NASA Pilot Survey

[the_other_dougreeves]

From Aero-News Net:

NASA Adopts 'Hear No Evil, See No Evil' Philosophy With Air Safety Survey

Mon, 22 Oct '07
Orders Survey's Disturbing Results Purged

When it comes to the safety of air travel... what you don't know, may frighten the **** out of you. And that's why NASA is keeping mum on the results of its recent, unprecedented national survey of pilots' top safety concerns.

The Associated Press reports the survey found near-collisions and runway incursions occur much more frequently than the government once thought... as much as two times as often.

NASA tasked a contractor to conduct the phone survey of roughly 24,000 commercial and general aviation pilots over nearly four years, until the start of 2005. The agency then shut down the project... and refused to disclose the results publicly. Last week, NASA took the additional step to order the contractor to purge the survey results.

A person familiar with the survey, speaking anonymously, told the AP of the findings... after 14 months of unsuccessful efforts to obtain the results through a US Freedom of Information Act request.

Why was NASA so reticent in releasing the findings? Associate NASA Administrator Thomas S. Luedtke says the agency didn't want the public's confidence in airlines shaken... which could affect airline profits.

"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.

The agency also cited pilot confidentiality... although no identities were named in the survey, of either individual pilots, or airlines.

In addition to higher-than-reported incidence of near-collisions -- both on the ground and in the air -- and bird strikes, the survey also reportedly discovered a high amount of "in-close approach changes"... in which pilots received urgent last-minute instructions to alter their approach to landing.

NASA maintains nothing in the survey warranted alerting the FAA. The project was axed from the NASA budget in 2005, to make room for the manned lunar and Mars missions.

North Carolina Congressman Brad Miller expressed incredulity at NASA's reluctance to make the survey's findings known.

"If the airlines aren't safe I want to know about it," said Miller, 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.

"There is a faint odor about it all," he added.

Officials at NASA's Ames Research Center say they wish to publish their own report on the survey by the end of the year... so the truth is, apparently, still out there.

 

[the_other_dougreeves]

NASA Survey - Update

Again from Aero-News Net:

Griffin Expresses Surprise At Furor Over Safety Survey

Tue, 23 Oct '07
NASA Administrator Will Review FOIA Request

Sounding a bit like the farmer surprised to discover eggs in his henhouse, NASA Administrator Michael Griffin expressed apparent shock Monday over the furor surrounding the agency's apparent attempt to quell a damning air safety survey, for fear of damaging passenger confidence in the nation's airlines and air traffic control system.

"Since becoming NASA administrator, I have been an advocate for openness and transparency in the pursuit of NASA research and analysis," Griffin said in a prepared statement Monday. "As a general practice, I believe that NASA research and data should be widely available and subject to review and scrutiny."

As ANN reported, NASA tasked a contractor to conduct the phone survey of roughly 24,000 commercial and general aviation pilots over nearly four years, until the start of 2005. The agency then shut down the project... and refused to disclose the results publicly. Last week, NASA took the additional step to order the contractor to purge the survey results.

The Associated Press has tried to obtain the results of the survey for the past 14 months, under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA.) To date, those requests have gone unanswered... a situation Griffin swears he was not aware of.

"I have just been made aware of the issue involving information from a NASA survey of airline pilots regarding safety issues being withheld under the Freedom of Information Act," Griffin asserts.

"I am reviewing this Freedom of Information Act request to determine what, if any, of this information may legally be made public. NASA should focus on how we can provide information to the public -- not on how we can withhold it. Therefore, I am asking NASA's Associate Administrator for Aeronautics Research, Lisa Porter, to look into this situation, including ensuring that all survey data are preserved, and report to me as soon as possible."

 

[JHines]

This is not personal data.
This is not classified material.
We paid for it.
If there is a balance between commerical and safety interests, that debate should be public.
Where the **** does NASA get off witholding it, and worse DESTROYING information that cost good money to obtain?
/rant

 

[the_other_dougreeves]

This is not personal data.
This is not classified material.
We paid for it.
If there is a balance between commerical and safety interests, that debate should be public.
Where the **** does NASA get off witholding it, and worse DESTROYING information that cost good money to obtain?
/rant

Uh, not to be Captain Obvious or anything, but the current Federal administration (pretty much all elements of the executive branch) doesn't exactly have a great track record on releasing information that it doesn't want to, whether or not it has anything to do with safety / environmental / national security, etc. FOIA is an inconvenience to them, not a rule that must be obeyed.

Just what I've found in my line of work, YMMV.

TODR

 

[Mike S]

Uh, not to be Captain Obvious or anything, but the current Federal administration (pretty much all elements of the executive branch) doesn't exactly have a great track record on releasing information that it doesn't want to, whether or not it has anything to do with safety / environmental / national security, etc. FOIA is an inconvenience to them, not a rule that must be obeyed.

Just what I've found in my line of work, YMMV.

TODR

The freedom of info act is a well intentioned effort, that, unfortunately, is open to incredible abuse------sorta like the endangered species act.

Imagine if you will, a FOIA request from the news media, or a terrorist group, that asks for the names of all suspected terrorists in the US.

Or a list of all the CIA, FBI, etc operatives.

What kind of damage would releasing the above cause?????

You get the idea----------some things just cant be released for public consumption.

While on the surface it seems that the subject originally put forth in this thread, pilots opinion about safety issues, is nothing that justifies secrecy, we have no idea what the survey turned up.

One possibility is that the survey pointed to a weak spot in airport security, that if publicized, would invite terrorist activity.

Who knows????

 

[Wally]

NASA PILOT SURVEY

Is this data truly the result of "interviews" with pilots or is it collected from the safety reports that pilots can volunteer to NASA? If it is the latter, my understanding is that under NO circumstances is this information to be released! Again, if it is the latter, ANY release of information will most likely kill the program.

I attended an AOPA/FAA Safety seminar last week and the speaker was strongly advocating that ALL pilots carry a blank form in their flight bag. I have for 10 years or longer. They also reported that some airline pilots file them VERY often.

Would sure like to know the real sorce of the NASA data. Listening to the not so honest media, it sounded like NASA had "conducted interviews" that lasted 30 minutes each with 24,000 pilots at a cost of $8,000,000 to tax payers. Can't imagine our government could do 24,000 of anything for only $8 million dollars!

Wally Hunt
Rockford, IL

 

[JHines]

Probably not ASRS

The report in the news probably isn't the ASRS program - the whole point of ASRS is that the information IS released - after the reports are "de-identified" so no personal information is left.

Let's assume this latest information was "super duper top secret" - why PURGE the data that cost $8M to collect?

 

[the_other_dougreeves]

The freedom of info act is a well intentioned effort, that, unfortunately, is open to incredible abuse------sorta like the endangered species act.

Imagine if you will, a FOIA request from the news media, or a terrorist group, that asks for the names of all suspected terrorists in the US.

Or a list of all the CIA, FBI, etc operatives.

What kind of damage would releasing the above cause?????

Yes, or imagine that you're on such a list, but nobody will tell you why or how you can get off. Now you are not able to fly anywhere, you are automatically detained if the PD stops you for anything, including a traffic stop, etc. Glad it happened to my brother-in-law and not me.

IMHO, FOIA is one of the things that separated us from governments like the Soviet Union - they were under no obligation to tell their citizens a darn thing, comrade, and we might just throw you in the gulag for asking. They has a lot of security, that's for sure, but not much in the way of freedom. No thanks. FIOA cannot be used on things like active criminal investigations.

FOIA is designed to prevent this exact type of abuse - the Feds come up with data in a civil (i.e., non law enforcement) program and refuse to release it because it will embarrass them. The reasoning is strange - we won't tell you about this risk as it might undermine confidence in the system! So, we as the Feds will let you continue to be at risk, but we won't let you know about it. How bizarre! The only thing the data will do is point out reality.

I'm reminded of the words of Richard Feynman when describing the Challenger disaster: ""For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled."

TODR

 

[LettersFromFlyoverCountry]

Side thread/message here

 

[Mike S]

FOIA is designed to prevent this exact type of abuse - the Feds come up with data in a civil (i.e., non law enforcement) program and refuse to release it because it will embarrass them. The reasoning is strange - we won't tell you about this risk as it might undermine confidence in the system! So, we as the Feds will let you continue to be at risk, but we won't let you know about it. How bizarre! The only thing the data will do is point out reality. TODR

TODR----apparently you and I see things a bit differently.

I am a "cup is half full" kind of guy, you seem to see it as "half empty".

Go back and read the part of my original post that you chose to delete when you quoted me.

I said we dont know what the report found, actually to quote myself, "we have no idea what the survey turned up".

You choose to see this as whole thing as a government cover up.

I dont.

Again, in my original post I offer up for consideration one possible scenario----
a previously un-realized security problem, that the pilots, due to their unique perspective, have unearthed. It would be absolutely stupid to publicize this before the problem has been corrected.

Anyway, enough of this Monday morning quarterbacking stuff.

There is one indisputable fact here. We dont know what is in that report.

I will choose to see the half full cup vision, until I am proven to be wrong.

I suspect you will hold on to your vision just as firmly.

I agree to disagree.

I am now done with this.

 

[the_other_dougreeves]

TODR----apparently you and I see things a bit differently.

I am a "cup is half full" kind of guy, you seem to see it as "half empty".

Go back and read the part of my original post that you chose to delete when you quoted me.

I said we dont know what the report found, actually to quote myself, "we have no idea what the survey turned up".

You choose to see this as whole thing as a government cover up.

I dont.

Again, in my original post I offer up for consideration one possible scenario----
a previously un-realized security problem, that the pilots, due to their unique perspective, have unearthed. It would be absolutely stupid to publicize this before the problem has been corrected.

Anyway, enough of this Monday morning quarterbacking stuff.

There is one indisputable fact here. We dont know what is in that report.

I will choose to see the half full cup vision, until I am proven to be wrong.

I suspect you will hold on to your vision just as firmly.

I agree to disagree.

I am now done with this.

Mike -

No disrespect was intended. I suppose we do see things differently; that's one of the great things about America. Given your comment about editing your original post, I have chosen not to cut it down. I normally do this for brevity. I order to prevent miscommunication, I have not edited anything here.

I suppose I am a "glass half-empty" kind of guy. Part of my day job is identifying potential design and operational hazards in industrial processes and figuring out how to mitigate them. Pretty serious stuff - work from a total catastrophic loss of a refinery and the surrounding community and then work backwards to find potential hazards and fix them. I take some of this approach to the rest of my life - find things that can go wrong and fix them. This extends to my flying. Rather than thinking "I've got a really reliable engine that should work through the flight", I tend to think "what happens if the engine quits before I reach 600' agl?"

My original point was that for the Feds to essentially say "We have some data that indicates safety problems, but we don't tell you what they are" doesn't strike me as a good thing. True, we don't know what's in there, but consider what the agency says: "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." This does not suggest a cover-up: it states that as far as the agency is concerned, the airlines making money is more important than public release of the data. Call that what you will.

Now, consider if this extended to our aircraft. Suppose Lyc finds a problem in O-360 cranks that were manufactured between certain years and goes to the FAA, who agrees that they must be replaced (totally hypothetical, right?). Now, do we want to release the data that indicates there is a problem and that it must be fixed? Or do we fix the problem first and then say what the problem is. "Uh, hi, this is Joe at Lycoming. Yeah, your engine is grounded until we can fix it. What? No, we can't tell you what's wrong with it. Just bring us your engine and $4,000 for the fix and we'll take care of everything."

If there's something that can be done to improve aviation safety, I'd like to know about it. Otherwise, how can we improve safety? By guessing? If we don't know what the problem is, how can we correct it? We, as PICs, have the ultimate responsibility for the safety of each and every flight. We need to know what the potential hazards are and decide how we can best deal with them.

As a graduate student, I heard a comment once that has stuck with me: "If you want to know what's going on in the [experimental] system, you need to do three things: Look at the data, look at the data, and look at the data."

TODR

 

[LettersFromFlyoverCountry]

Re: FOIA. Suggest folks read up on it before deciding it's a bad thing. The idea that the news media can get a list of all suspected terrorists against the wishes of the government merely by asking for it is incorrect.

There is still a procedure in place for review of all material.

After the Patriot Act, one problem in this country isn't that it's too easy to get information about what our government is up to.

 

[the_other_dougreeves]

UPDATE: House hearings start soon

From Aero-News Net:

House Hearing On Suppression Of Airline Safety Survey Set For Wednesday

Wed, 31 Oct '07
Science Advocacy Group Says NASA Should Release Results

Faced with considerable evidence NASA is withholding the results of a nationwide survey of pilots on airline safety problems -- fearing the findings would undermine public confidence and hurt airline profits -- the House Science and Technology Committee will hold a hearing Wednesday to try to determine why the agency has been sitting on the survey results for more than a year.

"Americans must have access to the results of taxpayer-funded scientific studies," said Dr. Francesca Grifo, senior scientist and director of the Scientific Integrity Program at the Union of Concerned Scientists. "Federal agencies have a responsibility to provide the public with information that has public safety consequences. Whether or not information was suppressed for political reasons, this incident highlights the need for more transparency in the federal government's handling of scientific information.

"Just last week, the White House came under fire for censoring the Centers for Disease Control director's written testimony on the health consequences of global warming," she added. "Considering this track record, the administration should be bending over backward to make sure critical scientific information reaches the public."

As ANN reported, NASA spent nearly four years to conduct telephone surveys of some 8,000 commercial and general aviation pilots, asking them about near misses in the air and on runways and cases in which air traffic controllers changed landing instructions at the last second. The Associated Press tried unsuccessfully to obtain the survey results under the Freedom of Information Act over a 14-month period.

NASA Administrator Griffin told the AP that his agency will reconsider the news organization's FOIA request. "NASA should focus on how we can provide information to the public, not on how we can withhold it," he said in a statement. The agency's research and data "should be widely available and subject to review and scrutiny."

Given the agency has been withholding the results for more than a year, UCS's Grifo was hopeful, but skeptical.

"NASA Administrator Griffin's statement that data should be 'widely available and subject to review and scrutiny,' is encouraging," she said, "if it ever happens."

 

[kklewin]

My 2 cents...

First off, almost all airlines participate in the ASAP program which allows self disclosure of anything from missed ATC calls to runway incursions. The whole idea is to increase airline safety. The reports goto a review board (management of the airline, union rep, and FAA rep) If action is needed usually the worst that happens to the crew is an FAA letter in their file for 2 years with no suspension. Its a great cover if you screw up and other pilots can learn from your mistake. Very few airline guys actually use the NASA(ASRS) forms anymore due to this program. NASA forms are mostly used in the general aviation and corporate enviornment.

I have no problem with NASA sitting on the specifics of the data. The data that NASA collects comes from NASA forms, not interviews. The data is republished in the NASA report (Callback) that many of us get monthly which is basically an "I/we screwed up and this is what we learned". There is a lot to be learned from our collective mistakes and that is one of the main purposes of the program is pilot education. Additionally, the data is collected and passed to the FAA to support everything from changes in rule making to runway markings to ATC procedures. The major pillar to this program is that the information remains confidential. If pilots now feel that their mistake is going to be on CNN they are more apt to not use the NASA (ASRS) pilot reporting program and our collective safety suffers.

Bottom line is that the public doesn't need to be scared from flying because we are trying to admit our mistakes as a pilot group and increase the collective safety of the pilot population. If you want to participate in the program you can add your name to the suscriber list for the NASA flyer (Callback) by visiting: http://asrs.arc.nasa.gov/publications/callback/cb_333.htm This is a great learning tool for everyone. The increase in self disclosure we get from de-identifying the reports and not releasing them to the media is what increases the safety for everyone. (including ATC controllers, who can also use the system)

If you file a NASA report because you busted a TFR and have would like some coverage from FAA action and we can all learn from your mistake then file the NASA form. If NASA makes this all available then your event may make headlines locally or nationally...which does nothing to educate us as a pilot group and only makes the public more aprehensive to general aviation flying. Lets keep our flying stories as positive events in our community.

Just my thoughts...

Kurt Klewin
RV6A OKC, OK
(737 driver by day)

 

[Yukon]

Kurt,

Do you know for sure that this "data" is ASAP info????

 

[JHines]

My 2 cents...

<SNIP>

If you file a NASA report because you busted a TFR and have would like some coverage from FAA action and we can all learn from your mistake then file the NASA form. If NASA makes this all available then your event may make headlines locally or nationally...which does nothing to educate us as a pilot group and only makes the public more aprehensive to general aviation flying. Lets keep our flying stories as positive events in our community.

Just my thoughts...

Kurt Klewin
RV6A OKC, OK
(737 driver by day)

NASA alredy does release the ASRS data - after its' been "de-identified". I suppose a reporter could identify a particular plane based on type, location, etc. given enough research. The public can already look on the web and see, for example, that "X" number of near-midairs (or whatever) have been reported. "Callback" is also on the web for anyone who wants to look, without having to subscribe.

NASA's original statement wasn't "we're witholding the report to protect the innocent". They stated it was to protect public confidence in the airline system.

My confidence goes up when someone says "we found ABC problems and we're doing XYZ to correct them" - not when they say "what you don't know won't hurt you".

 

[kklewin]

I guess my only point is that NASA does publish "we found ABC problems and we're doing XYZ to correct them" type information through Callback, the website and changes in policy as determined through the FAA. I know the two airlines I have worked for also uses the info, along with ASAP, as additional way to pass along safety related info. NASA compiles most of the data and does some great treand analysis for all pilots.

But if we want we could all petition NASA to issue a press release everytime we screwed up in general or commercial aviation. The general public would have a field day with it. More "no flying over my housing development", increased pressure to close airports, and decreased support for GA or commercial activities in general.

NASA's goal with this program is to increase the safety of GA and commercial aviation. The program does a great job with this information. I can see the results in things like: new taxi into position and hold procedures for towered airports, newer and changed airport markings and hold short lines, FAA and AOPA videos on runway incursions, changes to controller responsibilities depending on controller staffing, increased information to pilots on medical issues resulting from NASA medical related incidents, and changes in airline polices resulting from NASA and ASAP trends.

Bottom line, be careful what you wish for as it may have some unintended consequences. I like the program as it's a great "get out of jail free card" (so to speak) for us when flying GA and helps increase commercial and GA safety a great deal. I would hate for the program to get cut because we now decided to "air all our dirty laundry". Some in congress would argue that the best way to stop from highlighting instances of pilot error and decreasing public confidence in commercial and GA flying would simply be to de-fund the program. Safety would decrease and we all would suffer.

Again, my personal thoughts only....

Kurt