Monday, October 22, 2007
NASA Secrets and Air Traffic Controllers.
Just days after my last post on aviation maintenance, a couple of stories come out, albeit buried on back pages, about other points of interest in aviation safety.
The first involves a study done by NASA. It seems they don't want the general public to see what some might think is damning evidence regarding the safety of the flying public, for fear it might have a deleterious effect on the already struggling airlines of this nation, some of which are still in bankruptcy. The study, (Read the article for details.) involving telephone interviews of pilots, started in 2001 and continued until actual interviews ended in 2005. It was shut completely down about a year ago. Recently, the company doing the research was ordered to purge all files pertaining to the study from company computers lest any of it be leaked to the press.
Now, you should understand that simply releasing raw data from studies like this is a bad idea. Unless it's compiled, correlated, and put into proper context, it doesn't mean anything to anybody except statisticians. As one wag put it, "Figures never lie, but liars figure." And people who have agendas to promote could use the raw data to promote false and misleading conclusions.
Yet, I have to believe that 2 years is plenty of time to come up with a set of preliminary findings. Thus, I'm steered toward the belief that people within NASA (And in conjunction with the FAA.) didn't like what they saw in this report, and are afraid of its affects on the airline's bottom lines. I find this somewhat surprising and vary disappointing, in light of the fact that of all government agencies, NASA has the most open to the public regarding most of their operations and policies.
The second item involves a subject I posted on back in January of this year. You can read that post here.
In it, I mentioned several studies, including a GAO study from 2002 that stated some numbers on the hiring of controllers. The post included a link to a hiring freeze memo from the FAA. I also mentioned that although the GAO study was from 2002, the numbers were still pertinent.
Well, I'm here to officially state that I was wrong. The numbers weren't good.
I'm sorry to say, that according to this AP report, things are worse.
Once again, the FAA has been caught with their pants down regarding the staffing level of this nation's control centers. It's been this way since the Gipper put the entire membership of PATCO on the Reagan Early Departure Program back in 1981. Ever since that move, the FAA has critically, and consistently understaffed control centers, in an effort to make do with less, regardless of the effect on public safety. They've done the cost benefit analysis, and made the decision that money is more important than the possible loss of lives.
It seems the FAA "underestimated" the number of traffic controllers who are choosing retirement. I mentioned in the previous post that the controller's union was in the middle of protracted talks trying to iron out a new contract regarding pay and work rules. In September, the FAA, ended those talks and imposed arbitrary work rules and 30% pay cuts, amongst other changes. Now, they've found themselves in the midst of a mass retirement of seasoned controllers (The ones you WANT in those centers, I might add.) as most are opting for early retirement, rather than work six days a week with forced overtime.
The FAA of course, has no clothes on, and is not looking in the mirror. They're insisting that the centers "are staffed, and staffed well." But, amongst their numbers in the controller count are trainees and interns, most of which wouldn't be able to work all positions at most centers. Some of the trainees can't even work without a trainer's supervision. And they're also not saying is that there are always a number of washouts, people who get to a certain point before it's determined that he/she simply can't get the job done.
As long as I'm talking about training, this situation begs the question: Is this situation going to lead the FAA to take shortcuts in training and certification in the name of "efficiency?"
What to do? Well, I had some advice at the end of my previous post, and I still consider it viable.
Edit: Well, that didn't take long. The shit has officially hit the fan. I went back, and reread the story, which has been amended since I first posted this entry. After the AP broke this story, the NASA administrator, Michael Griffin, has officially backpedaled, and said that "NASA should focus on how we can provide information to the public, not on how we can withhold it," He said the agency's research and data "should be widely available and subject to review and scrutiny." Ya THINK?!?!?!?
The part of the AP report that got my attention is this: "But the government is withholding the information, fearful it would upset air travelers and hurt airline profits."
Well, I have news for NASA. Air travelers are plenty pissed off already. Anything on this report isn't going to hurt airline profits anymore than the status quo already has. If a person wants to get to the East coast from the West coast, he can fly, drive take the bus, or train. It's the short hoppers airlines are losing. They've lost this writer.
The first involves a study done by NASA. It seems they don't want the general public to see what some might think is damning evidence regarding the safety of the flying public, for fear it might have a deleterious effect on the already struggling airlines of this nation, some of which are still in bankruptcy. The study, (Read the article for details.) involving telephone interviews of pilots, started in 2001 and continued until actual interviews ended in 2005. It was shut completely down about a year ago. Recently, the company doing the research was ordered to purge all files pertaining to the study from company computers lest any of it be leaked to the press.
Now, you should understand that simply releasing raw data from studies like this is a bad idea. Unless it's compiled, correlated, and put into proper context, it doesn't mean anything to anybody except statisticians. As one wag put it, "Figures never lie, but liars figure." And people who have agendas to promote could use the raw data to promote false and misleading conclusions.
Yet, I have to believe that 2 years is plenty of time to come up with a set of preliminary findings. Thus, I'm steered toward the belief that people within NASA (And in conjunction with the FAA.) didn't like what they saw in this report, and are afraid of its affects on the airline's bottom lines. I find this somewhat surprising and vary disappointing, in light of the fact that of all government agencies, NASA has the most open to the public regarding most of their operations and policies.
The second item involves a subject I posted on back in January of this year. You can read that post here.
In it, I mentioned several studies, including a GAO study from 2002 that stated some numbers on the hiring of controllers. The post included a link to a hiring freeze memo from the FAA. I also mentioned that although the GAO study was from 2002, the numbers were still pertinent.
Well, I'm here to officially state that I was wrong. The numbers weren't good.
I'm sorry to say, that according to this AP report, things are worse.
Once again, the FAA has been caught with their pants down regarding the staffing level of this nation's control centers. It's been this way since the Gipper put the entire membership of PATCO on the Reagan Early Departure Program back in 1981. Ever since that move, the FAA has critically, and consistently understaffed control centers, in an effort to make do with less, regardless of the effect on public safety. They've done the cost benefit analysis, and made the decision that money is more important than the possible loss of lives.
It seems the FAA "underestimated" the number of traffic controllers who are choosing retirement. I mentioned in the previous post that the controller's union was in the middle of protracted talks trying to iron out a new contract regarding pay and work rules. In September, the FAA, ended those talks and imposed arbitrary work rules and 30% pay cuts, amongst other changes. Now, they've found themselves in the midst of a mass retirement of seasoned controllers (The ones you WANT in those centers, I might add.) as most are opting for early retirement, rather than work six days a week with forced overtime.
The FAA of course, has no clothes on, and is not looking in the mirror. They're insisting that the centers "are staffed, and staffed well." But, amongst their numbers in the controller count are trainees and interns, most of which wouldn't be able to work all positions at most centers. Some of the trainees can't even work without a trainer's supervision. And they're also not saying is that there are always a number of washouts, people who get to a certain point before it's determined that he/she simply can't get the job done.
As long as I'm talking about training, this situation begs the question: Is this situation going to lead the FAA to take shortcuts in training and certification in the name of "efficiency?"
What to do? Well, I had some advice at the end of my previous post, and I still consider it viable.
Edit: Well, that didn't take long. The shit has officially hit the fan. I went back, and reread the story, which has been amended since I first posted this entry. After the AP broke this story, the NASA administrator, Michael Griffin, has officially backpedaled, and said that "NASA should focus on how we can provide information to the public, not on how we can withhold it," He said the agency's research and data "should be widely available and subject to review and scrutiny." Ya THINK?!?!?!?
The part of the AP report that got my attention is this: "But the government is withholding the information, fearful it would upset air travelers and hurt airline profits."
Well, I have news for NASA. Air travelers are plenty pissed off already. Anything on this report isn't going to hurt airline profits anymore than the status quo already has. If a person wants to get to the East coast from the West coast, he can fly, drive take the bus, or train. It's the short hoppers airlines are losing. They've lost this writer.
Comments:
<< Home
well, i guess the saying is true about folks thinking like thoughts? :) this is especially relevant to me because hubby flies for work and to see his family. i hate flying and avoid it unless there is no other option. pissed? yeah- that's probably an understatement. everything is done with the bottom line in mind- not realizing that making flying a more enjoyable experience might actually entice new customers. sitting jammed like sardines in a tube for hours with screaming urchins and snoring fat asses- not a luxury trip. i would feel a whole lot better if i knew that there weren't going to be 'fender benders' or worse from the flight crews and ground operators.
but goddamnit! don't take more than 3 ounces of shampoo on the plane- you might have and issue.
but goddamnit! don't take more than 3 ounces of shampoo on the plane- you might have and issue.
"Now we have controllers retiring with five and six years of eligible service left because they can't stand the environment any more, the Draconian work rules, six-day workweeks and forced overtime."
Notice that doesn't say anything about "Getting Dan's ass on the ground?"
Instead, forced work rules, draconian work environments and forced overtime. I've worked under those conditions, and it was hell - and I didn't have to worry about a bunch of people whizzing through the air. It's not so much that we have officials who don't understand the FAA and flying in general, it's that we have officials who truly don't give a fuck whether you live or die, as long as UA shows a profit!
"Michael Griffin, has officially backpedaled, and said that "NASA should focus on how we can provide information to the public, not on how we can withhold it," "
Hehe.:) Nooooo Shit!:) I'll bet he finally thinks if we play in the rain, we'll get wet now, too. It's so fun to meet enlightened people. When I'm a hundred miles out of LAX at 32K, due to come into So Cal airspace, there's only one thing that better be focused on. Not "should be" Focused on, but must be focused on - getting my old ass and that shiny sumbitch both on the ground at the same time, in one piece. Period. End of discussion. Anything else is popcorn farts in a hurricane. I hear the FAA is gonna make passengers sign an agreement that says they understand this risk: "Just because it went up in one piece does not infer in any manner, that it's coming down that way."
"The part of the AP report that got my attention is this: "But the government is withholding the information, fearful it would upset air travelers and hurt airline profits."
That sums it all up in a pretty little spreadsheet statement. "Upset air travelers." I can understand that thinking [sic]. Going into the side of a mountain because of some overworked rookie in a So Cal tower, while ignorantly blissful, is much less dead!
But Betmo summed up the mentality of our entire government, not just flying, when she said "but goddamnit! don't take more than 3 ounces of shampoo on the plane- you might have an issue."
Incompetence, ignorance, and arrogance, create a failure when they meet in the same room. When they meet in an airplane......
Notice that doesn't say anything about "Getting Dan's ass on the ground?"
Instead, forced work rules, draconian work environments and forced overtime. I've worked under those conditions, and it was hell - and I didn't have to worry about a bunch of people whizzing through the air. It's not so much that we have officials who don't understand the FAA and flying in general, it's that we have officials who truly don't give a fuck whether you live or die, as long as UA shows a profit!
"Michael Griffin, has officially backpedaled, and said that "NASA should focus on how we can provide information to the public, not on how we can withhold it," "
Hehe.:) Nooooo Shit!:) I'll bet he finally thinks if we play in the rain, we'll get wet now, too. It's so fun to meet enlightened people. When I'm a hundred miles out of LAX at 32K, due to come into So Cal airspace, there's only one thing that better be focused on. Not "should be" Focused on, but must be focused on - getting my old ass and that shiny sumbitch both on the ground at the same time, in one piece. Period. End of discussion. Anything else is popcorn farts in a hurricane. I hear the FAA is gonna make passengers sign an agreement that says they understand this risk: "Just because it went up in one piece does not infer in any manner, that it's coming down that way."
"The part of the AP report that got my attention is this: "But the government is withholding the information, fearful it would upset air travelers and hurt airline profits."
That sums it all up in a pretty little spreadsheet statement. "Upset air travelers." I can understand that thinking [sic]. Going into the side of a mountain because of some overworked rookie in a So Cal tower, while ignorantly blissful, is much less dead!
But Betmo summed up the mentality of our entire government, not just flying, when she said "but goddamnit! don't take more than 3 ounces of shampoo on the plane- you might have an issue."
Incompetence, ignorance, and arrogance, create a failure when they meet in the same room. When they meet in an airplane......
I always think of my friends. That's why You have been Tagged! Failure to comply will result in an urge to eat wallpaper, strange bathroom habits, and constant guilt feelings that it was you who made the world run backwards!:)
Post a Comment
<< Home
