Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

What NASA Won't Tell You About Air Safety

Posted by ScuttleMonkey on from the wtb-better-drugs dept.

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.'"

10 of 411 comments (clear)

  1. This really that bad? by hcmtnbiker · · Score: 5, Insightful

    How is this really that bad? Even when the pilots suck, and the traffic controllers are asleep at the helm we still manage to be safer then driving. Seems to me like flying is pretty damn safe, and even better if everyone is paying attention to whats going on.

    --
    If i had one dollar for every brain you dont have, i would have $1.
    1. Re:This really that bad? by WaltBusterkeys · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If the purpose of the program (increasing air safety) will be maximized by not releasing this report to the public then NASA is right to not release it. Pilots are very sensitive about their jobs, especially when safety is on the line. If pilots are more likely to report incidents (near-misses and dangerous situations) if they know that the data will only be used internally then not releasing it is the right answer.

      I know that pilots were given anonymity, but there are plenty of incidents that could be recognized by the description (it's not hard to figure out which airlines fly a lot of routes -- Southwest and JetBlue, for example, are the only carriers between a lot of secondary airports).

      If the report is published to the greater world then pilots might not be as forthcoming about future incidents and we might lose a good chance to prevent an accident. Without knowing more about the report, why it was developed, who developed it, and what good it does I can't say for sure whether that's the right answer or not, but it's at least a reasonable answer. There's no conspiracy here, sorry.

    2. Re:This really that bad? by caerwyn · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It takes two idiots to have an accident.

      You're living in a fantasy world. It only takes one- and really, it doesn't even take an idiot. Ever had a blowout on the highway? Would you call yourself an idiot if a piece of debris you couldn't see caused one and sent you into a crash? Didn't think so. Doesn't change the good chance of death you have as a result.

      Oh, and are you always the driver when you're in a car? Never let anyone else drive? Never taken a taxi, or a shuttle bus of some sort?

      The numbers are very simple. Compare the number of plane trips per year and number of plane deaths with the number of car trips per year and the number of car deaths. The plane related incidents are almost statistically unnoticeable in this country. Car crashes, on the other hand, are one of the leading causes of death.

      --
      The ringing of the division bell has begun... -PF
  2. The really dangerous part about air travel.... by nweaver · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The drive to the airport.

    Flying is so much safer than driving to the airport it is not even funny.

    --
    Test your net with Netalyzr
    1. Re:The really dangerous part about air travel.... by brusk · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Conversely, the other cars are mostly not being driven by people who:
      - Drive for a living, with frequent retraining and certification
      - Drive only on well-defined shifts
      - Receive instructions from road controllers
      - Make sure their cars are regularly serviced
      - Have proximity detectors and redundant steering controls in their cars
      - Have co-drivers who can take over if there's a problem

      If you really want to make the comparison, it's between a plane and a bus. Have you been on a Greyhound lately?

      --
      .sig withheld by request
  3. Is it really NASA who is witholding info? by Irvu · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Is it really NASA as a whole. Keep in mind that until a year or so ago a single Bush-appointed kid was responsible for censoring all of NASA's press releases about basic science. The kid in question had no college degree, no background in science, and his sole qualification appeared to be having been head of the Texas young republicans at his school. This despite opposition from most of NASA.

    Not to sound like some NASA apologist or something but in my experience with large institutions many of the things done "by NASA" or some other group are often the work of one or a few key individuals and many times may run counter to the very goals of the institution and most people involved in it. It wouldn't surprise me if the political appointee that replaced the kid is doing this.

  4. meh by DirkGently · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Air travel is like hot dogs. Ignorance is bliss.

    Seriously though, I try to remind myself that the pilots are just as interested in getting to the destination in one piece as I am.

    --

    I keep trying to pick fights, but I can't shake this Excellent karma.

  5. It's official: Embarassment == Security Threat by RobertB-DC · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "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. NASA also cited pilot confidentiality as a reason, although no airlines were identified in the survey, nor were the identities of pilots, all of whom were promised anonymity.

    Amazing. Once upon a time, the only valid reason for withholding information was if it would affect the nation's security. Now, "commercial welfare" is just as valid as "national security".

    How many other documents can now be hidden from public view, given the low bar of "could materially affect the public confidence"? Apparently, if you're not "confident", you're with the terrorists!
    --
    Stressed? Me? Of course not. Stress is what a rubber band feels before it breaks, silly.
  6. Aren't actual accidents the issue? by pnagel · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Isn't the safety of an activity determined by the number of actual accidents, and not by the number of near-accidents?

    For example, I've been driving about 14 years without ever causing an accident (or at least, none that I was involved in to know of :-). However, I often find myself in the situation of almost making an accident.

    Fo example, you start to do a lane change, and suddenly, before you actually enter the other lane, you notice another car there, and abort the lane change. The point of driving experience and skill is it also helps you to cope with the near-accidents that your driving skills failed to prevent.

    Surely something similar is relevant to flying too?

  7. Do the math, THEN panic by cherokee158 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Even this study, which the AP was quick to hit the panic button about, states that your odds of dying on any given airline flight is one in 4.5 million. Your odds of dying in any sort of air travel accident in your liftetime (on average...obviously, odds vary according to how often you fly) are about one in 20,000. You odds of dying in a car are about one in a hundred. Your odds of dying in an airliner hijacked by terrorists are about 1 in 55 million. So, obviously, the government is spending billions to combat terrorism, millions on air safety, and hardly anything on automotive safety.

    Does anyone in government ever bother to READ the reports they spend so much time and money writing and classifying?