This isn't your father's NASA

[unbreakable]

Just pathetic, but sadly par for the course from the government's abysmally low standards since 2000...

NASA won't disclose air safety survey

Anxious to avoid upsetting air travelers, NASA is withholding results from an unprecedented national survey of pilots that found safety problems like near collisions and runway interference occur far more frequently than the government previously recognized.
 
NASA gathered the information under an $8.5 million safety project, through telephone interviews with roughly 24,000 commercial and general aviation pilots over nearly four years. Since ending the interviews at the beginning of 2005 and shutting down the project completely more than one year ago, the space agency has refused to divulge the results publicly.

Just last week, NASA ordered the contractor that conducted the survey to purge all related data from its computers.

It reminds me of an FCC study which was covered up: they had all the statistics about dropped calls and who had the best (and worst) networks.  The data was never released, of course- they said it would harm national security or some crap.  I guess American consumers getting screwed over helps national security.

[edit]  Now that I think about it, this also reminds me of all the buried studies Big Tobacco conducted.

[Interloper]

If you only knew...

Runway/taxiway incursions are my second biggest air safety concern (after fatigue).  Airports can be a confusing mess to navigate, especially in peak traffic hours with horrible ATC frequency congestion and in bad weather/low vis.  I actually like going into smaller municipal airports as they are more straightforward.  But O'Hare/Newark/LGA and their peers just plain suck, suck, suck!  Taxiing out my stress level is high, after takeoff, my stress level drops dramatically.  Then on approach it starts ramping back up. with the landing/clearing the runway phase being my personal most stressful time of a flight.  Consistently over the years the number of incursions on the ground hasn't improved at all, despite inflight problems remaining quite low.

Edit:  Oh, I don't agree with not disclosing the info.  I don't know what they plan to do with the results, but I'd hate to see all that time and energy and money wasted and the lessons learned not put to good use to improve things. 

[Laner]

Just pathetic, but sadly par for the course from the government's abysmally low standards since 2000...

[Autistic Angel]

Just pathetic, but sadly par for the course from the government's abysmally low standards since 2000...

I must say, my interest has been piqued.  In what ways would you say the United States government has become more effective, more efficient, more transparent, or otherwise raised its standards for performance since 2000?

-Autistic Angel

[Teggy]

Just pathetic, but sadly par for the course from the government's abysmally low standards since 2000...

I must say, my interest has been piqued.  In what ways would you say the United States government has become more effective, more efficient, more transparent, or otherwise raised its standards for performance since 2000?

-Autistic Angel

I believe he was just pointing this out as a shot against the Bush administration and not the govt in general.

[Mr. Fed]

We were in Shangi-freaking-la before.  Governmentally speaking.

[Sarkus]

Just pathetic, but sadly par for the course from the government's abysmally low standards since 2000...

I must say, my interest has been piqued.  In what ways would you say the United States government has become more effective, more efficient, more transparent, or otherwise raised its standards for performance since 2000?

-Autistic Angel

I believe he was just pointing this out as a shot against the Bush administration and not the govt in general.

The airline problems definately pre-date the current administration.  The FAA has been working on upgraded computer systems for years and years and somehow never gets them done and ready for use.

[unbreakable]

We were in Shangi-freaking-la before.  Governmentally speaking.

Things had certainly improving, rather than sliding backward.

I'm not even sure there is a single aspect of the federal government which has improved since 2000.  Certainly none I can think of.  Perhaps you can cite a few areas which have seen improvement in the past seven+ years?

[Autistic Angel]

We were in Shangi-freaking-la before.  Governmentally speaking.

My real life is hardly Shangi-freaking-la, but I can recognize several concrete ways in which it could be made significantly worse.  I don't think I agree with unbreakable's statement that the government was getting better prior to 2000, but I wouldn't dismiss him out of hand with a

unless I thought his comment was so absurd that it didn't even require a civilized response.

Perhaps, if we can provoke a civilized response out of Laner, his original post will look somewhat less like an attempt to egg unbreakable on while contributing nothing of substance to the discussion. 

-Autistic Angel

[helot2000]

The airline problems definitely pre-date the current administration.  The FAA has been working on upgraded computer systems for years and years and somehow never gets them done and ready for use.

No argument here so far. 

The problem is that NASA spent 8.5 million on a study that ran from 1997 until 2005 and once it had results in hand, their report went unreleased or was buried.  The fact that NASA refuses to divulge the results seems par for course for an administration which loves secrecy and hates bad news of any kind.  Maybe NASA hid the results out of a misguided sense of protecting the public.  Maybe a loyal Bushie killed it...perhaps the same NASA director who denied global warming is a problem.  It will be interesting to learn the truth once it is FOIA or subpoenaed out of our Government. 

[Mr. Fed]

Perhaps, if we can provoke a civilized response out of Laner, his original post will look somewhat less like an attempt to egg unbreakable on while contributing nothing of substance to the discussion. 

The question is, what is the appropriate rhetorical response to this rhetoric?

Just pathetic, but sadly par for the course from the government's abysmally low standards since 2000...

I happen to agree with the sentiment of the OP that it sucks for the government to use my tax dollars to study something about my safety and then suppress the results.  Though something about the tone of the article makes me a bit suspicious and want to suspend judgment.

The problem is the relentless use of language and tone that tends to undermine the credibility of opposition to the Bush Administration.  Unbreakable is to anti-Bush dissent what Pat Robertson is to Christianity.

[unbreakable]

The problem is the relentless use of language and tone that tends to undermine the credibility of opposition to the Bush Administration.  Unbreakable is to anti-Bush dissent what Pat Robertson is to Christianity.

Now THAT certainly deserves a 

Especially when all the facts are on my side.  BTW, still waiting for you to state an area of the government which improved under Bush.  Just one, that should suffice.

[Mr. Fed]

Well, we're certainly not letting any sick kids push us around any more.

Actually, I'm ignoring the question because it's an inane and transparent change of subject, not to mention hopelessly ambiguous.

[unbreakable]

Actually, I'm ignoring the question because it's an inane and transparent change of subject, not to mention hopelessly ambiguous.

No, you're actually ignoring it because it proves me correct, and you would rather not have that happen.

[Canuck]

If you only knew...

Runway/taxiway incursions are my second biggest air safety concern (after fatigue).  Airports can be a confusing mess to navigate, especially in peak traffic hours with horrible ATC frequency congestion and in bad weather/low vis.  I actually like going into smaller municipal airports as they are more straightforward.  But O'Hare/Newark/LGA and their peers just plain suck, suck, suck!  Taxiing out my stress level is high, after takeoff, my stress level drops dramatically.  Then on approach it starts ramping back up. with the landing/clearing the runway phase being my personal most stressful time of a flight.  Consistently over the years the number of incursions on the ground hasn't improved at all, despite inflight problems remaining quite low.

Edit:  Oh, I don't agree with not disclosing the info.  I don't know what they plan to do with the results, but I'd hate to see all that time and energy and money wasted and the lessons learned not put to good use to improve things. 

I always wonder after landing, "how in the hell do they know where to go?"

[unbreakable]

If anyone harbors any delusions that the Bush admin is not persuing a scorched earth policy, let this sink in:

Just last week, NASA ordered the contractor that conducted the survey to purge all related data from its computers.

All those years spent, all that money spent, all that data, anything which could have been learned from it.  Gone.  Bye bye!  Like it never existed.

In Bush's America, information is the enemy, and must be eliminated at all costs.  Besides, there are so many other equally outrageous scandals coming to light on a daily basis, who can keep track of any of it?  It all becomes part of the noise machine: just get your people out there saying anyone complaining "hates Bush", and this can be a theocratic police state before you know it!

[CeeKay]

I always wonder after landing, "how in the hell do they know where to go?"

random dice tables.

[Lee]

After reading the article I am no where near as upset or scared as you want be to be Mr. Orelliy.

The 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.

"There are little things going on everyday that rarely lead to an accident but they increase the chances of an accident," said Krosnick. "It's the little things beneath the surface that cause the very infrequent crashes. You have to tackle those."

[unbreakable]

Purging all the data was a move entirely done to prevent the airlines from having to assume any liability.  I mean come on, we all know they aren't going to do anything to improve anything.  Not unless the government or the courts force them to.

So by getting rid of any data showing there is a problem, they nip the court forcing them to do anything out of the equation.  If there is no data of a problem (as there was with the Big Tobacco studies), then there is no negligence!  It's just another conservative "no one could have forseen" situation, they can't be blamed or sued, and if they get punished by the "free market", as they did after 9/11, then United can just hit up all the fiscal conservatives for another hot cash injection.

And then, of course, to get rid of the government part of the equation is easy: you have your lobbyists spread some of the most recent bailout's money around.  Then you allow the FBI and CIA to break the law, give them access to any passenger info they want.  Thus, your business staying in business is a "matter of national security".  This is the same thing the Telcos are doing, and why they are giving the government any info they want: the whole 9/11 thing is bullshit, because they were giving the Bushies full access to their network at least six months before 9/11.