The Unfriendly Skies...and Runways...
by Paul McGoldrick

Politicians are usually believed to be the most likely to cover up problems, lies, errors, illegal activities, breaches of The Constitution. Although the first fingers always point at Richard Nixon, it would be really hard to argue that there aren't a lot more cover ups going on today: domestic and international. Bad news, too, whether it is about the real circumstances in Iraq, or the state of the economy being created by a government that has let the US Dollar spiral down -- creating problems in other countries -- also needs to be hidden, or a story spun about the fact that a gullible public can/will buy.

In 2005, NASA (still believing that the "Aeronautics" in its name is relevant, although a lot of us believe this is an agency that is merely cover for what is essentially a division of the military) finished a survey of thousands of commercial pilots -- airlines and general aviation -- about safety in the skies of America. It has continued to decline to make the results public after a year of the Associated Press filing Freedom of Information requests.

People don't hide positives, so we know immediately that they are withholding a lot of negatives from us in that report. What are they?

It has been said, unofficially, by a senior staff member at NASA, that the report would scare people away from flying. He's right: if he thinks what is in there will scare us off flying, he is probably saying exactly what most people would feel.

For my part, airlines have been trying to kill me  - I hope, inadvertently - for many a year. British Airways, for example, has tried twice: incorrect QFE set on a dawn approach to the plateau on which Nairobi is located, and four engines dying while flying over volcanic clouds emanating from Indonesia. Pan Am also tried to kill me with the four engines of a 747 flaming out just seconds after let-down at Heathrow.

It doesn't amuse me any more. And, a couple of years ago, when the crew of a Horizon Air Dash-8 Q-200 decided, on a flight from Portland, OR to Seattle, to go the scenic route by going over the still smoking Mount St. Helens crater and then right alongside the peak of Mount Rainier (like they were doing an altimeter check!), I complained to the airline. I got a canned response that I would have a considered explanation within thirty days but, of course, that never happened. I hope the pair of those pilots are now doing scenic flights in the Grand Canyon -- it's obviously what they thought they were trained for.

There seem to have been many more ground incidents in recent years, with stupid things like planes landing over the top of others, using the wrong runway, being on the wrong taxiway. Last week at Heathrow, two planes on the same taxiway collided. An Air Lanka (Sri Lanka) A340 clipped the wing of a British Airways 747-400 at the turn to enter the runway holding area. It has been called a minor accident.

I don't see it that way at all. The Lanka flight was on its way to The Maldives (strange route to get to Colombo...), and the BA flight was about to depart for Singapore, so both planes were fully bunkered. Another few inches along the wings of both aircraft and there would have been enough highly-explosive fuel on the ground to kill all 600+ souls on board, as well as flattening a large section of the nearby residences (where I once had a flat!).

In general, courtesy between pilots seems to have reduced in quality. It's very noticeable, for example, that the chatter on the airways has become a lot more cowboy-like with snide remarks about really minor things other crews have done, or not done. ATC ignores them, but they are childish, and unprofessional.

NASA's continued refusal to publish this report has to suggest that there are a lot more events than the FAA has reported -- or maybe even heard about -- but that the confidential survey allowed these crews to talk out without reprisal from management. It was only after three accidents involving Southwest Airlines, for example, with arriving 737s running off the end of runways, that someone leaked that company policy required the pilots not to deploy the auto-braking systems of the aircraft. This was so that the compulsory brake cool-down time, specified by Boeing, would not slow down the plane's turnaround time at the airport.

It then turned out that the company's pilots had never even been trained how to use the auto-braking system! They have now had training, but there is not yet any indication that company policy requires them to use the system.

Next time a reader is on a Southwest flight with a short runway (such as the one I mentioned earlier in the week, at Lindbergh Field in San Diego),  please drop me a line to tell me if brakes were employed -- with and after reverse thrust -- or did you go on a near surfing trip on the Pacific?