FAA proposes to keep bird strike data secret

[Piper_Driver]

The US FAA is now proposing to not disclose information about bird strikes fearing a negative reaction among the flying public about airports with high levels of reported strikes. See the linked article:

FAA wants to keep bird strike records confidential (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090327/ap_on_go_ot/faa_bird_strikes)

[Ex Cargo Clown]

Surely they would be better in putting their efforts at attempting to find solutions to reduce the number of bird strikes.... :ugh:

[MarkD]

Keep it secret keep it safe - is Gandalf in charge at FAA?

Maybe there should be a pool on how long before it appears on wikileaks.

[manrow]

This decision is madness.

Next will be banning reporting of ANY incidents involving aircraft in case it puts the public off flying; there are a number of organisations trying to do that already - don't give them any help!

[Ancient Observer]

Another problem caused by the FAA's dual role - both running safety, and running the "promotion" of the Aviation sector in USA.
Sometimes the promotion role leads to political responses like this. .........it's a bit like the FAA response to BA's 3-engine flight - pure politics, with safety as an afterthought.

[Semaphore Sam]

Taking a helpful gambit from recent governmental actions, the FAA should issue a signing statement asserting "the so-called bird-strike problem" doesn't exist.

[jetopa]

Hmmm - om one hand I do agree with the FAA. Sensitive information should be treated with great care and we all know that 'the flying public' tends to overreact and jump at conclusions which have not much factual background.

If this is intended to gather sufficient information to create a scientific basis for measures against further, hopefully avoidable encounters of the sort 'Airbus vs. the Canadian Geese', fine.

But publicity also tells everybody: 'Hey, we're doing everything possible and we have nothing to hide'. Maybe that's the problem: that the Feds. are not doing all that should and/or could be done...

[Schumi - Red Baron]

Closing eyes in front of a problem doesn't solves it... This should not be implemented by FAA... :ugh:

[finfly1]

If there is a way to make a stupid decision, the FAA (and much of the rest of government) seem particularly adept at finding and implementing it.

[Capt Groper]

Are the Bushs' back in power? :confused:

[MagnusP]

Jetopa wrote:
we all know that 'the flying public' tends to overreact and jump at conclusions which have not much factual background.


In fairness to most SLF, they tend to react to press reports, rather than to hard information. Perhaps a better-educated public, or more restrained reporting (HAH!) would help matters.

[nascargeek21]

I think that they should NOT keep the data secret: passengers have a right to know the data!! If they keep the data secret, it may also keep some people from flying!

[Flight Safety]

Someone needs to file a Freedom of Information Act request for the data, then we'll know what it contains.

[77piker]

Just use your weather radar. It's free. I've used this technique for 10+ years at Southwest, where we are in the takeoff/landing environment more than most. I've seen many potential strikes fold their wings and dive out of the way. Coinsedence maybe, but again, it's free and seems to work.

[Dream Buster]

There was a Freedom of Information request for the final report in 2008 to be seen regading a serious flight safety incident in 2004 - result: No need for a pilot to see the result of their own Mandatory Occurrence Report.

The CAA always win...

http://www.informationtribunal.gov.uk/Documents/decisions/JGHoyteInComCivAviaAuth05Mar08.pdf

Don't bother!

DB :ok:

[EIDFZ]

I can see it now, top US lawyer sues FAA for not giving crash victim choice on Airport of departure.:eek:

[toby320]

well, I thing this is not a good idea hide information related of this problem, not help to find a solution it´s better if FAA with companies work together and find the way to avoid this serious problem:rolleyes:

[galaxy flyer]

The government agency argued that some carriers and airports would stop reporting incidents for fear the public would misinterpret the data and hold it against them.

In the horror show that is American "courts", it is lawsuits that have caused this reaction by the FAA. They cannot kill off the offending wildlife, but they, airlines and airport operators can get sued when the inevitable happens. Silly, but all-American.

GF

[Eboy]

Among the high-profile boosters of releasing the information is Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood, whose agency oversees the FAA. He said the comments ran "99.9 percent" in favor of making such information accessible.

Transportation Dept. Reverses FAA on Bird Strike Data - washingtonpost.com (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/22/AR2009042202057.html?hpid=topnews)

[angels]

Well that seems to have nailed that one on the head then.

Do you folks across the pond think airlines would be stupid enough to stop passing on reported bird strikes to the FAA because of this?

[lomapaseo]

Do you folks across the pond think airlines would be stupid enough to stop passing on reported bird strikes to the FAA because of this?

It's time to see where this goes next in a voluntary environment.

I'm quite anxious to see how Ppruners react to the actual data. If we collectively can see the benefits while minimizing the legal exposures then we have a winner.

Next step is to follow the analysis of the data by all the pseudo experts and see where that takes us.

[silverhawk]

Is this an attempt to bury the info that Hudson River crew shut down an engine that was on fire but giving thrust whilst engine No1 was already dead?

Politicians really are dirty.

[airsupport]

USA make bird strike reports mandatory

Thursday, Apr 23rd 2009 18:56Z


The United States Department of Transport decided, that bird strike reports will be mandatory in the future.

At the same time the data base about bird strikes will be published and remains in public despite proposals by the FAA to restrict access to the data.

The FAA had argued following the ditching of US flight 1549 in the Hudson River at New York in January this year and strongly increased media interest in bird strike data, that bird strike reports were voluntary. Exposure of the data in the wide public and associated media coverage could lead to potential harm to the airlines in public perceiption, so that airlines would no longer report their bird encounters leading to loss of critical data needed for regulators and aviation safety officials to uphold aviation safety.

The NTSB objected the proposal stating that "public access to all the data in the FAA Wildlife Strike Database is critical to the analysis and mitigation of the wildlife strike problem...".

[barit1]

Fox reports that FAA birdstrike data are now online (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,517715,00.html).

[Mark in CA]

WASHINGTON – Airplane collisions with birds have more than doubled at 13 major U.S. airports since 2000, according to Federal Aviation Administration data released for the first time Friday.

Eleven people have died in airplane collisions with birds or deer since 1990, the data show.

Topping the list of airports where planes were either substantially damaged or destroyed by birds since 2000 were John F. Kennedy International Airport in New York with at least 30 such accidents and Sacramento International Airport in California with at least 28 accidents. Kennedy, the nation's 6th busiest airport, is located amid wetlands that attract birds, and Sacramento International, the nation's 40th busiest, abuts farms whose crops draw birds.

FAA: bird strikes more than double at big airports (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090424/ap_on_go_ot/us_faa_bird_strikes_21)

[16down2togo]

so now the FAA found out it's now longer terorists downing planes it's birds.
Quite an achievement after all this years of bird strike reports iv'e been living with !!!
Or should we just shut down air traffic to sanction birds.
This all news is it??????
Are Birds that new a threat or are they just turning islamic those days???

[ChristiaanJ]

I couldn't resist posting this one....

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v324/ChristiaanJ/BirdAvoidance.gif

All rights reserved to the original copyright holders, of course.

CJ

[Pugilistic Animus]

CJ
it looks to me that that 747 is also equiped for IFR:}

[ChristiaanJ]

PA,
"Catseyes Cunningham" rides again, you mean?

CJ

[Pugilistic Animus]

He only killed birds at night:}

[Brian Abraham]

From Aviation Week today

The FAA released its bird strike database Friday at the direction of Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood. The agency's fear that the information might cause an unsophisticated public to worry excessively about specific locations proved unfounded. There was a flurry of attention in the general news media over the weekend, now subsided, mostly about the 59,776 total strikes since 2000 and that probably 80 percent of "wildlife strikes" are unreported.

Acting NTSB chairman, Mark Rosenker remarked, "I was particularly gratified to read [Secretary LaHood's] comments . . . suggesting he would support making these reports mandatory. In 1999, the NTSB recommended that the FAA require all airplane operators to report bird strikes." Reporting is currently voluntary.

The NTSB has set a public hearing into the January ditching of US Airways flight 1549 in June. The Board will address bird strike threats to aviation safety at that hearing.

The FAA database is operated and maintained by Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University in Prescott, Ariz. In the its current format, users can perform only limited searches online, and need to download the entire database into their own software for sophisticated searches, which the FAA admits can be cumbersome. An Embry Riddle official told the AOPA that over the next four months, it will make the database more user friendly.

Database available here Federal Aviation Administration - Wildlife Hazard Mitigation Home Page (http://wildlife-mitigation.tc.faa.gov/public_html/index.html#access)

[RetroFire]

So does keeping birdstrike data from the public necessitate keeping the data from professional flight crew? If so, why?

That's like keeping intelligence about terrorist activities prior to 9/11 from commercial pilots, instead of keeping us informed (under confidentially agreements, of course), so thus we had the tragic events of that horrid day. :ugh:

They parse out relavant info and data to us as though we were step children, and insult us with silly badges and belittleing security charades.