THURSDAY, OCTOBER 25, 2007
Friday Edition: Runway Data Withheld
NASA is withholding the results of an $8.5 million study that includes interviews with 24,000 pilots about near collisions and runway interference.
The Associated Press has been trying to get its hands
on the report for more than a year using Freedom of Information Act requests but says NASA fears upsetting the traveling public.
A Washington Post story this week says:
A senior NASA official, associate administrator Thomas S. Luedtke, said
earlier that revealing the findings could damage the public's
confidence in airlines and affect airline profits. Luedtke acknowledged
that the survey results "present a comprehensive picture of certain
aspects of the U.S. commercial aviation industry."
The AP sought to obtain the survey data over 14 months under the U.S. Freedom of Information Act.
"Release of the requested data, which are sensitive and
safety-related, could materially affect the public confidence in, and
the commercial welfare of, the air carriers and general aviation
companies whose pilots participated in the survey," Luedtke wrote in a
final denial letter to the AP. NASA also cited pilot confidentiality as
a reason, although no airlines were identified in the survey, nor were
the identities of pilots, all of whom were promised anonymity.
ABC News reports:
One source affiliated with the project said it was turning up many
more reports of incidents than were officially reported to the [Federal Aviation Administration] FAA.
"There's no question the FAA did not want this out in any way, shape or form," that source told ABC News.
The FAA denies this.
"We are always interested in safety data and the analysis and
mining of aviation safety data," FAA acting administrator Bobby
Sturgell said.
Sturgell said the FAA also questioned the survey methodology.
"You could not tell where the data came from, and you could not
tell if it was the same event being reported on [twice,]" Sturgell
said. "There were a number of things which would not enable you to
analyze the data and come up with valid actions based on it."
But Krosnick said no one previously questioned the validity of the data.
Other Runway Safety Reports Are AvailableWhile you await the NASA study, you should take a look at the
FFA 2007 Runway Safety Report. The report has found that from 2003 to 2006 there were more than 1,300 runway incursions. There were only four "Category A" incidents (the most severe kind), and two of them involved collisions with ground vehicles. One was a commercial airliner and another was a general aviation aircraft. In fact, more than 80 percent of the most serious runway incidents involved a general aviation aircraft.
The report says that from 2003 to 2006:
...there were approximately 250 million operations at over 500 FAA towered airports in the United States -- about 171,200 operations per day. Of these 250 million aircraft operations, there were 1,306 runway incursions -- an average of one runway incursion per 191,500 operations during the four-year period. (see Page 21).
The study also says:
The majority (91 percent) of runway incursions --1,186 of the 1,306 runway incursions -- were Category C and D events that involved little or no risk of a collision. From FY 2004 through FY 2006, the composition of Category C and D runway incursions showed a positive shift from more severe Category C incursions to less severe Category D incursions.
You can also go to page 561 of the FAA study to read about some interesting new ways that airports are experimenting with alert lighting and even new runway markings to prevent incursions. The report indicates where various major airports in the country are in their plans to adopt some of these new ideas.
Noose Watch
There is now a
Web site called "noose watch." What a sad message this site sends about the times in which we live. Even worse, there is no shortage of hateful incidents to track on the site.
The Natural Black Hair Uproar
DiversityInc. weighs in on an uproar sparked by an unnamed
Glamour magazine employee. I suspect whites are clueless about how big a deal this is. It is not really about hair -- it is about sensitivity.
As the story goes, the
Glamour employee was giving a talk to a New York law firm about the do's and don'ts of corporate dress. She was presenting a slideshow.
The story actually "broke" back in August on -- of all places --
The American Lawyer magazine's Web site:
First slide up: an African-American woman sporting an Afro. A real no-no, announced the Glamour
editor to the 40 or so lawyers in the room. As for dreadlocks: How
truly dreadful! The style maven said it was "shocking" that some people
still think it "appropriate" to wear those hairstyles at the office.
"No offense," she sniffed, but those "political" hairstyles really have
to go.
By the time the lights flicked back on, some Cleary lawyers --
particularly the 10 or so African-American women in attendance -- were
in a state of disbelief. "It was like she was saying you shouldn't go
out with your natural hair, and if you do, you're making a political
statement," says one African-American associate. "It showed a general
cluelessness about black women and their hair."
The episode also produced a "mixed reaction" along racial
lines, says this associate. "Some [whites] didn't understand what the
big deal was ... but all the black associates saw the controversy."
Glamour execs fell all over themselves, apologizing and promising that the magazine will talk about the touchy issue of beauty and race in one of its upcoming issues.
DiversityInc says:
For black female executives, the question of whether to straighten their hair or wear it curly is serious. A Glamour magazine staffer touched off a firestorm recently by calling natural black hair a "Glamour Don't."
People who are not black and are reading this might think, "I never knew hair could be so serious." But curly hair comes only second to black skin as an identifier of black racial heritage. A company that welcomes black senior female executives with natural hair sends the message that it is inclusive.
And adds:
The apologies are commendable. But still, the incident reveals the subtle but pervasive prejudice women executives of color and black-women executives in particular face daily. It's that subtle racism that forces black-female executives to straighten their hair -- hoping that straight hair will soften objections to their racial heritage.
Canadians Still Getting GougedCanada's finance minister, Jim Flaherty, called on big retailers this week to lower prices, saying: "My message was clear: now that the Canadian dollar is at par with the
United States dollar, I strongly urge Canadian distributors,
wholesalers and retailers to reduce prices for Canadian consumers."
We are always looking for your great ideas. Send Al a few sentences and hot links.
Editor's Note: Al's Morning
Meeting is a compendium of ideas, edited story excerpts and other
materials from a variety of Web sites, as well as original concepts and
analysis. When the information comes directly from another source, it
will be attributed and a link will be provided whenever possible. The
column is fact-checked, but depends on the accuracy and integrity of
the original sources cited. Errors and inaccuracies found will be
corrected.
Posted at 11:50:54 PM
E-mail this item |
Add/View Feedback (3) |
QuickLink this item: A131987
Al's Morning Meeting Archive
MAIN
|
Back to Top
