Fun contest! Guess where NWA's next "incident" will be!

[ThirdSeatHero]

Funny thing there Finman, I went to the data base and found that same incident in 2006.

...............Then I found 4 more in 2005 after the start of the strike, guess you "forgot" to mention those. <_<

Then theres the 2 others listed on the NTSB website, the PDX bumping incident, and the GUAM nose job, I guess you just "forgot" about those too eh?. So lets see now.....1+4+2= 7


You wouldn't be trying to mislead now would you??? Nah, you,"NEVER" forget I mentioned it. <_<

 

[robbedagain]

would that include the recent thing whereas the Airbus made an amergenc landing in North Dakota from Vancover and the aborted take off in Fargo?

 

[ThirdSeatHero]

would that include the recent thing whereas the Airbus made an amergenc landing in North Dakota from Vancover and the aborted take off in Fargo?

I don't believe so, the last incident was listed as MARCH,06 so theres more "fun" to come. :unsure:

 

[PurduePete]

One thing that I would find interesting is the statistics on the number of official FAA documented "incidents" that are occurring now vs. pre-strike. I've checked the FAA Accident/Incident Data System (AIDS). There is only one entry in there for NWA in 2006, so I'm assuming there is a reporting lag before these incedents get included in this database. When enough time has passed that the lag is caught up, this appears to be the only place where a person can truly determine the increase/decrease in safety at NWA since August 2005. Otherwise, everything is anecdotal and at the whim of selective reporting, both pre-strike and post-strike.

Does anyone know how long the lag is on the FAA website, and how complete the final information ends up being? Just to give a scale, there was a total of 16 incident reports for NWA in 2004 detailed on that website. Does this sound about right?

If anyone's interested, here's the link to the query tool that can be used to pull incidents by airline by time period.
http://www.nasdac.faa.gov/portal/page?_pag...;_schema=PORTAL

I can see how someone that makes a living by crunching numbers all day would have difficulty grasping the reality of this situation unless they read the it off of an Excel spreadsheet or bar graph. According to your logic, if it isn't a statistic on a page, it never really happened!

It shouldn't matter how long it takes the Feds to update their database - all you need to do is turn on your TV, read the paper, or surf the Internet to see that "incidents" are happening at a much greater pace now than they ever did before the strike. I'm sure that the passengers and crew on all of the flights that were inconvenienced lately would agree!

BTW, do you want to hazard a guess as to where the next one will happen?

 

[Kev3188]

I think what we're all forgetting is that perception is reality.

Do any/all of these events qualify as "incidents" per the FAA guidelines, or are they being blown out of porportion (sp?) by the media?

I don't think it matters. I'm willing to bet everyone one on these particular flights considered them emergencies.

 

[finman]

I can see how someone that makes a living by crunching numbers all day would have difficulty grasping the reality of this situation unless they read the it off of an Excel spreadsheet or bar graph. According to your logic, if it isn't a statistic on a page, it never really happened!

It shouldn't matter how long it takes the Feds to update their database - all you need to do is turn on your TV, read the paper, or surf the Internet to see that "incidents" are happening at a much greater pace now than they ever did before the strike. I'm sure that the passengers and crew on all of the flights that were inconvenienced lately would agree!

BTW, do you want to hazard a guess as to where the next one will happen?

But wouldn't your prefer to have the hard data to corroborate what you are seeing? It just seems like common sense to analyze things in a manner that removes all doubt rather than base opinions on anectodal evidence and "recent memory" that can be clouded by emotion and agenda. The hard data could very well turn out to support your hypothesis that the change in mechanic workforce has caused an increase in incidents. We really won't know until all of the incidents from 2006 make it into the database so historical trending can be done.

If the FAA data is deemed to be incomplete or inaccurate, then the data is useless and can't be used as a comparison. That's why I asked the question as to the data source. If you guys look at the detail and notice that an incident that you know occurred does not show up on the detail, the the completeness of the data would be in question, and can no longer be relied upon. But, if the data is deemed to be a complete accounting of all incidents, then it is the perfect source to use in order to validate or refute the claim of "is NWA safe".

I think what we're all forgetting is that perception is reality.

Do any/all of these events qualify as "incidents" per the FAA guidelines, or are they being blown out of porportion (sp?) by the media?

I don't think it matters. I'm willing to bet everyone one on these particular flights considered them emergencies.

But we work in the airline industry, so when we are debating the relative safety of an airline in two periods of time, we don't use public perception as a guide, do we? If we're going to debate the public perception, then it would spiral into an excercise of speculative ignorance. Shouldn't we focus on the reality of the situation, which excludes agenda driven journalism and sensationalism, and sticks to consistent and reliable recordkeeping and measuring of events?

Funny thing there Finman, I went to the data base and found that same incident in 2006.

...............Then I found 4 more in 2005 after the start of the strike, guess you "forgot" to mention those. <_<

Then theres the 2 others listed on the NTSB website, the PDX bumping incident, and the GUAM nose job, I guess you just "forgot" about those too eh?. So lets see now.....1+4+2= 7
You wouldn't be trying to mislead now would you??? Nah, you,"NEVER" forget I mentioned it. <_<

You give me way too much credit. All I said was that there was only one event in 2006, which led me to believe the data was incomplete. I didn't look any further into the data or make any comparisons because, as I stated, the 2006 data was incomplete, and thus no conclusive trending was worthwile at this point. I was more trying to determine what the other members of this board know about the integrity and completeness of the data, which hopefully will be forthcoming.

BTW, I'm glad you checked out the site; it's pretty interesting reading through some of the incidents.

 

[groundcontrol]

your'e becoming a real kill joy finman with these numbers.
can't you just place a bet or stay out of this topic?

YOU are the one making a numbers game out of this.

I believe the topic starter is the only person who has the right to change the rules. You are not the topic starter therefore, either play the game by the rules or get lost.

can you understand where I am coming from?

 

[Kev3188]

But we work in the airline industry, so when we are debating the relative safety of an airline in two periods of time, we don't use public perception as a guide, do we? If we're going to debate the public perception, then it would spiral into an excercise of speculative ignorance. Shouldn't we focus on the reality of the situation, which excludes agenda driven journalism and sensationalism, and sticks to consistent and reliable recordkeeping and measuring of events?

Finman--

Apologies if this is droll wit and/or sarcasm and I'm missing it...(it's early)


IMO, the reality of the situation is that the public is seeing NW as unsafe. Now wether that's due to "agenda driven journalism" or not is debateable. The truth is people will believe what they read/see/hear on the news and not go to websites like the one you posted (thanks for the link, BTW). It's the old "facts tell, stories sell" analogy at work....

 

[finman]

Finman--

Apologies if this is droll wit and/or sarcasm and I'm missing it...(it's early)
IMO, the reality of the situation is that the public is seeing NW as unsafe. Now wether that's due to "agenda driven journalism" or not is debateable. The truth is people will believe what they read/see/hear on the news and not go to websites like the one you posted (thanks for the link, BTW). It's the old "facts tell, stories sell" analogy at work....

Yes, I realize public perception is what drives the financials behind the safety discussion, but I was actually trying to move away from the financial aspects of this (there's some irony, eh) and get more into the factual/statistical aspects surrounding safety. These are two entirely seperate conversations, unless, of course, the statistics prove that the public perception of safety (or lack thereof)is accurate.

This may all be moot, due to the high level of statistical unreliability when analyzing very infrequent events. I.E., if there are 16 events in one year and 18 in the next, is that really a trend when it's on a baseline of 450,000 departures. But, if the historical events are fairly stable (say 15-20 events per year) and the number of events doubles or triples, then that would definetely lend credence to the assertion that NWA is less safe than before, especially on a decreased flying level.

I was hoping for some dialogue on the completeness of the data in the FAA database, but, somewhat surprisingly to me, my interest in this is somehow seen as an affront. This is somewhat puzzling to me, considering the data will likely show an increase in incident frequency, and would thus provide a much more compelling argument than the current method of jumping on each event individually and proclaiming the sky is falling (or things are going to start falling from the sky).

Alas, I'll let you guys go get back to your morbid little game.

 

[Kev3188]

I was hoping for some dialogue on the completeness of the data in the FAA database..,

I would love to discuss it once I've actually had time to check it out in-depth.

Alas, I'll let you guys go get back to your morbid little game.

What? No pick for round two?!

 

[Don Smith]

I was hoping for some dialogue on the completeness of the data in the FAA database, but, somewhat surprisingly to me, my interest in this is somehow seen as an affront. Alas, I'll let you guys go get back to your morbid little game.

You know Beanie if you want to start a discussion that just involves the "data" then by all means start the thread. Then the rest of us can dig our facts and list them there. But for now, thhis thread is a data collection tool. If we had started it last August then it would have recorded all of the incidents, we would have all the commentaries, and lots of winners !!
As it stands we have one incident this week and the game (and the data collection) goes on!

 

[local 12 proud]

Alas, I'll let you guys go get back to your morbid little game.

may the next death grip on that arm rest be yours!

 

[Hackman]

may the next death grip on that arm rest be yours!

You don't surmise a smart bean counter like finny would actually fly on Scab Air do you?

 

[local 12 proud]

You don't surmise a smart bean counter like finny would actually fly on Scab Air do you?

He may be proficient with an abacus, but yes I question his level of common sense!

 

[PurduePete]

Yes, I realize public perception is what drives the financials behind the safety discussion, but I was actually trying to move away from the financial aspects of this (there's some irony, eh) and get more into the factual/statistical aspects surrounding safety. These are two entirely seperate conversations, unless, of course, the statistics prove that the public perception of safety (or lack thereof)is accurate.

This may all be moot, due to the high level of statistical unreliability when analyzing very infrequent events. I.E., if there are 16 events in one year and 18 in the next, is that really a trend when it's on a baseline of 450,000 departures. But, if the historical events are fairly stable (say 15-20 events per year) and the number of events doubles or triples, then that would definetely lend credence to the assertion that NWA is less safe than before, especially on a decreased flying level.

I was hoping for some dialogue on the completeness of the data in the FAA database, but, somewhat surprisingly to me, my interest in this is somehow seen as an affront. This is somewhat puzzling to me, considering the data will likely show an increase in incident frequency, and would thus provide a much more compelling argument than the current method of jumping on each event individually and proclaiming the sky is falling (or things are going to start falling from the sky).

This might explain the reason why the reported incident numbers do not reflect the real state of affairs in the airline industry...
http://www.amfa33.org/kedigh_reports.htm

A very interesting read (but I'm sure that finman will find some fault with it :down: )