I am positive NATCA and PASS is tracking this as well but I am sure it is below the GAO to not use information from a non government entity such as NATCA or PASS.

“We reviewed the data that FAA provided and determined that it was sufficiently reliable for our purposes.”

The word sufficient generally means barely meets standards. If you actually cared about you Mom or Dad flying around at FL350 and 450 kts head on with your co workers family members I am almost positive sufficiently reliable will haunt you for the rest of your days.

I’ve been reading your response and honestly I’m not sure anything you said has changed my mind.

Like the fellow before me here, my point was that the GAO was willing to settle for data from an obviously flawed source.

Certainly as I mentioned in my original post, my VLJ comments were just this side of tongue and cheek, but not on the ATC numbers.

But maybe I really missed something so please correct my thinking here.

If one GAO reports claims the FAA keeps lousy statistics, how do you turn around and base conclusions in another report based on data that you essentially admit is questionable?

Rob Mark

Mr. Young states, “We reviewed the data that FAA provided and determined that it was sufficiently reliable for our purposes.” Oh, how convenient, that really adds tremendous credibility to the GAO and their reports.

It’s not only 6-day weeks but doing so with more positions combined, less frequent brakes, and often 10-hour days. Next time try a little real research.

Mr. Mark, your comments about the GAO’s credibility on Aviation were spot on.

The facts demand we set the record straight regarding your posting in which you raise questions about two recent GAO reports.

Regarding the report on runway incursions, GAO’s research identified air traffic controller fatigue as one of several contributing factors involved in runway incursions. To determine the extent to which controllers were working overtime, we obtained data on the frequency of controllers working 6-day weeks from FAA, which is the only organization that collects this information. We reviewed the data that FAA provided and determined that it was sufficiently reliable for our purposes.

We conducted our examination of controller overtime using a technique called secondary data analysis. This is a way to gather data for one purpose and subsequently use it for another and equally appropriate purpose and, in this case, at significantly less time and cost to the taxpayer.

As part of our work we also spoke with numerous people and organizations including NTSB and NATCA. Moreover, the most important element of our research on runway safety was its time-critical outcomes. The impact of the GAO report was to get officials from Congress, FAA, airlines, and airports, as well as pilots and others to recognize and take action on a serious aviation safety issue.

With regard to GAO’s report on very light jets, we were asked what the impact of very light jets was on the national airspace system. Our research showed that it was too early to accurately predict the number of very light jets that will enter the national airspace system and, thus, to predict the effect that these planes will have on the system.

We presented the results of our research which was based on an in-depth analysis of a number of publicly and commercially available aviation forecasts, combined with a literature review and discussions with a number of aviation industry experts, FAA officials, and academic experts.

Chuck Young, Manging Director, Public Affairs, GAO.

We knew that most news outlets did business this way, we had hoped and assumed that the GAO was more aggressive than this.

In controller speak, you are getting the flick.