Slashdot Log In
NASA Releases Cryptic Airline Safety Data
Posted by
timothy
on Mon Dec 31, 2007 07:53 PM
from the oh-you-wanted-the-key-too dept.
from the oh-you-wanted-the-key-too dept.
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.'"
Related Stories
Submission: NASA Releases Cryptic Airline Safety Data by Anonymous Coward
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
reminds me of the onion (Score:5, Funny)
Rep. John Haller (R-PA) introduces a bill that will allocate (classified) dollars over the next (classified) years to fight flesh-eating (classified).
Right! (Score:4, Funny)
NASA's mission (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:NASA's mission (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:NASA's mission (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Then classify an incident as 'unintended disassembly'.
Re:NASA's mission (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:NASA's mission (Score:4, Insightful)
"Mod me insightful, please"
And mind what? got an instant 5+ insightful.
Parent
Re:NASA's mission (Score:4, Interesting)
1) Profit.
2) Beat our competition to it so we don't look weak.
Number 1 is a pretty hard sell at the moment because we don't really have a clue how to monetize space yet. Some rich people are beginning to take those risks for various reasons, and hopefully something will fall out of that. Don't expect people to be seriously considering bringing in trillion dollar asteroids to NEO to mine though.
Number 2 hasn't been a motivation for a while. The few players in this arena who can field whole space programs themselves don't view each other as competitors, nor do they view failing to make it to the next milestone first as a defeat in any sense. If China proves out a full, impressive space program which looks like it might be a military or economic threat to the West, then perhaps we will see something. Until then, I wouldn't count on this as a motivator either.
Straight risk-taking isn't really an option for governments right now either, especially Western ones, due to monetary concerns (like shoveling billions into various police actions.) This leaves us basically with billionaires that have a lot of time on their hands to bring down the cost so that governments, which ultimately are most likely to take those risks, will be able to justify the cost of doing so. So if you want to see space really done right, support those companies and persons who are working to make it cheap.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
1) Profit.
2) Beat our competition to it so we don't look weak.
Sometimes in the past groups of humans have done "crazy" things in the name of survival, as well.
Number 1 is a pretty hard sell at the moment because we don't really have a clue how to monetize space yet. Some rich people are beginning to take those risks for various reasons, and hopefully something will fall out of that. Don't expect people t
blame the media (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
On a wing and a prayer (Score:3, Informative)
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? [cbsnews.com] Bush dismisses global warming warning on global sarming as the work of the the bureaucracy.
Re:On a wing and a prayer (Score:4, Funny)
Oh yeah... that was so funny, I
Parent
that G-sey feeling (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
The bank angle, of course, being the problem so many airlines are in financial trouble nowadays.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Woopteedoo (Score:2)
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.
2500 pages of partial SQL in PDF - nice. (Score:3, Informative)
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. (Score:5, Informative)
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 [slashdot.org].
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.
Parent
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Not Your Job (Score:5, Informative)
"[the agency shall] provide for the widest practicable and appropriate dissemination of information concerning its activities and the results thereof."
Re:Not Your Job (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
An xls file would have been nice... (Score:3, Informative)
Summary: (Score:5, Funny)
I have filed a NASA ASRA Report! (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Who's lying and how much? (Score:2)
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. T
data analysis (Score:2)
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
TCAS Stats (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
during the take-off and landing stages in both cases the secondary systems have to kick-in because either the
pilot was pulling up too fast and as a result would have hit the tail on runway for take-off, or they were landing
with an awkward angle.
In both cases the system automatically kicks in and "attempts" to rectify the situation. The trouble is there is a
calculation it does relating to a "project
Not all the data (Score:3, Informative)
More interesting data that was released is here: http://www.nasa.gov/news/reports/NAOMS_air_carrier_survey_data.html [nasa.gov]
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 [nasa.gov]
Is a near miss proof of danger, or of safety? (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
As a practical matter, the best way to keep people performing to standards is to treat every successful operation of the safety system as a failure of the human operators. It isn't objectively correct, more a psychological trick that reduces the tendency towards complacency.
Re:Is a near miss proof of danger, or of safety? (Score:5, Informative)
but yes, you're correct, it's generally a system that 'fails well'.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
I am an airline Pilot (Score:5, Insightful)
Let's snuff out needless rabble. (Score:2)
Stuck Mic (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Stuck Mic (Score:4, Interesting)
The odds that the FAA will ever get a fully automated system off the ground are essentially zero in my opinion. There are still airspace restructuring plans from decades ago that were canceled after running way over budget and missing every single deadline. The idea that the FAA will now leap from having equipment still branded with the Civil Aeronautics Board logo (like they do now) to a state of the art computer system is laughable.
The current stated goal of the FAA is to progress to 'Free Flight' where essentially pilots pick their flight path rather than being assigned one by ATC. Controllers then only issue commands to pilots if there is a potential conflict. If I were to start my career in ATC tomorrow, I would sincerely be shocked if it were implemented before I retired.
But then again, we could see another aluminum shower (mid-air collision) and that's been a pretty strong motivator in the past.
Parent
I love how pilots lie ... (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
regulations can help (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Open the blind when flying over the EU, sometimes you can see them wizz by close enough to feel the "wash", it's was quite an awsome sight the first time I saw it. What I find remarkable is that there are so few disasters.
Regardless of the logic in the traffic comparison, being in a plane still makes me anxious enough that I can't sleep a wink, even on trips from Oz to the EU with an airline that has never lost a plane [wikipedia.org].
Re: (Score:2)
What happened, pilot?
Oh, sorry control. WE nearly missed that other plane.
MOD DOWN - yet another minicity fuckwad (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)