http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071202/ap_ ... ty_secrets
A union representing NASA employees accuses the agency's administrator of unfairly tarnishing agency employees by disparaging and misrepresenting a federal air safety project. NASA weeks ago drew intense criticism for withholding results of the research, fearing it would upset travelers and hurt airline profits.
ADVERTISEMENT
The union disputed Michael Griffin's criticisms of the program, in which thousands of commercial and private pilots were interviewed. It said his comments to Congress at an oversight hearing in October appeared to reflect fears the pilots might report to NASA higher rates of safety problems than are recorded by Federal Aviation Administration's own monitoring.
"Our primary concern is that the American taxpayer will be deprived of the fruits of millions of dollars and years of valuable aviation safety research and development because of repeated judgment failures by NASA's senior leadership," the union said in a letter sent late last week to the House Science and Technology Committee.
The union said Griffin's testimony before the committee on Oct. 31 was "shocking" and that its own investigation found "no valid scientific basis for the administrator's technical criticism" of the National Aviation Operations Monitoring System.
The hearing left the impression taxpayer money was wasted on the $11.3 million project, "an unacceptable conclusion to leave hanging in the air," said Matt Biggs, legislative director of the International Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers. The union represents many NASA scientists, engineers and technical employees.
Agency spokesman David Mould said NASA stands by Griffin's statements to Congress. "If someone disagrees, we still believe what we said. It was correct," he said.
The development is evidence of the dispute over the merits and goals of the pilot survey, staunchly defended by experts who designed it for NASA.
The union's investigation is at least the fourth probe since The Associated Press disclosed that NASA had closed down the project and was withholding results of the research. Griffin told lawmakers he disagreed with NASA's written explanation to the AP for refusing to turn over the results of the pilot survey — that doing so could undermine public confidence in the airlines and could affect the airlines' profits.
"It does not take a rocket scientist to understand that categorically refusing to release government-financed aviation safety research data to the public using the argument that it might adversely affect corporate profits is egregiously wrong," the union said in its letter to Congress.
Rep. Bart Gordon, the House committee chairman, said the union raised important questions. Gordon, D-Tenn., said NASA "appears to have spent more energy trying to cast aspersions on their own researchers' work, and raise doubts about a well understood survey approach, than they have trying to analyze the aviation safety data that's been in their possession for three years."
NASA now says it will release at least some information by year's end. It may take up to one year to vet all the data for anything that could potentially violate the anonymity promised to participating pilots.
The union urged NASA to analyze and report on the never-released survey results. "It is ridiculous to argue that NASA will take a year and needs to hire expensive outside consultants to handle a data-filtering process," it said.
Griffin's statements that NASA staff had mismanaged the program demoralized many agency employees, "like getting shot in the back by your commanding officer," Biggs said.
By questioning the validity of the survey, Griffin is dissuading analysts who might want to use the data that could track air safety trends, Biggs said.
The union urged Congress to revive NASA's research and renew broader emphasis on the agency's research into human factors in airline safety.
Congress also should investigate whether the FAA played a role in undermining the pilot survey, the union said. FAA officials questioned the survey methods based on preliminary briefings that indicated higher rates of some safety incidents than the FAA's own data.
FAA spokesman Les Dorr said NASA's questionnaires used different wording from FAA reports so comparisons may not be accurate, and that FAA officials discussed the data with NASA but have "no particular role or particular influence in whether or how the data are released."
"Although we haven't seen the NASA data, we have questions about how useful it will be," Dorr said.
The FAA is confident that its own data collection and risk analysis programs can spot emerging trends before they result in accidents, he said.