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.'"

Comments

On a wing and a prayer

[T1girl]

"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.

2500 pages of partial SQL in PDF - nice.

[Gorobei]

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.)

Re:2500 pages of partial SQL in PDF - nice.

[WaltBusterkeys]

-- you can't tell who, what, or when the incident occurred.

That's part of the point. The data collection is ANONYMOUS. The goal is that pilots will report MORE if they know that their voluntary reporting of incidents that don't require FAA reports will stay anonymous. Stuff happens up there. Sometimes it's bad stuff that's nobody's fault. But a pilot is far more likely to call attention to a potentially bad situation that's nobody's fault if he knows that it won't come back and bite him.

If you add the exact time and coordinates of every incident it wouldn't be hard to back-track and put names with each one. There are VERY detailed FAA records of who flew every flight leg in the country over the last few years. It's not hard to back-up anonymous data if you leave too many variables that can be referenced with outside data -- see what happened to Netflix/IMBD.

If it takes anonymity to get better data, then let's get better data. I'd much rather have more anonymous pilots reporting close calls truthfully than have fewer pilots reporting data and trying to put a positive spin on it. You can make as many laws as you want requiring disclosure, but every single pilot in the known universe will always put a positive spin on things if he knows that his job (and his family) are on the line.

Re:2500 pages of partial SQL in PDF - nice.

[Anonymous Coward]

They collect phone numbers, names, addresses, date, time, and location of incident, and make and model of aircraft involved. They (claim to) remove the identifying information but there is no mention of removing the information about the incident itself. Indeed they should not, as this information is valuable. Much more important in encouraging pilots to submit reports is the fact that submitting a report on an incident, with some exceptions, makes the submitting pilot immune to any enforcement action related to that incident. Certainly they don't release this information publicly (and they are prohibited from giving it to the FAA), but they definitely collect it and store most of it.

There are VERY detailed FAA records of who flew every flight leg in the country over the last few years.

Not in the least. There are records of every flight for which a flight plan was filed, and detailed records of IFR flights, but there are thousands of flights a day (at least) in the US about which the FAA knows basically nothing. Many non-pilots may not know this but it is possible and perfectly legal to fly from the vast majority of American airports without either asking permission, contacting any kind of controlling agency, or indeed informing anyone else if your flight at all. I have personally made over one hundred flights in the last year and a half of which the FAA has absolutely no record whatsoever.

If it takes anonymity to get better data, then let's get better data.

It takes more than anonymity. I guarantee that if the ASRS system were merely anonymous that it wouldn't get a tenth of the submissions it actually gets. Hiding the identities of the reporters and giving them immunity from prosecution really helps people to submit reports, because not only is there no cost in doing so, but there is actually a great benefit.

Not Your Job

[alan_dershowitz]

NASA begrudgingly released some results Monday from an $11.3 million federal air safety study it previously withheld from the public over concerns it would upset travelers and hurt airline profits. Hey NASA, it's not in your charter to protect airline profits. You know what IS in your charter?

"[the agency shall] provide for the widest practicable and appropriate dissemination of information concerning its activities and the results thereof."

An xls file would have been nice...

[mikelieman]

Of course, then people could see that the important columns are missing.

I have filed a NASA ASRA Report!

[flyboy974]

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.

Re:I have filed a NASA ASRA Report!

[ScrewMaster]

Punish, and also "profit by". There's an entire legal profession that centers around extracting payouts from the medical system, deserved or not.

Not all the data

[Evets]

The dataset linked in the summary looks pretty useless and is really meant to:

This file contains a portion of the actual or raw responses collected in Section A of the air carrier surveys to show the breadth and scope of the pilot community surveyed and the types of aircraft flown.

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

Re:I am an airline Pilot

[Anonymous Coward]

If you post as "Plain Old Text", it'll convert line breaks. If you post as, say, "HTML Formatted", they will not be converted.

(This is Plain Old Text.)

Re:Is a near miss proof of danger, or of safety?

[NoPantsJim]

The exact reason for the 5 mile radius has to do with the errors associated with radar and how far a plane can travel in the time it takes for the radar sweep to update. It's generally 3 mile radius/1000ft vertical near airports, 5 mile radius/1000ft vertical away from airports up to flight level 290, then 5 mile radius/2000ft vertical above that.

but yes, you're correct, it's generally a system that 'fails well'.