NASA airline data may scare you

pontifex

Lifer
Dec 5, 2000
43,804
46
91
Article

I heard about this on the radio this morning. Basically they have info (through tests and research) about how bad airline safety is and they are afraid to release it to the public because it may scare us and hurt the airline companies' profits.

:confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused:

I know that this type of thing isn't exactly new, but why is this allowed? Do these people have no morals, souls, or what have you? It just makes me sick that people would risk the safety of other people's lives just to make an extra buck.
 

AgaBoogaBoo

Lifer
Feb 16, 2003
26,108
5
81
Let's say this is a valid concern - using current statistics of the number of accidents vs flights, wouldn't it still be safer compared to driving a car?

My point is that this report might find underlying reasons for accidents, but the results are what we have and the public seems to be contempt with how things are running right now.
 

Codewiz

Diamond Member
Jan 23, 2002
5,758
0
76
I was on a trip to SF last month. We were about 500 feet off the ground getting ready to land and I looked out of the window to the left. There was a plane within 100 yards of us. All a sudden, the pilot put the pedal to the metal and we took off. We had to make another circle around to land. The pilot said they tried to bring us in too close behind another plane. Whatever, I saw the damn plane right outside the window.

My mom works for an airline, she said one night, the pilots radioed in that their computer systems(one of these new planes all computerized) had crashed. They wanted to know if it was ok to do a complete reboot in flight........
 

StageLeft

No Lifer
Sep 29, 2000
70,150
5
0
Great, more things to scare the rabble. Flight is incredibly safe. How many major air crashes can you count that have happened in the last 20 years vs the tens of thousands of flights each year? Now, how many car accidents? Flying, unless you're in the crappy African airlines, is very safe.

Data should be available for free but the last thing we need is some knee jerk idiots throwing together legislation to correct a non-issue at vast expense.

NASA's survey, known officially as the National Aviation Operations Monitoring Service, started after a White House commission in 1997 proposed reducing fatal air crashes by 80 percent as of this year. Crashes have dropped 65 percent, with a rate of about 1 fatality in about 4.5 million departures.

 

AgaBoogaBoo

Lifer
Feb 16, 2003
26,108
5
81
Originally posted by: Anubis
it should be no mystery that big busniess will do anything to make money, even let people die
It's true that sometimes, it's cheaper for that to happen for them rather than fixing the issue, but I don't think that the majority of the cases are like that.

From what I understand, the airline industry is watched pretty closely, and so for them to do something very dangerous would be stupid and cost more than fixing the issue.
 

AgaBoogaBoo

Lifer
Feb 16, 2003
26,108
5
81
Originally posted by: Skoorb
Great, more things to scare the rabble. Flight is incredibly safe. How many major air crashes can you count that have happened in the last 20 years vs the tens of thousands of flights each year? Now, how many car accidents? Flying, unless you're in the crappy African airlines, is very safe.

Data should be available for free but the last thing we need is some knee jerk idiots throwing together legislation to correct a non-issue at vast expense.
That's exactly my point, but you worded it very well.
 

Demon-Xanth

Lifer
Feb 15, 2000
20,551
2
81
An airport probably has less close calls during a day than I see every time I go to my local Walmart's parking lot. As bad as you think the skies are, the roads are tards on parade by comparison.
 

BoomerD

No Lifer
Feb 26, 2006
65,907
14,308
146
The story I heard on the news last night on this basically said that there are far more runway "incursions" , more mid-air "near-misses" and Air Traffic Controller mistakes than the FAA will admit to. Part of it was blamed on the record number of ATC'ers retiring, leaving far more towers with inexperienced/less-trained controllers...which again, the FAA denied.
I agree that air travel is far safer than driving, BUT, anything that will improve airline safety is a good thing. I do disagree that the report should be kept under wraps. NASA, in addition to space travel, is in charge of airline safety and such. If they did a report, it should be released....for good or bad.
 

Exterous

Super Moderator
Jun 20, 2006
20,557
3,728
126
I wonder if it was with held more to do with the ailing airline industry than the results.

But, along with others, I am willing to bet that flying is still way safer than driving
 

TangoJuliet

Diamond Member
Jul 2, 2006
5,595
1
76
Originally posted by: Skoorb
Great, more things to scare the rabble. Flight is incredibly safe. How many major air crashes can you count that have happened in the last 20 years vs the tens of thousands of flights each year? Now, how many car accidents? Flying, unless you're in the crappy African airlines, is very safe.

Data should be available for free but the last thing we need is some knee jerk idiots throwing together legislation to correct a non-issue at vast expense.

NASA's survey, known officially as the National Aviation Operations Monitoring Service, started after a White House commission in 1997 proposed reducing fatal air crashes by 80 percent as of this year. Crashes have dropped 65 percent, with a rate of about 1 fatality in about 4.5 million departures.

Last 10 years? I'll name a few for you. Sure the percentage of accidents vs the number of flights is extremely low but when one does happen it does kill a lot of people both in the plane, planes, and on the ground.

May 11, 1996 - Valujet 592
July 17, 1996 - TWA 800
Nov 19, 1996 - United Express 5925
Aug 6, 1997 - Korean Air 801
Feb 16, 1998 - China Air 676
Sept 2, 1998 - Swissair 111
Jun 1, 1999 - American Airlines 1420
Jan 31, 2000 - Alaska 261
July 17, 2000 - Indian 7412
July 19, 2000 - Airwave 9807
July 25, 2000 - Air France 4590
Oct 31, 2000 - Singapore 006
Sept 11, 2001 - UAL/AAL World Trade Center
Nov 12, 2001 - American 587
Jun 22, 2003 - Brit Air 5572
Jan 3, 2004 - Flash Air 604
Aug 24, 2006 - Comair 5191

Now these are just the commercial/major ones. As an air traffic controller you really have no idea what is going on out there. I'd give you 30 minutes at my job and your eyes would be opened wide and probably would never fly again.
 

Squisher

Lifer
Aug 17, 2000
21,204
66
91
So, NASA is now a department of the Ministry of Truth?

"War is Peace," "Freedom is Slavery," "Ignorance is Strength."
 

TangoJuliet

Diamond Member
Jul 2, 2006
5,595
1
76
Originally posted by: BoomerD
The story I heard on the news last night on this basically said that there are far more runway "incursions" , more mid-air "near-misses" and Air Traffic Controller mistakes than the FAA will admit to. Part of it was blamed on the record number of ATC'ers retiring, leaving far more towers with inexperienced/less-trained controllers...which again, the FAA denied.
I agree that air travel is far safer than driving, BUT, anything that will improve airline safety is a good thing. I do disagree that the report should be kept under wraps. NASA, in addition to space travel, is in charge of airline safety and such. If they did a report, it should be released....for good or bad.

Wish more people like you were educated on the subject.

Text

Text

Text
 
Apr 16, 2003
179
0
0
Originally posted by: Codewiz
I was on a trip to SF last month. We were about 500 feet off the ground getting ready to land and I looked out of the window to the left. There was a plane within 100 yards of us. All a sudden, the pilot put the pedal to the metal and we took off. We had to make another circle around to land. The pilot said they tried to bring us in too close behind another plane. Whatever, I saw the damn plane right outside the window.

That is normal in SF. There are 2 parallel runways and it common that they bring down 2 planes at the same time. The pilot often announces something so passengers don't freak out.

What happened to you was that the previous plane that landed hadn't cleared the runway in time so the pilot did a go-around landing which is actually a pretty common occurrence.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Go_around
 

TangoJuliet

Diamond Member
Jul 2, 2006
5,595
1
76
For those of you that love unions here is a statement from the air traffic controller's union president

Text

STATEMENT BY NATCA PRESIDENT PATRICK FORREY
OCT. 22, 2007

FAA air traffic controllers today are working their 415th day without a contract. This is taking a very serious toll on the controller workforce and the nation?s aviation system. Only once in our nation?s history have we seen conditions in our air traffic control facilities that are as acrimonious, overworked, overstressed, demoralized and angry as we do today and that was in the period leading up to the 1981 PATCO strike. The FAA, last Friday, rushed out a press release late in the day in a desperate attempt to put a positive spin on a situation that we firmly believe is quickly spinning out-of-control.

There is only one possible solution to this crisis: We must have a contract. The House of Representatives last month passed an FAA bill that would send us back to the contract table, but until the Senate acts on its own version, and the two bills are reconciled in conference, the situation will worsen. Veteran controllers must have an incentive NOT to retire once eligible. Experienced controllers need a reason to use the six-plus years of service they have left before mandatory retirement to keep the system running today and train tomorrow?s controllers without being burned out and driven to total exhaustion.

Make no mistake about it: Our system is on the brink of a total breakdown because of the careless and reckless actions of the FAA, which failed to get ahead of a staffing crisis years in the making. Flight delays are at an all-time high and will get worse. This is because the FAA is forcing veteran controllers with 20 or more years of experience out the door while they rush to bring in new hires, including many off the street with zero experience, who are being thrown into a firestorm of crushing traffic demands, fewer rest periods, and inadequate training. New controllers need years of seasoning to be able to move traffic as quickly as veterans who have been doing it for 20 years or more and possess the knowledge, quick decision-making, flexibility and moxie to move the system at peak efficiency.

During classroom training in Oklahoma City, the FAA is paying its new hires less than the servers at local restaurants, with no benefits and no student loan assistance. When they reach their first FAA facility, the agency is paying them 30 percent less than they did before the current contract impasse, which has led an unprecedented number of them to quit due to the inability to make ends meet. Two hundred and one quit in fiscal year 2007, to be exact. This problem has gotten worse: Four trainees at Miami Center have quit this month alone because there are too many new hires in the building than the FAA can handle and train.

In addition, we have learned that 85 percent of the job offers made to new employees in the FAA?s Eastern Terminal Service Unit this past year were declined! Of the 482 candidates offered a job as an air traffic controller, 417 turned the job down. The ETSU, as its called, comprises about one-third of the nation?s terminal air traffic control facilities. This is a major reason why the FAA, earlier this year, threw out its longstanding rule that you had to have either a college degree at an FAA-accredited program, military or civilian Department of Defense air traffic control experience in order to work as an FAA controller. The FAA went to Facebook, MySpace, Craig?s List and even advertised on city buses to find enough people off the street to fulfill their HR-driven new hire target for this past fiscal year, which, by the way, was re-baselined by nearly 700 from the original projection because of the record number of veteran controllers that retired due to the lack of a contract. Many of these new hires are being put into the busiest FAA facilities with zero experience. This has never happened before ? for good safety reasons -- and speaks to the level of desperation the FAA has reached. This is very dangerous and not fair for these new hires.

Today, we report to you some very sobering facts about how the lack of a contract is driving out our most experienced controllers into retirement.
From September 3, 2006, the Labor Day weekend date in which the FAA imposed work rules and pay cuts on controllers, until September 30, 2007, 953 experienced and fully certified controllers retired. Nine-hundred and fifty-three. That?s 8.3 percent of the total workforce of fully certified controllers and is 40 percent more than the FAA projected. In just the 2007 fiscal year, which ran from October 1, 2006 to Sept. 30, 2007, 856 controllers retired. That?s 33 percent more than the FAA projection of 643.
Total attrition of controllers in fiscal year 2007 was 1,558. That includes the 856 retirements, 201 resignations, 136 that were fired or who died, and a staggering 365 who left their controller jobs to take an FAA supervisor position because it was the only way they will ever get a raise or fair treatment. This total attrition is 30 percent more than the FAA projected.

Here is perhaps the most compelling evidence that the lack of a contract is the reason for the surge in retirements: Of the 856 who retired in fiscal year 2007, only 16 of them were forced out by the mandatory retirement age of 56. That?s 16! Everyone else left because they are FED UP with the FAA?s draconian treatment. They walked out the door with several years of experience still left on the table that the agency desperately needs to keep the system running at peak efficiency and safety. This is because the FAA cares only about cutting salary costs, and overpowering, intimidating and demoralizing its workforce, while at the same time keeping their own supervisors fully staffed and flush with cash. Twenty-five percent of FAA management now makes what a member of Congress makes.

As many of you know, former FAA Administrator Marion Blakey was fond of saying that that the lack of a contract would not affect retirements. In April 2006, right after the FAA broke off talks with NATCA, Blakey said controllers, quote, ?would be acting against their own self-interest,? unquote, by retiring. She stated, quote, ?There is not going to be any mass run for the exits.?

What a tragic misstatement this turned out to be. Blakey was dead wrong. As stated before, the FAA has missed its retirement projection in the 415 days we?ve suffered without a contract by 40 percent. It got so bad for the FAA this past fiscal year that their human resources department had to furiously scramble to keep up with the retirement paperwork and they even tried to pull a fast one over Congress and the media by TWICE re-baselining their retirement projection more than halfway into the fiscal year when it became apparent its staffing plan would fail miserably. The FAA in March revised its projection to 700 retirements and raised it again to 800 a few months later. Yet, the FAA even ended up missing THIS number by seven percent.

In closing, I?d like to read a few lines from a resignation letter by Shesly Gonzalez, who left Miami Center as a trainee on Oct. 13. Shesly writes, ?There is a growing tension in Miami Center that can be felt upon entering the control room. The staffing crisis has reached a point that forces fully certified controllers to work 10-hour days, six days a week. The controllers are exhausted, causing morale to be low and making it a very negative atmosphere to work in, not to mention the adverse implications that this has on safety. This is also the opinion of seven other trainees that have resigned from the facility this year. Within the past year, the FAA has begun hiring ?off-the-street? employees. These are people without experience in the field of air traffic control, without CTI certification, and with no military experience. It is appalling to think that the FAA would rather hire ?off-the-street,? than retain an employee with all those qualifications, a passion for the work, an investment of eight years towards the work and a willingness to do the work at a lower salary than his senior counterparts. I am fully aware that my resignation is of little importance to Miami Center and the FAA, however, I am confident that when enough people become aware of the problem, something will eventually be done to correct it.?
 

WolverineGator

Golden Member
Mar 20, 2001
1,011
0
76
Originally posted by: Codewiz
...the pilot put the pedal to the metal and we took off.

Actually, if the pilot did that you would end up turning sharply (uncoordinated turn), not gain speed!
 

Aharami

Lifer
Aug 31, 2001
21,205
165
106
America is run by big corporations. It doesnt surprise me that a govt agency is trying to protect their interest rather than the public's.
 

gsellis

Diamond Member
Dec 4, 2003
6,061
0
0
Originally posted by: WolverineGator
Originally posted by: Codewiz
...the pilot put the pedal to the metal and we took off.

Actually, if the pilot did that you would end up turning sharply (uncoordinated turn), not gain speed!

Unless it was an A320, then the tail would come off.

 

Xavier434

Lifer
Oct 14, 2002
10,373
1
0
I'd rather see this stuff be handled by the FAA and the unions instead of it becoming public news. I don't see how it being publicized like this will do much except add fear. Americans make weird decisions that don't make a whole lot of sense when they are scared.
 

Deeko

Lifer
Jun 16, 2000
30,213
12
81
*sigh*

I'm sure there are a lot of things the public doesn't know about regarding "scary" airline safety. Still, planes are very safe, planes are very redundant in their safety, and flight is still a perfectly acceptable way to travel. I'm glad this wasn't publicized more, it would send the sheep-like public into a frenzy over nothing.

I did a research project with the FAA involving fusalage stress durability - related to the Aloha Airlines accident almost 20 years ago. In that accident, a huge fusalage panel ripped off the plane mid-flight! Still, only one person died, and the FAA has invested millions and millions of dollars into researching how to prevent it from happening again. Not to trivialize the death in that accident, but how many people die in car accidents a day??
 

buck

Lifer
Dec 11, 2000
12,273
4
81
Originally posted by: Deeko
*sigh*

I'm sure there are a lot of things the public doesn't know about regarding "scary" airline safety. Still, planes are very safe, planes are very redundant in their safety, and flight is still a perfectly acceptable way to travel. I'm glad this wasn't publicized more, it would send the sheep-like public into a frenzy over nothing.

I did a research project with the FAA involving fusalage stress durability - related to the Aloha Airlines accident almost 20 years ago. In that accident, a huge fusalage panel ripped off the plane mid-flight! Still, only one person died, and the FAA has invested millions and millions of dollars into researching how to prevent it from happening again. Not to trivialize the death in that accident, but how many people die in car accidents a day??

:thumbsup:
 

Darwin333

Lifer
Dec 11, 2006
19,946
2,329
126
Anyone catch the article a while back (either Pop Sci or Wired) about the new GPS system for airlines? Basically, it gives the pilot a real time picture of his surrounding airspace (assuming all other airliners where equipped with the system). It sounded like a great idea that would severely cut costs for the airlines. You could stack planes closer, fly more direct routes, and get them off and on the ground quicker. Is the FAA pushing to make the system mandatory or stepping up their time line?
 

gsellis

Diamond Member
Dec 4, 2003
6,061
0
0
Originally posted by: DivideBYZero
Originally posted by: gsellis
Originally posted by: WolverineGator
Originally posted by: Codewiz
...the pilot put the pedal to the metal and we took off.

Actually, if the pilot did that you would end up turning sharply (uncoordinated turn), not gain speed!

Unless it was an A320, then the tail would come off.

:confused:
Nov 12, 2001 - American 587
 
Apr 16, 2003
179
0
0
Originally posted by: gsellis
Originally posted by: DivideBYZero
Originally posted by: gsellis
Originally posted by: WolverineGator
Originally posted by: Codewiz
...the pilot put the pedal to the metal and we took off.

Actually, if the pilot did that you would end up turning sharply (uncoordinated turn), not gain speed!

Unless it was an A320, then the tail would come off.

:confused:
Nov 12, 2001 - American 587

A300