Asiana Airline's High Rate of Go Arounds at SFO

[DE727UPS]

Before bailing out of this thread, I return to the subject of the thread and ask, can we improve safety through closer examination of the data?

Beyond an airline's internal use of flight data, should regulatory bodies further utilize data?

My feeling is the FAA leaves it up to the airline to use the data to improve safety. I've seen this countless times where I work. I will be flying into Spokane in the morning and I will get an auto generated ACARS message that KGEG has a high incidence of unstabilized approaches and to be really careful. Not sure why that is but it's something generated by FOQA and the safety team.

 

[A Life Aloft]

My feeling is the FAA leaves it up to the airline to use the data to improve safety. I've seen this countless times where I work. I will be flying into Spokane in the morning and I will get an auto generated ACARS message that KGEG has a high incidence of unstabilized approaches and to be really careful. Not sure why that is but it's something generated by FOQA and the safety team.

And this is one of the implementations so that it can work well to benefit everyone. There is a reason that many carriers have a "gatekeeper" (usually a line pilot) who removes the ID of the personnel and the company only reviews the data. Most of the carrier's union have an LOA that prevents the data from being used to punish pilots. The FAA initiating even more regulations is a huge can of worms that no one wants to see and I can bet would not turn out well for anyone.

 

[Autothrust Blue]

Edited: Not sure about public disclosure.

How does the FAA use anonymous FOQA data to address specific airline deficiencies? I asked you earlier to correct me if my understanding of the anonymous nature of this data was flawed.

I read the law about a decade ago. Educate me.

Safety Alerts For Operators for one.

We have at least one or two articulable changes that are a result of SaFOs.

 

[Seggy]

In the hands of the FAA, anonymous FOQA data does little to remedy problems that airlines are unable or unwilling to address themselves.

The raw data should be public information.

By making the data public, what would that accomplish? You get much better results with safety programs by a free flow of Information.

Read the Advisory Circular concerning FOQA, a cornerstone of this program is to keep the data confidential.

http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_G...ircular.nsf/list/AC 120-82/$FILE/AC120-82.pdf

 

[Seggy]

So, the difference between the Navy and the airlines is about accountability.

Is this suppose to be a question or statement?

I know that 99.9999999999999999999999999999%, if not all airline pilots know we are accountable for our actions. Do you really mean what you said?

 

[Pilot Fighter]

By making the data public, what would that accomplish? You get much better results with safety programs by a free flow of Information.

Read the Advisory Circular concerning FOQA, a cornerstone of this program is to keep the data confidential.

http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_G...ircular.nsf/list/AC 120-82/$FILE/AC120-82.pdf

I wouldn't want to mess with FOQA. I understand the philosophy behind it and it has proven to be a valuable safety tool for airlines.

I also agree that airlines are better at solving their unique safety issues than the FAA.

In line with the subject of the the thread, I wonder if there is a way for the FAA to capture data in a way that might reveal a developing problem with a foreign carrier.

 

[Pilot Fighter]

Is this suppose to be a question or statement?

I know that 99.9999999999999999999999999999%, if not all airline pilots know we are accountable for our actions. Do you really mean what you said?

Most US airlines and their pilots do it right. Airlines have a stake in addressing safety and are in the best position to address their own needs and respond to their own problems.

However, there have been carriers that have had safety issues that were not resolved with internal mechanisms. For airlines that refuse to address their own issues, there is a failure in accountability. There isn't a great feedback loop.

Returning to the subject of this thread, I ask if the non-intrusive collection of certain data might reveal problems before they have tragic consequences. If the controllers at SFO were aware that Asiana had repeated problems with visual approaches, what mechanism was at their disposal to advance their concern?

 

[jynxyjoe]

Most US airlines and their pilots do it right. Airlines have a stake in addressing safety and are in the best position to address their own needs and respond to their own problems.

However, there have been carriers that have had safety issues that were not resolved with internal mechanisms. For airlines that refuse to address their own issues, there is a failure in accountability. There isn't a great feedback loop.

Returning to the subject of this thread, I ask if the non-intrusive collection of certain data might reveal problems before they have tragic consequences. If the controllers at SFO were aware that Asiana had repeated problems with visual approaches, what mechanism was at their disposal to advance their concern?

That last part isn't the worst idea I've heard. I know at Mesaba there was an open line of communcation between our safety guy and the DO and with ATC. Every once in a while a memo would come out saying something like, "We know you are busy up there during reroutes and diversions, and you do a great job telling dispatch your in a hold but you have to tell ATC you are entering and established in a hold. Somehow we are the only airline not soing this and dtw is pissed at us."

 

[Seggy]

I do know controllers handle certain US carriers differently (Kalitta 747s taking off in EWR and of course Southwest) so I'm sure ATC has local procedures from what they have seen from foreign airlines.

 

[inigo88]

To you guys wondering how somebody could possibly analyze go-around data, there's this little field of study you might want to look into called:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistics

It's really simple. Take the normal distribution ("Bell Curve") of go-arounds at a specific airport based on carrier. If the standard deviation is small, everyone is probably on the same level and the culprit is "random error" (i.e. random ATC delays, weather, etc.). If there are dramatic "outliers" (i.e. extremely large standard deviation) to one side or another with respect to everyone else, then that may indicate a systemic problem. Too few go-arounds relative to everyone else, and (unless their pilots are extremely skilled) that could indicate an arrogant pilot group, ATC favoritism, a go-around averse unsafe company culture, etc. Too many, and you'd want to look into culprits like unstabilized approaches, lack of pilot skill, ATC throwing them under the bus, etc.

I'm not a statistician (I just know how to read a book), but my point is this stuff isn't rocket science. I guarantee there are academics and researchers out there who do this stuff on a daily basis as their job, who could reasonably account for most variables. I get that on the union level you guys have fought company pressure to use statistics in a regulatory manner (the Colgan go-around paperwork sounds absurd), but from a 3rd party non-regulatory perspective (an agency like the NTSB for example) it makes sense to use statistical data analysis as one of many tools to increase safety.

 

[99driver]

Asiana can no longer accept a visual approach into anywhere per new company rules. They must use an IAP with vertical guidance.

Holy cow. Is it only incredible to me that their op cert hasn't been yanked? Imagine a U.S. carrier implementing that type of stop-gap policy. The feds would be all over that carrier because -do I even need to say it?- they CAN'T FLY A VISUAL APPROACH! Or is there something I'm missing here?

 

[derg]

In my case I invoked the Asoh Defense.

Kobayashi Maru?

 

[derg]

Making the data public wouldn't do jack to improve public safety.

The NTSB admin's been tweeting all she could about preliminary findings of the investigation, but how much of that information or data will show up being causal factors is the big question.

I don't think accident investigation should be treated like an episode of "The Bachelor".

 

[SteveCostello]

Making the data public wouldn't do jack to improve public safety.

The NTSB admin's been tweeting all she could about preliminary findings of the investigation, but how much of that information or data will show up being causal factors is the big question.

I don't think accident investigation should be treated like an episode of "The Bachelor".

Make that data public, and next she'll be tweeting YOUR flying stats. "Derg blew an approach into DTW today. Was over by 5kts, landed long. Farted on short final. Smelled like tacos. Disc. action being initiated. FLY SAFE!"

 

[Autothrust Blue]

To you guys wondering how somebody could possibly analyze go-around data, there's this little field of study you might want to look into called:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistics

It's really simple. Take the normal distribution ("Bell Curve") of go-arounds at a specific airport based on carrier. If the standard deviation is small, everyone is probably on the same level and the culprit is "random error" (i.e. random ATC delays, weather, etc.). If there are dramatic "outliers" (i.e. extremely large standard deviation) to one side or another with respect to everyone else, then that may indicate a systemic problem. Too few go-arounds relative to everyone else, and (unless their pilots are extremely skilled) that could indicate an arrogant pilot group, ATC favoritism, a go-around averse unsafe company culture, etc. Too many, and you'd want to look into culprits like unstabilized approaches, lack of pilot skill, ATC throwing them under the bus, etc.

I'm not a statistician (I just know how to read a book), but my point is this stuff isn't rocket science. I guarantee there are academics and researchers out there who do this stuff on a daily basis as their job, who could reasonably account for most variables. I get that on the union level you guys have fought company pressure to use statistics in a regulatory manner (the Colgan go-around paperwork sounds absurd), but from a 3rd party non-regulatory perspective (an agency like the NTSB for example) it makes sense to use statistical data analysis as one of many tools to increase safety.

I'm going to go around just to mess with you and your dismal sciences.

 

[DE727UPS]

Make that data public, and next she'll be tweeting YOUR flying stats. "Derg blew an approach into DTW today. Was over by 5kts, landed long. Farted on short final. Smelled like tacos. Disc. action being initiated. FLY SAFE!"

Well said. And the NTSB wants camera's in the cockpit? And I'm supposed to believe I won't be on YouTube the next after having an unfortunate incident? Thank Gawd for da Unions....

 

[amorris311]

Well said. And the NTSB wants camera's in the cockpit? And I'm supposed to believe I won't be on YouTube the next after having an unfortunate incident? Thank Gawd for da Unions....

I know of a few people who would love to have cameras in the cockpit. The things they would do just to make the people, who wanted them there in the first place, squirm would be priceless.

 

[pete2800]

I know of a few people who would love to have cameras in the cockpit. The things they would do just to make the people, who wanted them there in the first place, squirm would be priceless.

Haha, I can think of a few people who would make the pro-camera persons immediately filled with regret.

 

[amorris311]

Haha, I can think of a few people who would make the pro-camera persons immediately filled with regret.

That was my point.

 

[derg]

Make that data public, and next she'll be tweeting YOUR flying stats. "Derg blew an approach into DTW today. Was over by 5kts, landed long. Farted on short final. Smelled like tacos. Disc. action being initiated. FLY SAFE!"

You forgot the hashtag #smitethebullonapublicforumgetthehorns