What NASA Won't Tell You About Air Safety 411
rabble writes "According to a report out of Washington, NASA wants to avoid telling you about how unsafe you are when you fly. According to the article, when an $8.5M safety study of about 24,000 pilots indicated an alarming number of near collisions and runway incidents, NASA refused to release the results. The article quotes one congressman as saying 'There is a faint odor about it all.' A friend of mine who is a general aviation pilot responded to the article by saying 'It's scary but no surprise to those of us who fly.'"
Close calls (Score:4, Interesting)
Given the increasing amount of air traffic, I would not be surprised to see incidents (not comforting given upcoming travel), but the shocking thing is that the FAA (and the public) is still dealing with a completely antiquated air traffic control system that like other aspects of our national infrastructure is woefully lacking, particularly around large airports.
Re:Is it really NASA who is witholding info? (Score:4, Interesting)
Close != close call (Score:5, Interesting)
A few years back I was on a flight from Seattle to LAX and with a very chatty pilot. He said something like "In a minute we'll be having a very close look at a Cessna xxx. You won't have much time to see it because it is going at aaa mph and they're going at bbb mph so the closing speed is... Don't worry folks, they are in their lane and we're in ours" and shortly later this plane came whipping past at what seemed like touching distance. Now that was clearly not a close call, but if the pilot had not talked about it we'd probably have thought it was.
legal? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:This really that bad? (Score:3, Interesting)
They also dont want you to know this... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Close != close call (Score:5, Interesting)
This video shows two aircrafts 1000 feet apart passing by each other: http://br.youtube.com/watch?v=xpYD0higmxk [youtube.com]
crisis in the making (Score:2, Interesting)
Driving is actually a lot worse. (Score:2, Interesting)
Of course, there's *some* risk in _anything_ you do. Playing sports and working out, for instance, are likely to get you injured, but sitting at home all the time will buy you poor health twenty or forty years down the line. There's no such thing as a completely safe activity.
I agree with the "secrecy" (Score:2, Interesting)
The FAA, NTSB, ATC, Military and NASA all have their various "official" reporting systems for accidents, runway incursions, near misses, etc. etc. - but the idea behind this survey was to get a little bit more of a "frank" idea of what's going on - if stuff isn't reported - if incedents don't need to be reported - and to check if there are problems in the system.
(As a student-pilot) I firmly believe that pilots, if interviewed anonymously, would be more than willing to offer any information, or bend anyone's ear as to what the problems are and how to make things safer. If people are "on-the-record" doing this - everyone jumps into the "CYA" mentality.
Are you just looking for someone to blame, or do you really want to know the truth??
Reminds me of Flight 182 (Score:2, Interesting)
The Cessna took out the wing of the larger plane, causing it, of course, to burst in flames. 182 crashed in the middle of a residential neighborhood, killing 7 on the ground and creating what is still one of the largest fires in the county.
Not that any crash is good, but ones created by collisions in the middle of residential neighborhoods have to be among the worst. There was video at the time of flaming bodies that fell out of the plane. Local authorities picked up body parts out of backyards and rooftops for several weeks after the crash. It was a gruesome event.
The crash was created by two sets of pilots who failed to maintain good visual contact with each other. The PSA pilots knowingly ignored the other plane and the little plane--piloted by a student pilot if it matters--stopped its visual assessment of the larger commercial plane. The PSA plane was basically directly above the Cessna as it ascended and came into its flight path as the big plane descended. I imagine the student pilot simply didn't lean forward far enough to see the big jet directly above it. He probably thought it was out of his vector but instead made a fatal assumption. Likewise, the PSA pilots didn't look down to keep a good eye on the little plane that was heading their way. There is some evidence to suggest that the PSA pilots, however, didn't have good information from the tower on which plane they should be looking for and where it was.
Lindbergh Field has a reputation for being one of the least desirable airports to land at in the US because of the sharp angle of descent and its close proximity to major urban and residential areas. There's no "easy" approach to land there.
Re:This really that bad? (Score:2, Interesting)
Yes, it is really that bad. (Score:2, Interesting)
As the neocon mantra goes, "if you're not doing anything wrong, what do you have to hide?".
revealing the findings could damage the public's confidence in airlines and affect airline profits.
This is why it is bad: because they are putting the profits of the airlines above the safety of the passengers. If it really wasn't that bad, why would they be hiding it from the public?
The interesting thing is that if NASA had just quietly released this, no one would have bothered to notice. But the fact that they aren't releasing it suggests that the problem really is worse than the report suggests, and that the powers that be don't want the issue investigated any further.
No landmarks... your eyes fool you (Score:3, Interesting)
I hunch the guys on the ground with radar etc have a far better perspective of what is really going on than any "eye witness".
Flying versus driving (Score:5, Interesting)
The book contains a lot of that kind of analysis and is worth reading simply for the insight into incentives (which I found in the first chapter.)
Pffft...800 hours (Score:2, Interesting)
ATL also does parallel approach. I was on a CRJ-200 with a 747-400 trailing on approach to the other runway...It made some passengers nervous. Come to think of it, IAD might too...
Re:Close != close call (Score:3, Interesting)
Fantasy? Not so much... (Score:2, Interesting)
Hold on there a second, Statistics Boy.
First, let's consider my actual risk factors. What if I'm not under 25 (the age group that dies like flies in auto accidents)? Guess what, I'm an old fart, so I'm way (WAY) safer without lifting a finger. What if I travel mostly on interstate highways (much safer than secondary roads, by a huge margin)? Once again, I win without effort. What happens if I don't drive at night (much more hazardous than daytime driving, (a) because nobody can see, and (b) because every 10th driver is drunk)? Another win. What happens if I drive a big-ass car rather than a tiny-ass POS, so if I hit your tiny-ass POS I live and you die? What if I avoid driving in ridiculous weather? What if I maintain my vehicle well, I have antilock brakes/stability control, I have new tires, and I'm driving a relatively new vehicle instead of some junker? And so on. By the time I eliminate all the risk factors that the airlines INCLUDE in their road statistics, their numbers are meaningless. Let's turn the tables, shall we? OK, airlines, if you're going to include teenage hotrod and dead-drunk idiots in your road statistics, I'm gonna include all the private airplanes that are busy dropping out of the sky on a daily basis. Who wins now?
Second, the "safety" of airlines is always touted by considering total miles traveled, not TIME IN THE VEHICLE -- and of course they're counting all miles traveled, on all kinds of roadways, in all kinds of weather, in all kinds of vehicles. Hour for hour, trip for trip, you're WAY SAFER in a car than in an airplane.
And finally, the statistics are presented courtesy of the airline industry, which is highly motivated to make you think that it's perfectly safe to whizz around in some poorly-maintained piece of shit airframe that's been in service for 15 years and only indifferently maintained. Pardon me if I think they're shaving the numbers. They'd be idiots not to.
Re:Fantasy? Not so much... (Score:5, Interesting)
What do I see right away? Well your belief that secondary roads are much safer than highways doesn't seem entirely right - for 2005 I see 44.5k deaths on major roads vs 56.5k deaths on smaller roads. A difference sure, but not all that massive.
The split by vehicle type is also rather interesting, deaths in 4/5 door hatchbacks (the "tiny-ass POS" that I happen to drive) amount to a massive 292, vs almost 28 thousand for your "safe" big-ass car, and no - that difference cannot be explained away by total numbers of vehicles on the road. Small cars are more stable, more agile, and often just better designed with regards to safety. At least that's my belief, and I've yet to see stats to counter that.
"Go around, I say again, go around, not below 400" (Score:3, Interesting)
It's called a 'go-around' and happens thousands of times a day at airports across the globe. It is no cause for concern, simply a reflection of the imperfect timing of 'scheduled' flights.
In every case, simple procedure is followed; at controlled fields, the ATC will usually give the command to go around but the pilot has the discretion to do so if he thinks there could be a conflict (or even if he just doesn't feel like landing that approach). At major fields, the local procedures are followed or at other fields, full power is applied, a climb is established and a turn is made to the 'dead-side' (opposite side to the circuit side).
The only time I've ever seen a remotely 'tense' go-around was a video of a junior controller at London Heathrow with a slow-to-clear Airbus on the runway and a Concorde beating down short-final. Knowing the enormous fuel cost of a Concorde go-around, the controller tried to delay down to safe minimums but the Concorde pilot made the decision for him (probably out of courtesy) and initiated the go-around with a curt radio call "Speedbird One is going around" and moving into 'wet' (afterburner) power for the climb to make sure the Airbus pilot knew his place
Re:meh (Score:2, Interesting)
That reminds of a trip I made from Italy to Denmark with my girlfriend. Taking the opportunity of clear weather in midday, I had watched the beautiful sky and terrain from my window seat for over an hour when the plane suddenly made an abrupt adjustment to its flight path. The maneuver was not too brusque as no one seemed alarmed, but I distinctively remember it as unusual since such adjustments were usually much smoother. Some five seconds later I saw another passenger airplane pass by alarmingly close to ours and flying in the opposite direction in what seemed to be our flight path just moments ago. I looked around with apprehension and nobody seemed to have noticed what had just occurred. Looking at my girlfriend, I contemplated waking her up to tell her what happnned, but decided she would be better off without all the "excitement".
Re:crisis in the making (Score:3, Interesting)
If you mean that they use CRT monitors then you are probably right. Most ATC operators are moving to 2k by 2k LCD monitors but the changeover will take time.
If you mean that they use high power valve radio transmittors then it would only be true if that is the best technology available.
If you mean that they use valve computers then you are wrong. I work in the industry, though not supplying the FAA. I am sure they have a reliance on some old systems, but no more so than many organisations like the banks.
Re:Flying versus driving (Score:3, Interesting)
That's a clever analysis. I've always known the standard statistics we're given are crap. However, that conclusion still is not exactly a rebuke of air travel, as airlines travel nearly 10X faster than cars, that suggests air travel is 10X safer.
The problem I still see with that, is the fact that "driving" is an extremely nebulous term. The billions of 2 mile trips people take every day to go out to eat or shop REALLY shouldn't be compared to interstate travel, which is just about the only trips commercial airlines make. Similarly, international flights shouldn't be included in the comparison either.
I would love to get some actually fair and accurate comparisons of airline travel vs. automobiles, buses, and trains. However, even if it was done perfectly, it wouldn't be a good source of info to make decisions... The individual driving will have a drastic effect on automobile safety. Different airlines that can be select from, have drastically different safety records as well. The weather conditions, and the route taken, will drastically affect the safety of both, but in very different ways.
And finally, I have yet to be subjected to a cavity search, before being allowed to drive...
Re:Fantasy? Not so much... (Score:1, Interesting)
Hell, forget the statistics and just look at the actual numbers. This year there were no jetliner fatalities in the US. Last year there were 49 in the Comair crash. In 2005 the only jet crash fatality was a child in a car that was hit by a plane sliding off its runway. Prior to that the latest jet fatalities were in 2001. That's right. Of the trillions of passenger miles flown in those 5 years, the only fatality was actually in an automobile. Do you still think you're safer in a car?
dom
Silly (Score:3, Interesting)
We know pretty accurately how dangerous flying is, on account of having a fairly good record of how many million people fly how many thousand miles a year, and knowing how many end up dead or injuried as a result.
If *almost* crashes where significantly up, you'd expect *actual* crashes to be similarily up. There's more than enough planes in the air that the law of average work just fine.