Would Computerized ATC Intentionally Under Report Safety Deficiencies?

Would Computerized ATC Intentionally Under Report Safety Deficiencies?
Do incentive bonuses create cheats?


-------------------------------------------------------------------
AVflash Volume 11, Number 26a -- June 27, 2005
-------------------------------------------------------------------


WHISTLE-BLOWER'S CLAIMS SUBSTANTIATED...
A Dallas/Fort Worth air traffic controller says she's been slapped,
verbally abused and almost run off the road by some of her colleagues
-- all in the name of safety. Anne Whiteman became a federal
whistle-blower when she claimed fellow controllers and managers at the
DFW terminal radar approach control (TRACON) conspired to cover up
dozens of serious separation errors. On Thursday, the Department of
Transportation's Office of Inspector General and the U.S. Office of
Special Counsel issued a report backing Whiteman's claims, and the
Special Counsel issued a statement saying the coverups "represent
safety deficiencies and undermine the public's confidence in the air
traffic control system."
http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archive...ll.html#190038

....PROBLEMS SOLVED?...
FAA spokesman Greg Martin said the problems at DFW have been
addressed. "We take the charges seriously and as soon as we became
aware of them we took immediate corrective action," he told USA Today.
Whiteman isn't so sure. She said the OIG/Special Counsel report heaped
too much blame on a retired manager and relatively little on managers
still working in the TRACON. "Nobody has been severely reprimanded,"
she said. John Carr, president of the National Air Traffic Controllers
Association, said the FAA's reporting procedures are to blame. "The
agency has created a culture of underreporting of errors," he said.
Indeed, both controllers and managers get bonuses if safety stats
improve. Things for Whiteman have not ...
http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archive...ll.html#190039

....AMID SPIKE IN NEAR-COLLISIONS
Pilots and passengers are often blissfully oblivious of a
near-collision. But at LAX June 19 a United Express jet was forced to
abort its takeoff because a Continental Express jet had, according to
controllers, moved beyond the taxiway hold bars to within about 40
feet of the runway. Controllers ordered the abort and the United
pilots slammed on the brakes, skidding past the Continental plane with
about 100 feet to spare. It was one of three separation incidents in a
week and the fourth in a month. Before that, there hadn't been an
error reported since November. Meanwhile, the state of safety at the
New York TRACON (where controllers' overtime pay topped the charts
exponentially) is frequently lost in a bickering match between the
controllers' union and the FAA. And counterparts at Boston's Logan
International are probing a near-collision at a runway intersection.
http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archive...ll.html#190040

In article ,
Larry Dighera wrote:

Would Computerized ATC Intentionally Under Report Safety Deficiencies?
Do incentive bonuses create cheats?

I suggest you read comp.risks. I hope you aren't suggesting that computerized
ATC could be trusted more than people or that cheats couldn't find a way
around a computer system.

--
Bob Noel
no one likes an educated mule

yawn....

On Tue, 28 Jun 2005 06:09:56 -0400, Bob Noel
wrote in
::

In article ,
Larry Dighera wrote:

Would Computerized ATC Intentionally Under Report Safety Deficiencies?
Do incentive bonuses create cheats?

I suggest you read comp.risks.

I've never subscribed to that newsgroup. How is it pertinent to this
topic?

I hope you aren't suggesting that computerized ATC could be trusted
more than people or that cheats couldn't find a way around a computer
system.

I was just pondering what might change when the inevitable ATC
computerization is implemented. I would suspect that there would be
no incentive bonuses available then, so no motivation would exist to
cheat by under reporting operational errors.

On 28 Jun 2005 03:42:47 -0700, "Denny" wrote in
. com::

yawn....

Am I given to understand that you find four runway incursions at KLAX
occurring in the period of one month tiresome? Or is it the thievery
committed by bureaucrats that precipitates your yawn?

It makes me wonder how many runway incursions actually did occur.

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...
Would Computerized ATC Intentionally Under Report Safety Deficiencies?
Do incentive bonuses create cheats?


Probably not.

....but humans have a knack of working their way out of their failures and
stupidities such that, while things may get uncomfortable for a while, at
the end of the day nobody gets seriously hurt in most cases.

Computerized systems tend to fail spectacularly because they never
anticipate the conditions that will result in their failures and
stupidities... as in: air traffic shut down over all of the UK, or 120
flights cancelled at Northwest, or all your bank's ATM's are down for 36
hours, or somebody hacks in and steals 40 million credit card numbers, or
your car's ignition control system shuts down your car on the freeway
because of some minor glitch in your transmission... etc., etc... all actual
cases.

I would believe that a lot of flights should be able to go end-to-end within
a fully automated ATC system. But there will also always be some number
that will not be able to, and as long as we recognize that and design the
system accordingly, go for it.






-------------------------------------------------------------------
AVflash Volume 11, Number 26a -- June 27, 2005
-------------------------------------------------------------------


WHISTLE-BLOWER'S CLAIMS SUBSTANTIATED...
....snip...

Larry Dighera wrote:
Would Computerized ATC Intentionally Under Report Safety Deficiencies?
Do incentive bonuses create cheats?

The computer doesn't report anything at TRACON's.

On Tue, 28 Jun 2005 08:13:29 -0600, Newps wrote
in ::



Larry Dighera wrote:
Would Computerized ATC Intentionally Under Report Safety Deficiencies?
Do incentive bonuses create cheats?

The computer doesn't report anything at TRACON's.

That may change in the futu

-------------------------------------------------------------
AOPA ePilot Volume 7, Issue 24 June 17, 2005
-------------------------------------------------------------

BOYER NAMED TO COUNCIL THAT WILL HELP DEFINE NEW ATC SYSTEM
AOPA President Phil Boyer was appointed June 13 to the executive
committee of the council that will work with the federal
government to define a new air traffic control system. Boyer is
the only representative of small general aviation aircraft on the
Next Generation Air Transportation System (NGATS) Institute's
Industry Management council. It is heavily populated with leaders
from the airline and commercial aviation industry. "Not only is
AOPA fighting for GA access to airspace and airports in 2005, but
the association also is keeping its members at the forefront of
this long-term government/industry effort to ensure that GA pilots
will continue to have that access in 2025," Boyer said. See AOPA
Online
( http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/newsite...0613boyer.html ).

On Tue, 28 Jun 2005 10:08:42 -0400, "Icebound"
wrote in
::

Computerized systems tend to fail spectacularly because they never
anticipate the conditions that will result in their failures

It is difficult for software designers to anticipate every situation
that might occur. Computerized systems tend to evolve over time as
feedback is acquired and software is patched to address the issues
uncovered by use.

I would believe that a lot of flights should be able to go end-to-end within
a fully automated ATC system. But there will also always be some number
that will not be able to, and as long as we recognize that and design the
system accordingly, go for it.

She is:

http://www.jpdo.aero/site_content/ExecDirJobDesc.html
In March [2005], Federal Aviation Administrator Marion C. Blakey
announced the creation of the Next Generation Air Transportation
System Institute, a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization that will
coordinate with the Joint Planning and Development Office as it
continues to implement the Integrated National Plan.

http://www.jpdo.aero/site_content/news.html#cooling
The Administrator detailed the vision of the future system: "Our
overarching goal in the Next Generation initiative is to develop a
system that will be flexible enough to accommodate very light jets
and large commercial aircraft, manned or unmanned air vehicles,
small airports and large, business and vacation travelers alike,
and to handle up to three times the number of operations that the
current system, does with no diminution in safety, security and
efficiency. At the same time, the system would minimize the impact
of aviation on the environment."

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...
..snip...


http://www.jpdo.aero/site_content/news.html#cooling
The Administrator detailed the vision of the future system:


"Our
overarching goal in the Next Generation initiative is to develop a
system that will be flexible enough to accommodate very light jets
and large commercial aircraft, manned or unmanned air vehicles,
small airports and large, business and vacation travelers alike,
and to handle up to three times the number of operations that the
current system, does with no diminution in safety, security and
efficiency. At the same time, the system would minimize the impact
of aviation on the environment."



I have seen these quotes before. I have been involved in software projects
where they have occurred.

I wonder if the quote is as much from the Administration, as it is from the
first page of those responses (to the Request For Proposals) from all of the
software companies lining up for a piece of the development contract. The
quote has little resemblance to what will ultimately get delivered many
hundreds of millions of dollars later. And that won't include the annual
cost of maintenance if you really want that proverbial 99.9-percent up-time,
because at this stage few are even thinking about maintenance... and those
who are, are blissfully hoping that it will be *trivial* and easily
recovered from all those salaried positions that will be cut.

There is lots of argument about how successful systems get implemented. The
quote above scares me mostly because it implies that we intend to *try it
all* in one swoop. Ain't gonna happen. Henry practised on the Model A
before he built a Lincoln with air-conditioning. Bill practised with
Windows 3.0 before he built XP... and it ain't finished yet, either. As you
said: successful large systems evolve from successful small systems.

I do not pretend to know their strategy, but I hope that it will emphasize
less the grand "next Generation initiative" and focus on the mundane small
steps that could be implemented today and tomorrow.

IMHO.