D

Sorry, missed your post.
Denver International Airport The other DIA is so super sekrit I have never heard of it!:D

[rwguinn]

http://forums.randi.org/helloworld2/misc/navbits_start.gif (http://forums.randi.org/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=3085142#) And where I come from


is called a strawman. Because no one seems to have said that is is "super top-sekret" just that they won't release it. The OP's url records that a number of people more senior than I (and possibly you) say it should be released.

because the subject of this subforum is "Conspiracy Theories" I figuredthe OP was trying to put the thing out there as some conspiracy to keep the American Public in the dark, or find another way to push their hatred of the current Administration.
Forgive me for thinking the post was on-topic? (see bolded, below)
JREF Forum (http://forums.randi.org/forumindex.php) » General Topics (http://forums.randi.org/forumdisplay.php?f=12) » Conspiracy Theories (http://forums.randi.org/forumdisplay.php?f=64)» NASA sits on air safety survey (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=3085142#post3085142)

[Cheap Shot]

At a more basic level, why was NASA running the survey and not the TSA or NTSB or some such?

RWQUINN has it correct, pilots and controllers or any aviation proffesional can submit an Aviation Safety Reporting System (ASRS) (NASA Form). For the longest time they had to be mailed in, but recently they are online. As far as the reports go they are taken very seriously. Controllers tend not to fill them out but airline pilots will. The military also uses Hazardous Air Traffic Report, but that goes directly to the FAA. NASA is like a go between, between the FAA NTSB. I guess the government feels that NASA would act in a safety related way.

Most pilots would not fill out a report on just any "deal" as provdied by Calcas. Most deals are not even noticed by the pilot. If you have 4.5 NM on the back end of another aircraft they would never even know it unless they are watching thier TCAS. A NASA form would normally be filed on an incident where the aircraft might have to make an evasive manuever. Or where they just feel it was to close. NATCA the controllers union supports the NASA form filing by its controllers, and as far as I have ever seen FAA management has never pursuaded any controller from not filing one. Both the FAA management and the union agree on something.