Click on a label to read posts from that part of the world.
Airline safety survey kiboshed by NASA
.jpg)
NASA appears to be sandbagging on reporting the results of a survey they conducted a few years back on airline safety. Their data, which is taken from phone interviews across 24,000 pilots, apparently suggest that the number of "incidents" in airline travel are significantly higher than reported by the FAA.Asked to reveal the data to the AP, NASA politely declined, stating that revealing the findings could damage the public's confidence in airlines and affect airline profits.
Since when does safety take a back seat to airline profits? Does anyone else see the airline lobby at work here?
I'm well past the conspiracy theory and into the complacent stage in my life where this sort of stuff doesn't bother me anymore. Perhaps its because I'm still confident in the general safety record of the industry. As the MSNBC article concedes, there is only 1 fatality in about 4.5 million departures. I suppose I can take my chances for now.
Filed under: Airlines, Transportation, Airports
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
RC Oct 23rd 2007 9:30AM
Anybody want to file a FOIA request?
Grant Martin Oct 23rd 2007 9:31AM
AP already did
T Oct 27th 2007 6:38AM
NASA used to be about science. THEY HAVE SOLD THEIR SOUL TO BIG CORPORATIONS. One giant step back for humankind!
rowena cherry Oct 27th 2007 11:14AM
Do they really think that saying "revealing the findings could damage the public's confidence in airlines" doesn't undermine the public's confidence?
If it is so bad that they daren't tell us, I guess it is still nowhere near as bad as we now imagine!
evelyne Oct 27th 2007 11:15AM
Nothwest Airlines is about the worst airline ever, insensitive unsafe and staff is rude. Passengers are always frustrated and flights are late. I lost a family member recently, was abroad, they refused to change my reservations. We will avoid them a all cost
Mel Oct 28th 2007 12:49AM
I think NASA is correct on this one. Have you ever read the definition of an "incident"? Most people haven't a clue what that means.
Joe Oct 27th 2007 11:17AM
It started when reagan fired the air traffic controllers and deregulated the airlines. Anything go's. Maintenance went out the window. Machinest & mechcanic's unions gone. Mexicans in the southwest use to perform maintenance now it's done in third world countries. And you still wanna fly? Not to mention the pilots their hiring.
Steve Oct 27th 2007 11:17AM
Last March my wife and I were arriving at MPLS/STP Airport aboard American Airlines. As the plane was preparing to land (literally only feet from making contact with the landing strip) I happened to look out the right side window and saw another plane coming in (approximately same distance off the ground) at an angle that would have cut us off. Suddenly, our Pilot takes it up FAST...banks to the left...Announces a "GATE CHANGE" after we'd been in the air for about 20 additional minutes. And went on to explain that the problem had been created by some gate confusion. I watched the local paper to see if there was anything ever reported as they refer to them as "near misses"......I prefer to call them "near hits". But.....it never showed up in the media. It was certainly obvious to me and anyone else that caught sight of that other plane.....what the problem truly was.
'nuff said!
JT Oct 27th 2007 11:17AM
The biggest problem with this study is that it includes input from Pilots of all experience levels. A private pilot with limited experience is going to see an airplane 3 miles away and call it a "near miss". An experienced Pilot would see that same airplane 3 miles away and consider it exactly what it is..a non threat.
I have been flying professionally for over 20 years and have never been involved in a "near miss"...not to say they don't happen, but they are not as prevelant as this study might indicate.
Ron Korman Oct 27th 2007 2:43PM
Will all you alarmists take a break. Look at the number of flights a day and the number of people that get from point to point daily that is a monumental task. Now look at the number of accidents, so small that most people remember each one, can you remember all the car accidents. If you are too much of a trembler to fly then walk or take the bus and see how safe that is. as Charles Schultz used to say"Good Grief"
Frank Meyer Oct 27th 2007 11:18AM
Saturday
October 27, 2007
It has been my experinece that investigative reports that are not isued or made avaialbel to the public are in fact very revealing and constitute immediate action on behaf of safety.
The federal government has not been a leader in this area. The arline industry knows what the problems are, and they try to make the ongoing probmes are minimzed, but they do occur because the FAA is not doing its job with all the monies they steal from us
for airport maintence, etc.
Until we privatize the air controllers and the system, we will continue to have severe dangers awaiting us until something seriously happens. The government is not made of of business people, and their whole focus is protecting their turfs at any cost. Just look at Congress.
Anne Oct 27th 2007 11:18AM
Hate to disagree JT, but I would assume NASA was polling Airline Pilots. And for you to think that a 'private pilot' would have limited experience and call 'traffic' that is 3 miles away a 'near miss' is ridiculous. I am a few hours away from my private pilot rating and have crossed paths with several other small planes in my time in the air and have never considered that a close call. What NASA is talking about are runway incursions and near hits in the air. I too have been on a Delta heavy coming into Atlanta-Hartsfield and had to 'go around' due to someone crossing our runway. It happens. Even with the close calls, air travel is still quite safe. But I do have plenty of issues with the airline industry. They are a powerful lobby. Who else can declare bankruptcy every 4 years and have the Feds bail 'em out???
NASA is withholding information. It's never for our own good.
ogfy Oct 27th 2007 11:20AM
Be careful what you asked for ! Over the last 20 years the airline industry has morphed into flying greyhound buses, due in fact that the overall general public demanded lower fares to make air travel more accessable to everyone. Overall airfares are down, the average price of a ticket is at mid-1970 prices and the price of a barrel of oil was just over $5.00, today it's over $90.00. People are flying more than ever yet still demanding Nieman-Marcus service at Wal-mart prices.
The near misses ( or near hits) are a direct result of the demand for flying, the airlines attempts to cut costs to stave off bankruptcy and the federal governments refusal to release the billions of dollars it has accumulated over the years in airline taxes that are specifically earmarked for improved air traffic control systems.
Local governments who operate and control their airports are charging higher landing fees, landing fees are based on the gross weight of the aircraft. Thus many airlines are using more of the regional jets that have a capacity of 50 passengers. It is cheaper for the airlines to operate a regional jet as opposed to a larger B-757 or Airbus that seats 200 people. While it may be more economical for the airline to operate 4 regional jets to accompany 200 people as opposed to 1 200 passenger aircraft, it creates more air traffic. A 50 passenger jet takes up just as much air space as a 200 passenger jet, but now there are 4 times as many planes vying for that air space.
Shame on NASA, shame on the FAA and shame on the general public for it's belief that the problems in air travel were not a direct result of their demands.
ogfy Oct 27th 2007 10:16AM
The airline industry is slowly digging itself out of bankruptcy, in spite of astronomical fuel prices. The current air fare structure is an absolute clusterfu--. Airlines need to develop a consistent fare system. For example, airlines have set prices for air cargo and mail, pay by the pound. Your bag is overweight....you pay extra. One factor in determining aircraft fuel loads are their takeoff weights, the more it weights the more fuel it will burn.
Charge passengers by their weight! Using the average recommended weight for a male (appox 185lbs) and a female (appox 140lbs) and have a set price for those who fall in line with the average recommended weight ; example $175. You weight more than that, you pay for YOUR excess weight, you weight less than you get a rebate. This would also help this country's current fat-ass syndrome and reduce obesity and all of the long term medical conditions and costs that go with it. Not to mention making that center seat more tolerable.
Parissa Oct 27th 2007 11:21AM
I could care less what the results of anyone's survey of the airline industry (or safety records) indicate! I decided about three years ago to stop flying with ANY airline unless an unavoidable family crisis exists that would demand it ... and THEN I'll rethink ... there's always driving or walking! And the following recent incidents have done nothing but further secure my resolve: 1. Asking a mother and child to disembark because the child kept saying something the stewardess didn't like (the child was ... 2?)
2. When an attendant on another plane asked a youg woman ~ fully clothed ~ to disembark because this particular 'steward' didn't think the woman properly dressed! 3. When passengers were left for HOURS in a plane, on the tarmak, with no satisfactory access to sanitation ... nor were they given water, food, or even an appropriate explanation for such behavior other than what one could surmise themselves: airline corporations are BULLIES! .... and I could go on, but I think you get the drift!
Moongrim Oct 27th 2007 11:07AM
As an FAA employee. I shall file this story into the "No Shit Sherlock" category.
You have No freaking idea how true this story is...
Moongrim Oct 27th 2007 11:22AM
Privatizing the FAA will just make things much, much, more worse. Near misses are more common in the countries where Privatization has occurred.
What we in the FAA need is some accountability, from Management, and some Leadership from on high (The Presidency). But it won't be happening anytime soon, when you have a bunch of Conservatives who INSIST that this adminstration can do no wrong. Witness the kibosh put upon this report by NASA.
Mike Oct 27th 2007 11:56AM
It never ceases to amaze me how republican haters always blame conservatives for today's problems and make statements as "pure fact" just becasue they can. "Joe" it wasn't President Reagan who deregulated the airlines, it was carter (who, incidently, was voted one of the worst presidents in the last 100 years.)
tootsie Oct 27th 2007 12:34PM
If the survey is a couple of years old it is out of date. Things change so fast these days. On the other hand, I don't believe surveys and polls as they can be slanted both by the way questions are asked and how the folks that take part in them are picked.
Jane Oct 27th 2007 1:44PM
So you don't trust us guys at NASA anymore...So what.
Just remember, we told you we didn't find aliens at Roswell and that was true.
Everything we told you is true, including that there is no Global Warming. We still stick to our guns on that one even if 90% of the scientists say we're wrong!