NASA - Airline Saftey Study

[Pedota]

Despite foozling around on the NASA site, I could not find the ‘report’. Does anyone have any insights as to their findings?

NASA releases airline safety study

After pressure from US Congress, the American space agency NASA has released the results of a $12.5 million study into airline safety.

But observers say the 16,000-page document has been presented in a way that makes it difficult for outsiders to analyse.

The research catalogues the experiences of nearly 30,000 pilots of near-misses and other safety incidents.

The head of NASA, Michael Griffin, says the survey has been poorly managed and the public should not be worried about its findings.

[Calaway]

Couldn't find the report either but did find this reported by local News24:

Alarming info on plane safety 2008-1-1 12:50

Washington - Nasa grudgingly released some results on Monday from an $11.3m federal air safety study it previously withheld from the public over concerns it would upset travellers and hurt airline profits. The data reflects hundreds of cases where pilots flew too close to other planes, plunged from altitude or landed at airports without clearance.
Nasa published the findings - contained in 16 208 pages - but did not provide a roadmap to understand them, making it cumbersome for any thorough analysis by outsiders. Released on New Year's Eve, the unprecedented research conducted over nearly four years relates to safety problems identified by about 25 000 commercial pilots and more than 4 000 private pilots interviewed by telephone.

The results appeared to reflect in part at least 1 266 incidents in which aircraft flew within 152m of each other, generally considered a near miss; at least 1 312 cases where pilots suddenly dropped or climbed inadvertently more than 91m in flight; and 166 reports of pilots landing without clearance at an airport with an active control tower. The Associated Press matched the data to the questionnaire that was used to interview pilots and was obtained separately by the AP.

Hard landings

The data also reflected 513 reports of hard landings and 4 267 cases of aircraft hitting birds.

Because Nasa scrambled the data, it was impossible to determine whether multiple pilots might be reporting the same incidents, and a key expert said the numbers appeared inflated. Nasa also did not present the data so researchers could project survey results to overall safety trends.

The data that Nasa released was "intentionally designed to prevent people from analysing the rates properly and are designed to entrap analysts into computing rates that are much higher than the survey really shows," said Jon Krosnick, a Stanford University professor and survey expert who helped design the project for Nasa. He urged Nasa to release more of the data needed for a better analysis.

Citing people familiar with the research, the AP reported earlier that the data showed events like near-collisions and runway interference occur far more frequently than previously recognised.

The data was based on interviews with about 8 000 pilots per year from 2001 until the end of 2004. Nasa Administrator Michael Griffin said Monday the survey was poorly managed and told reporters the travelling public shouldn't care about the data.

Deliberately scrambled

"It's hard for me ... to see any data here that the travelling public would care about or ought to care about," Griffin said.

Griffin dismissed suggestions Nasa chose to release the data late on New Year's Eve, when the public is distracted by holidays and news organizations are thinly staffed.

"We didn't deliberately choose to release on the slowest news day of the year," Griffin said.

Nasa drew harsh criticism from Congress and news organisations for keeping the information secret. Rejecting an AP request under the Freedom of Information Act, Nasa explained that it did not want to undermine public confidence in the airlines or hurt airline fortunes.

Griffin later overruled his staff and promised Congress he would release at least some data by the end of the year.

Nasa's survey, the National Aviation Operations Monitoring System, was intended to see whether it could help identify problems and prevent accidents. Survey planners said it was unique because it was a random survey with an 80% response rate and it did not rely on pilots to voluntarily report safety incidents.

Griffin said Nasa never intended to analyse the data it collected, but planned to pass its methodology to the aviation community.

Pilots were asked how many times they encountered safety incidents in flight and on the ground, such as near-collisions, equipment failure, runway interference, unruly passengers or trouble communicating with the tower.
SAPA

[pakeha-boy]

Quote..."The research catalogues the experiences of nearly 30,000 pilots of near-misses and other safety incidents'

Pedota...you know what mate...Ive read quite a bit of the article....

Ones mans severe turbulence is anothers light turbulence....one mans near miss is anothers "a little too close".....some of it is founded,some just crying to get money for personal projects by outfits that need the $$$$$

The system is generally pretty bloody safe,just look at the number of flights and the number of accidents,....not a bad record really.....al ittle bit of the "sky is falling" syndrome here if you ask me.

Not trying to diminish the intent of the report,but for those that think we will be able to achieve a zero-accident,zero incident zero-this-and-zero-that environment .......you need to get out a little,and live the "real" world...PB

[Ivasrus]

The report was considered highly flawed due to the survey methodology. The pilot survey was anonymous, so specific incidents could have been counted more than once.

See http://technology.newscientist.com/channel/tech/aviation/mg19626293.900-nasa-blows-millions-on-flawed-airline-safety-survey.html

Partial extract

The agency commissioned a telephone pollster to ask 29,000 pilots about their near misses, runway collisions and technical problems. At first, the poll seemed to show that these events had previously been alarmingly under-reported. Engine failures, for instance, were cited in NASA's survey at four times the rate recorded in the Federal Aviation Administration's incident records.

The problem is that NASA appears to have counted some incidents more than once. Pilots were given anonymity, so NASA can't tell when several reports of an incident refer to the same event. Explaining the gaffe to the House Committee on Science and Technology on 31 October, NASA chief Mike Griffin admitted the figures were "simply not credible".

[kookabat]

presented in a way that makes it difficult for outsiders to analyse.

Not being able to find it would make it difficult to analyse, wouldn't it?? :}

[yamaha]

Link to the report:

http://www.nasa.gov/news/reports/NAOMS.html

[Kiwiguy]

"We didn't deliberately choose to release on the slowest news day of the year," Griffin said.


Yeah sure...

I remember back about 1998 there was an admission made to the press by New Zealand Civil Aviation Authority that 9 out of 10 incidents were never investigated or disclosed to the public.

It sticks in my mind because that same year I saw a single retractable lift off at Wellington in the wrong direction into the face of Metro on finals.

NZCAA spent months trying to discount and discredit me and never did properly investigate.