Slashdot Mirror
NASA Releases Cryptic Airline Safety Data
An anonymous reader writes "NASA released part of a controversial study about air traffic safety Monday. The space agency spent $11 million on a survey of airline pilots. Agency officials were so disturbed by the findings that they intended to destroy the information rather than release it. But at an October congressional hearing, NASA administrator Michael Griffin changed tack and said the agency would release its findings. The research shows that safety problems occur far more often than previously recognized. NASA has been criticized however for not providing 'documentation on how to use its data, nor did it provide keys to unlock the cryptic codes used in the dataset.'"
This makes me afraid to fly with pilots on board. It would probably be safer if only computers flew the planes. There would also be no way to hijack a plane. I'm very scared.
I think the airlines should lobby to make me safer by having no pilots on board, then the fares would go down too.
I'm very afraid. Fire the pilots, or at least only have one on board. That would be safer.
Getting rid of my rights to a fair trial would also make me feel safer.
http://www.theonion.com/content/video/proposed_classified_bill_will
Rep. John Haller (R-PA) introduces a bill that will allocate (classified) dollars over the next (classified) years to fight flesh-eating (classified).
I'm going to print out the PDF and masturbate to it. If no-one knows how to interpret the data, I'll do it in a sexy way.
NASA lost 2 of their 5 space-worthy shuttles. Are these really the people we should be listening to about safety?
I think our retarded media has more to do with government secrecy then any conspiracy. I'm a pilot. None of this data is surprising, unexpected, or really, in any way new. However, the retards at fox news and CNN will spin this to sell add space instead of to show how safe aviation really is. As in ... Oh my GOD!!!! the airplanes were 4.8 miles apart instead of 5 miles. Panic!!!!!
"Earlier characterizations from people who have seen the results said they would show that events like near collisions and runway interference occur far more frequently than previously recognized. Such information could not be gleaned from the 16,208 pages posted by NASA on its Web site, however, because of information that was edited out. "
Your tax dollars at work.
his reminds me of the time President Bush dismissed an EPA http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/06/03/tech/main510920.shtml? Bush dismisses global warming warning on global sarming as the work of the the bureaucracy.
The columns in the PDF document are:
Flight Hours, Flight Legs, Career Hours, Aircraft 1, % Hours Aircraft 1, Aircraft 2, % Hours Aircraft 2, Aircraft 3, % Hours Aircraft 3, Aircraft 4, % Hours Aircraft 4, Aircraft 5, % Hours Aircraft 5, Aircraft 6, % Hours Aircraft 6.
How this is useful safety information is left as an excersize for the reader.
No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Winston Churchill
So, the first 1500 pages seem to be one or two columns of data on the pilots involved (# of flight hours?) The next 1000 pages are incident reports (planes 1 thru 6, but mostly 1 or 2 planes,) with so few columns you can't tell who, what, or when the incident occurred.
Hey, NASA, thanks a lot.
(oh, and if you're worried about people using a modified/hacked data set, publish a hash on your website.)
"[the agency shall] provide for the widest practicable and appropriate dissemination of information concerning its activities and the results thereof."
Of course, then people could see that the important columns are missing.
Technology -- No Place For Wimps! Grateful Dead and Jerry Garcia Chatroom -- http://www.wemissjerry.org
"The fight for freedom has only just begun." - Geert Wilders
Tin foil hats needed. The following codes have been heard from the Space Shuttle. Codes: Fire, Santa, object under observation, all have been used at one point or another. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e0jpUPLqLhA
Have Tardis, will travel.
Assuming the actual non-cryptic survey is eventually released: The number to focus on is the rate of actual crashes. Unless this survey reveals a RECENT change for the worse, I would hate to see the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) take action. After all, if a similar driving survey was taken, I believe that many of us would have one "almost crash" nearly every time we go out on the road: Flying is by far the safest way to travel and nothing has changed.
Extracting the data does not require OCR. It's not images, it's a PDF of formatted text (ASCII?). You can copy and paste from it. I've never tried it, but I assume you could also automate extraction of the data into a more dynamic format, such as a database or spreadsheet.
I am one of those anonymous pilots who has filed a NASA ASRA report. My report was not of coming close to hitting another aircraft. It was because of a violation of airspace (NASA's own Moffett Field) as a result of Air Traffic Controller mis-communication/hand off. While the pilot is ultimately responsible for communicating with ATC. This program was designed to be anonymous. It provided pilots with a way to discuss issues without having to be identified. This was designed to improve safety. I completely agree with this idea as it frees the pilot from having to come to call for reporting things that could be potentially hazardous or failures within the system. Unfortunately today, lawyers are always searching out new ways to prove negligence. Protecting pilots trying to help is even more important! In the aviation community, there is very little true negligence. Many husbands/spouses of pilots killed sue people after the pilot flew into a mountainside. Why? Because nobody knows why, and there could be many defendants (Airframe, engine, altimeter, radio navigation, radio communication, transponder, ATC (FAA/Government), Spark Plug manger, carberator, etc). Yes, they sue them all because if the jury thinks that any one person might possibly be responsible, it's millions. It's cheaper and/or a safer bet to sue than to buy life insurance it seems these days. I wouldn't mind if they released categoried data, ie, Phase: LANDING, Situation: NEAR MISS, Key 1: Distance, Value 1: 1500ft, etc... IE, you just say what happened, and nothing more. This is what the government really needs. I haven't reviewed all of the data, but, this is very reasonable in the light of trying to determine what is going wrong.
The summary doesn't match what the article says, and makes claims that appear nowhere else.
The information "removed" was previously released. What's changed is that it now carries the caveat that it hasn't been peer reviewed. That's where they extract the facts and inject the "not properly vetted" in attempt to use the connotation to make it sound worse.
One of the people in charge of designing and carrying out the project is complaining about the data handling. He's one of the people who created the data. The "what to do with it" is a singularly stoopid statement in this light.
There's more, but it's even more nonsensical. I can't figure out how much of this is intentional poor writing/reporting, how much of it is unintentional poor writing/reporting, and how much of it misdirection hastily written because either something peripheral to the main topic has popped out as significant, or even something totally unrelated has come up and they want you to waste your time on this obsfucational press release.
Something is going on that they're not talking about, because they're doing an awful lot of talking about nothing here, in such a way that you spend a lot of time trying to stop misunderstanding it. It shouldn't be this difficult, and didn't used to be. At the very least they're trying to make an issue out of the article, and sidling away from the content. But they're using unsupported statements for doing so. I don't think the content of the article itself or the implications are what they're concerned about. They'd either come out as say so clearly, or they'd disown it clearly.
"I may be synthetic, but I'm not stupid." -- Bishop 341-B
Formatting of data
It's ~24600 rows (746 pages) of what must be pilot data.
The first 746 pages are Flight Hours (A1), Flight Legs (A2), and would be how many of each the pilot has undertaken, in the last N years.
The next 746 pages are Career Hours (A8), this is also sorted, so I think it was the key they used.
The last 746 pages are percentage and plane-type breakdown per pilot.
It mainly seems to be the larger jets, but there are a few interesting smaller, older aircraft, couple of fighters, and business jets.
However, what is lacking from this data is actual accident report and statistics. We've only got pilot information here.
ICQ# : 30269588
"I used to be an idealist, but I got mugged by reality."
Reporters looking for a sensational story wouldn't hesitate a moment to put up banner headlines screaming about near misses if there's any chance the data can be taken out of context. 1,000 feet of seperation is perfectly safe for planes flying in different directions as long as the 1,000 feet is vertical and not horizontal. I just got home from driving on the interstate where it was a LOT scarier and dangerous to be tailgated at 75 mph by a huge pickup truck. But the hick in the thing would respond probably positively to a congresscritter calling for more regulations and whatnot because planes were missing each other by ONLY 1,000 FEET AT 500 MPH!! OMG!!
As for the data, I thought it would be easy to import into a database but the dang files are not only PDF, there are several datasets in each giant PDF with column headers (titles) every page. They need to be broken apart into distinct tables' worth of data each and all the extra headers stripped. What a pain. I'll think about it.
Data relating to pilot competency is one thing, but if they were to reveal
the statistics relating to near misses that were averted by the TCAS system
(in some cases unbeknownst to the pilots themselves until they had landed)
many more people would think twice or perhaps even thrice before boarding
an aircraft.
Arash Partow's Philosophy: Be a person who knows what they don't know, and not a person who doesn't know.
So NASA management is naturally heavily politicized, very often determining what information is publicized and what is suppressed. (I have worked at NASA.) It seems a lot more people understand this dynamic in regard to for-profit organizations than in regard to government and research interests.
For example, we could prohibit airlines from screwing with sleep patterns. If a guy sleeps from 8 AM to 4 PM, you don't suddenly switch him over to sleeping from 4 PM to midnight. Well, you don't do that unless you are an airline or a hospital!
"NASA Administrator Michael Griffin told reporters the agency typically releases information in Adobe System's portable document format, known as pdf, which presents the information on formatted, printed pages."
NASA releases LOADS of data in all sorts of relevant formats. Imagery is released in a bunch of mission-specific raw formats, you can download elevation data from most of the world in a large variety of formats, and so on. Formatted pages only? This is ridiculous. The only plausible reason for doing so is to make it more awkward for people to analyze the data further.
And the worst symptom this is probably the case? If you look at the PDF files that have data tables, the PDF properties indicate the files were derived from Excel (.xls) files.
"Griffin said NASA wanted to ensure that no one modified the survey results and circulated false data as NASA's research product."
What? Has no one at NASA heard of MD5 checksums? Yeah, sure, they aren't perfect either, but they are going to be a whole lot more reliable than, say, a PDF file that someone could edit with far less effort.
"He said even inexpensive optical character recognition software could convert the formatted reports. Such software can risk introducing errors in the data as it performs these conversions."
They've made the possibility of error more likely by doing it this way.
Whatever. A bit of pdftotxt, some perl scripts, and it will be released in easy-to-analyze, properly delimited format.
I give it a week before some enterprising people transform the whole thing.
Look, Griffin: either release it properly (so you can ensure the quality and integrity of the data yourself), or don't release it at all. Doing it halfway is a joke.
Sure baby, I'll give you my phone number...in Hex
More interesting data that was released is here: http://www.nasa.gov/news/reports/NAOMS_air_carrier_survey_data.html
Although - these are really just answers to questions. I've spent some time going through the various links and I don't see anything that describes the questions that most of the columns relate to - although this file seems to contain the most information about the results. http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/207238main_NAOMS%20Reference%20Report_508.pdf
*crash*
What happened, pilot?
Oh, sorry control. WE nearly missed that other plane.
I drink to make other people interesting!
Two aircraft close to within 4.5 miles of one another when the safety zone is 5 miles. It gets logged as a near miss. The planes divert because secondary safety systems send alerts to pilots and traffic controllers who take appropriate action.
Is this proof that that the system is unsafe? Seems to me that something went wrong, safety systems kicked in, people took action as trained, and a problem was mitigated. So, the safety zone being 5 miles paid off. All went well. That's why we have a 5 mile safety zone and not a 4 mile one (or two, or whatever).
Congratulations to the safety engineers, the pilots, and traffic controllers. Through their training, planning, and risk assessment the practices and procedures were in place to handle a mishap and not result in a tragedy.
I recall the last few years of service of the Maine Yankee power plant not far from here. One day there was some kind of problem. Safety systems came in to play. The plant was shut down. Nobody was hurt. Nothing dangerous was released. All was well. Some people screamed at the danger of having the plant around. To me, this made no sense. I say the engineers and operators should have been celebrated for having built something that continued to be safe even as its lifespan was drawing to and end. All the safety systems still worked and everyone went home that night to their families.
Does the system need overhaul? Surely it does. I happen to know a few people who work for the FAA. One is a controller and the other some kind of inspector who flies around a lot and is in charge of some things. I hear stories from them -- though nothing specific -- and I know the stress they're under. We all know the stories off the equipment in use in those towers being insanely antiquated.
Still and all, these things only prove that to keep thing safe, we're losing efficiency. There is no evidence that we're sacrificing safety. Thousands of these massive things scream down runways at hundreds of miles and hour then leap into the sky propelled by unimaginable forces --all in close quarters to one another -- day in and day out. What a marvel of safety and a triumph of engineering.
I'm looking forward to my next flights -- all but the stupid TSA part anyway.
The problem with quotes on the internet, is that nobody bothers to check their veracity. -- Abraham Lincoln
Can someone start permabanning these idiots?
1q2w3e4r5t6y7u8i9o0pqawsedrftgthyjukilo;p'azsxdcf
Back in the day (60s) NASA did a lot of safety work and one of the things that came out of it was the scientific analysis of fatigue. The whole set of transportation rules (trucks, trains, airplane) that deal with fatigue, such as limits on duty days came from this. They identified short and long-term fatigue. Now your airline pilot is certain to be safe from a fatigue standpoint, but your surgeon might be on his 49t hour awake, but that's for another discussion. Next they determined that pilots are so in fear of getting in trouble that they keep information about mistakes to themselves. "Hey!" someone wondered. Let's take this and use it as an incentive. So they came up with a program where if you screwed up, if you told them about what happened and your recommendation to keep it from happening again, they would give you immunity from getting in trouble. A flood of these reports started coming in (like the one from the previous poster yahoo who busted airspace and blames it on a controller). Now these are anonymous. The form that comes back is a receipt with your identifying info taken off of it. But...it's not hard to tell that an Airbus 319 heading from Denver to Chicago at 9:00 at night on November 30th belongs to...Frontier Airlines. And then the pilots can be identified through their flight time...and that's about as appealing to pilots as posting their medical records on line. The rabble-rousing reporters don't understand the program, the benefits or the rationale behind it. Publishing the data isn't going to make our airspace safer, it's going to ensure a drop in participation (I don't want to see my name in the headlines...especially if I am in an accident and an investigative reporter data mines the records to find the NASA reports I made, don't think it won't happen). Most of the reports are for altitude busts (you get in trouble if you cause a "deal", or a loss of separation with another airplane), mistakenly crossing a runway when not authorized or for getting your paperwork screwed up. Interestingly, one of the first articles to come out from this debate was about a flight crew who fell asleep on the way to Denver and reported it to NASA. No, they didn't get in trouble, but a reporter figured out that it was a Frontier flight (that's why I used the example) and it's no secret who was assigned to that flight, any Frontier employee could look up the records on the computer. Do you think those guys are going to ever file a report again? Both NASA and the NTSB do a good job making recommendations. The airlines and their hand-puppet, the FAA do a very good job of ignoring them.
Aviation has a long history of safety. It was a perilous profession in the early days, and hanger talk saved many live before "safety" became quantified. NASA safety reports served as a means to "save your ass" if you committed an error that might get you a violation if discovered but not reported. They weren't the first. The concept is that a mistake made by one is a mistake to be made by many. All you need do was fess up and you might get a mulligan- no harm no foul (with limitations- intentional acts are not protected.) The lesson learned will be taught to those who follow- free as in speech! This specific program has ended, and regardless of how badly everyone feels NASA has dealt with public dissemination of the data, I must point out that the program ensured anonymity and this is why it worked. They never intended this program to become a public conversation piece by those outside the community. Everyone take note here- no profession uses safety data as well as aviation. Whatever you do for a living, there are lessons to learn from this profession.
Have you ever noticed that anybody driving slower than you is an idiot, and anyone going faster than you is a maniac?
It would work, too, but you guys are just too chickenshit and prim and proper to do it. Girlymen, smart, but afraid of a little labor action, a fight! You refuse to stand up for yourselves because you are "professionals". Bullshit, no such thing, you either work for a living, or you don't. If you work for a living, you are a "professional", so get over that nonsense. If you skim and manipulate and middleman, you are a parasite for a living. If you sit on your ass, you are a leech. Work="professional".
You write up a simple letter, signed by hundreds of thousands of doctors, counter stamped AMA and whatever other medical orgs want to chime in. You CC this to every congress person, judge and lawyer in the nation. Fancy it up but along these lines:
"HI, we are the doctors, remember us? You know what? We've had it, we give the fuck up. You assholes have made our jobs near impossible. We spend more time on paperwork and in your courts then we do studying, learning new techniques or actually with patients. We think this sucks. From this date forward, you particular guys are on your own for healthcare, including your viagara prescriptions....everyone else can still come in, but not you, get it? If you fix things, we might consider going back and fixing you. Your call. c-ya later jerks!"
Totally legal, too. You can't discriminate based on sex, race, ethnicity, etc, but it says nothing about job title. Nothing at all. Do it, within a week you'd see massive healthcare reform for the better. It's called a "job action", works a charm if you actually practice solidarity. What are they going to replace you with, larry from sales?
You have 3 tables,
Table 1 (746 pages):
Column A1 - Flight Hours (as labeled)
Column A2 - Flight Legs (as labeled)
Based on the values in the table, I'm guessing this covers a 5-6 month period. (based on my information of a max. 80 flight hours/month).
Table 2 (746 pages):
Column A8 - Career Hours (as labeled)
Table 3 (746 pages):
Acft 1
Acft 2
Acft 3
Acft 4
Acft 5
Acft 6
I think it's pretty obvious that "Acft" means aircraft. The document details the flight histories of the pilots in the response set, with 1 row per pilot. However, it does not provide any informaion on the reported incident rates seen by those pilots.
Cryptic? Not really. Incomplete? Definitely.
how stupid are these people they need instructions on how to "use" it.
Reminds me of these idiots who think economics has a "goal" of maximum efficiency.
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
you're kidding right?
people have run estimates on metallic asteroids and valued them in hundreds of trillions of dollars
in a more near earth application there is already a very early form of space tourism.
The issue is not that people don't know how to monetize space, its that nobody has the guts to start up and/or invest in something so long term with such large cash outlay.
People who created the dutch east india corporation would be very disappointed in our generation.
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
Actually Ive heard on NPR that NASA read the data wrong, so wrong in fact that it appears (falsely)that the dangers are four times as bad. So even if they showed you how they did it , the end results would be grossly overstated.
.... nor did it provide keys to unlock the cryptic codes used in the dataset.'"
It's because all the keys in the datasets identify different kinds of UFOs !!
So does Anonymous Coward have good karma?
Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire
if you're interested in airline safety, there's a guy named "Stuck Mic" that posts a good bit on youtube. http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=stuckmic best i remember, he's either an air traffic controller(or was), and some of the problems go all the way back to the illegal controller strike back during the Reagan Administration. seems there's been an effort under way ever since to replace controllers with an automated system, with the results being that more money goes into the automation effort than actually training and paying a sufficient number of people to do the job. fwiw, i don't have a dog in this fight, just found it interesting. i'm sure there's three sides to everything. they also have a website here: http://www.stuckmic.com/
I once flew out of Chicago, early 1990s, 737 IIRC, where coming up off the runway the plane banked *hard* like I've never experienced before or after. It felt like a 30 degree bank, but it was probably more like 5 degrees, the human mind tends to exaggerate slopes so badly. The G force exceeded anything I've ever felt on a runway. At the crazy angle (I was on the down-wing side) the flight attendants strapped in beside the exit doors seemed like they were a floor or two above me. I was concentrating on keeping my head centered at the top of my neck, so I didn't orient myself to ground features. People gasped, but no-one vocalized. Not even a kick in the aft to lift out of Denver on a hot summer day would compare to G-force we were pulling. The plane seemed to also pitch nose upward and climb hard. It was smooth, forceful, and disorienting. I had visions of children tearing the wings off a fly. Those wings really are amazingly strong. Then the plane smoothly returned to level flight.
Moments later, with no hesitation at all, the pilot came onto the intercom in the most baritone lounge-chair voice you can imagine:
"I just had a chat with air traffic who told me they would feel a lot more comfortable if I banked to the right. I said to myself 'if they're more comfortable, then I'm more comfortable' so we did. Now we're all feeling very comfortable. It should be a smooth ride into Toronto, so relax and enjoy the in-flight service."
No doubt we were bearing toward Baltimore as he spoke and air traffic was still busy determining how to turn him around again.
I also wondered what additional service is required when they ping the G ball for 15 seconds like that. I just found a web page that states that the g-force limit of a 737 is unknown. Fortunately, the answer wasn't recovered from the flight recorder of the plane I was on that day.
My father was once on a flight that dumped fuel over the ocean, circled back, and landed five minutes after takeoff. I've always suspected that incidents were more frequent than the airline industry wishes to publicize. I wonder if that smooth recovery speech is part of the pilot simulator training. I wonder if he was giving us that speech while the copilot was checking out the lights that indicate the wings are indeed still attached.
...each incident where safety systems had to come in to play to figure out why, and what could have been done better. I just object to declaring the system unsafe while we do so.
The problem with quotes on the internet, is that nobody bothers to check their veracity. -- Abraham Lincoln
..for anything with a human safety associated?
I am. Nobody is saying that we should ignore even a single case where safety systems came in to play. All should be investigated and we should understand what, if anything, should be done differently.
That said, humans make mistakes. Parts fail. Random chance bring strange circumstances together. I'm a firefighter, trained in hazmat, confined space rescue, extrication, rope rescue, ice water rescue, Rapid Intervention, and half a dozen other kinds of emergency response. I'm quite used to working both with multiple safety systems in place and occasionally in situations which simply cannot be made safe. Sometimes, I am responsible for the safety of the general public in places.
Here's the thing - we have safety plans in place which overlap and provide wide margins whenever possible. We do this because stuff happens. You can't always predict or plan for which stuff will happen. Fires do not happen only in poorly maintained homes with inattentive owners. They can happen nearly anywhere, and at any time.
When safety systems work, we don't see that as a sign of danger, we see it as a confirmation that the safety systems were necessary. We still review each incident to see what could or should have been done better -- but that doesn't mean we stop taking any action because we declare things as unsafe.
The problem with quotes on the internet, is that nobody bothers to check their veracity. -- Abraham Lincoln
That's the exact opposite of what your original post strongly implies. An implication which you then repeat in the balance of this message.
That attitude is what killed the astronauts on Challenger... The safety systems (the backup O-rings) held - so they continued to fly.
When safety systems are called on to operate - something has failed. Period.
Your attitude arises from the fact that your safety experience is in single discrete incidents and any safety issues are over in a few hours - the fire is out, the rescue completed, etc... It is entirely inappropriate to the domains (airlines, nuclear power) to which you attempt to apply it, which are not discrete events but rather are ongoing operation across years or decades.
Why is it that you can't see a difference between internally investigating and correcting something as a routine review process and publicly declaring an entire industry to be rife with major safety issues and destined for disaster?
Clearly they are two different things.
The problem with quotes on the internet, is that nobody bothers to check their veracity. -- Abraham Lincoln
No, I do not agree that that is justification for any kind of avoidance. Systems do not change by avoiding the abuses and failures within them. Systems change by confronting the flaws head-on and continuing to do so until the system has no alternative but to change. Individuals may lose - will lose - but since individuals will ultimately lose anyway as things stand (you're open to frivolous lawsuits, the same way medical practitioners are, and face higher costs and lower returns for exactly the same reasons). America exists on a bubbling stew of paranoia, delusion and get-rich-quick schemes. But, then, to be fair so do many other nations. However, bowing to the paranoia and delusions will not save you from them. Rather, you are feeding them by doing so.
Am I suggesting the extremely high-risk tactic of pilots throwing themselves at the wolves until the wolves are so sickened by the carnage they cease to be wolves? Yes. It's the only way. There is no other, at least none that history has ever shown. And, yes, historically this technique has been used quite successfully in many cases where you had those who were afraid to have a voice.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
to those of us on the plane. One time, flying out of MSP, we pulled on the runway to takeoff, and then sharply pulled back off to the left. Since I was on the left side of the plane, I looked out the window. Low and behold, another large jet just about to land on us, coming in for a landing. Wow.
The pilot comes on, and says some bullshit about weather ahead and we're going to wait a few more minutes. I wanted to yell out 'Someone nearly got us killed, you lying sack of crap!', but likely that would get me thrown off the plane.
So whenever I hear the pilot come on, and tell some shit about weather or turbulence, or why the plane is delayed, I don't believe a word of it now. I think that's the part that pisses me off most, to know we're not being dealt with at an adult and honest level.
The two are considerably different, they also are not the topic of discussion between us.
$META_SIG_JOKE
I would love to see a similar type of report applied to cars and highways. Imagine how scary that would read. I see terrible drivers and conditions on the road everyday. I have always found it odd that the intense focus on safety in the aviation and aerospace industries aren't applied to road safety. I think road safety is something the society tends to ignore.
I defy anyone to authoratatively back up the claim that NASA intended to destroy the results. The original data, yes, but not the results. They had always intended to keep it secret for the mentioned reason of hurting airline confidence, as well as because they promised those they surveyed the results would be fully anonymous.
We discussed this survey a couple months ago when NASA denied the original FOI request for the survey to be released. That created a political backlash leading to Griffin having it released.
That original story submission was likewise flawed because it also equated the perception of safety with actual safety. It also failed to recognize that general aviation was included in the survey, and from talking to several GA pilots, my understanding is close calls are more frequent in that field, which is much more loosely controlled. Also, a close call is not an accident, so while it may be a sign that changes need to be made, and sometiems are in serious cases, it does not statistically affect your safety.*
The article seeks to create alarmism without a cause (shame, once again, on the Associated Press). The actual case is that while there is still some room for improvement (gee, humans are involved, big surprise there) in the air traffic control system in the US, it is incredibly safe.
About 2% of Americans die in automobile accidents...ie, your odds are 1 in 50 of dying in a car. Based on the number of fatalities in the airline industry versus trips for the last 20 years, you would have to take a little over 100,000 flights (4 per day for 70 years) to equal that risk. That's about as many flights as most people take car trips. So flying is about as dangerous as driving per trip, but per hour or per mile it is far safer.
* Relevant joke:
A physicist, an engineer, and a statistician are all out hunting. They spot a deer and the physicist fires first, missing 1 meter to the right. The engineer takes the second shot, missing 1 meter to the left. Seeing this, the statistician jumps up in excitement and yells "we got him!"