"Kamikaze-two-one, go around."

[Skybird]

In late october there was a controversy emerging that I have totally missed and learned about just today. A NASA report on air traffic security saw such catastrophic data that the goivernment told Nasa to withhold the release to the public.

http://www.mindfully.org/Technology/...ASA22oct07.htm

I do not know if the full story has been relased now, (Google did not help me to think so, and the geman newspaper I refer to say that Nasa released the data just threed days agho and that AP was able to decypher it just now), but Die Welt today has published numbers from that report, also quoting the deputy director of NASA.

From 2001 to 2004, over 25000 professional and 4000 private pilots had been questioned on air travels in american air space. the study costed 11.3 million dollars.

1266 "near misses" have been reported in that time, that means aircraft coming closer than 500 ft to each other - at speeds that eventually are in excess of 600 knots (if in frontal collision mode).

1312 cases have been reported when airliners were suddenly pulled up and pushed down most brutally, obviously in attempots to avoid frontal collisions in mid-air.

166 landings without asking for permission.

513 "hard landings".

4267 occaisons when birds struck the plane.

A not precisely named number of occaisons when airliner pilots slept while being on duty in cockpit.

NASA and government seemed to have agreed that these numbers never should see the light of the oublic, but AP has taken legal action by which NASA was forced to release the results on 31st of Decembre. not without adding NO conclusions, NO summary, NO structure, NO order to a document that has more than 16 thousand pages - evil to him who evil thinks. There is mounting anger and criticism for this form of obviously intentional disarranged publication, amongst others coming from the university of Stanford. It is reasonable to suspect that it was done this way in the hope that the important data would get missed in the mist. All in all the findings exceed the results of examinations by the FAA often by several factors.

the excuse why the report was locked is simple, and is admitted freely: not to hit commercial interest of airline companies by makeing the public aware.

Enjoy collecting your air miles, gentlemen.

[SUBMAN1]

Doesn't sound too bad in my book. How many take offs and landings in the US in a given year for commercial alone? 8 Million+?

That's 00.0001582% chance that you might become involved in a near miss given that these were all these near misses from the commercial sector, which they aren't!!! This is even less if you include the private pilot data. Sounds like a damn safe way to travel to me! I might as well sell my cars and commute by airplane. I am practically guaranteed to life a full life in safety that way.

-S

[Skybird]

See it that way:

Roughly 2600 near misses and almost mid-air collisions and counting four years of 365 days means a statistical mean value of 1.78 "almost happened desasters" - per day.

[AVGWarhawk]

If I'm not mistaken, a near miss is considered two aircraft thatt are 1 mile from each other. At any rate, statistically, I have a better chance of slipping in my shower cracking my head open then aircraft crash. Those figures look like a regular day at La Guardia.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by AVGWarhawk

If I'm not mistaken, a near miss is considered two aircraft thatt are 1 mile from each other. At any rate, statistically, I have a better chance of slipping in my shower cracking my head open then aircraft crash. Those figures look like a regular day at La Guardia.

No, 5oo ft/150 m. Also take into account the approach speeds of both aircraft. In worst case it is two 747s or 767 at angels 300+, flying let's say 330 kn each. that makes 660 knots approach speed if approaching frontally, head on. That is more than 1100 km/h.

At that speed you move 150 m in around half a second.

[SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by Skybird

No, 5oo ft/150 m. Also take into account the approach speeds of both aircraft. In worst case it is to 747 flying let's say 330 kn each. that makes 660 knots approach speed if approaching frotnally, head on. That is more than 1100 km/h.

At that speed you move 150 m in around half a second.

In the US, I do believe it to be 1 mile. Been to ATC out here. The aircraft start to flash at 5 miles.

In the area it is likely to happen - less than 10K feet, there is a 250 knot speed limit for this purpose alone.

-S

[SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by Skybird

See it that way:

Roughly 2600 near misses and almost mid-air collisions means a statistical mean value of 1.78 "almost happened desasters" - per day.

Mostly from Private Pilots in VFR conditions - because they are too busy watching the scenery. In the thousands of hours i have in the cockpit (I grew up in an airplane practically), I was taught to always scan the sky constantly.

If you want to put it that way - an airplane crashes on average once per day, killing at least one person a day. Now if you want to look at that on a statistical scale, that is phenominaly low considering how many aircraft are actually in the sky at a given moment in time.

Compare that to travelling by car and you can't go 1 second practically without a fatal incident!

-S

PS. Level with me. I see you have a fear in your writing in both past and present of aircraft. Countless times you post about aircraft and dangers. If I were Freud..... I'd have to guess you have a fear of flying, but it doesn't stop there. I'd venture to conclude that you even have a fear of them of simply flying over your head. I'd even go so far as to think you may not only have this fear, but you are also are extremely facinated by flight.... :hmm:

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by SUBMAN1

Mostly from Private Pilots in VFR conditions - because they are too busy watching the scenery.

Your data, please? The NASA study asked 25+ thousand professional pilots, only 4000 private ones. They also said they wanted to explicitly protect the commercial interests not of the pirvate poilots - but the airline companies.

BTW, if an Airbus at 8000ft collides with a Cessna Skylane hitting it from the side at 90 degrees -the outcome nevertheless is a catastrophe.

It has also to be pointed out that in recent years the number of accidents or almost-accidents during taxing and rolling at the airport has constantly and very significantly increased, Googling for the above report I found texts saying "drastically increased". That is with regard to major Hubs and commercial traffic centres where you have no or low private traffic only.

[antikristuseke]

Originally Posted by Skybird

See it that way:

Roughly 2600 near misses and almost mid-air collisions and counting four years of 365 days means a statistical mean value of 1.78 "almost happened desasters" - per day.

Thats still way too low for anyone to be concerned about it.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by antikristuseke

Thats still way too low for anyone to be concerned about it.

One week with two news per day of airliners falling from the sky will let you think different. Or one airliner and one private plane. Or even just one airliner per week, and the rest freaky base jumpers. I think the reason behind an alarm is that you wish to avoid the situation triggering it, due to it's potential for a harmful outcome.

I wonder what such a report would have to say about russia!