Opening Statement By Chairman Mark Udall (Space and Aeronautics)

Good afternoon. I am disappointed that we have had to convene today’s hearing. But NASA’s stated rationale for refusing to release publicly information from the taxpayer-funded National Aviation Operations Monitoring Service (NAOMS) aviation safety survey is unsupportable and required congressional scrutiny. The safety of the public has to be our first priority, especially with more and more Americans flying every year.

Specifically, in its response to the Associated Press’s request for release of the NAOMS aviation safety survey data, NASA stated that: “Release of the requested data, which are sensitive and safety-related could materially affect the public confidence in, and the commercial welfare of, the air carriers and general aviation companies whose pilots participated in the survey.”

NASA’s response in effect seems to be saying that it sees its job as putting the commercial interests of the aviation industry above the public’s right to aviation safety information.

That response is unacceptable. It’s certainly not in accordance with the National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958, which created NASA and established objectives for the agency—one of which is “the improvement of the usefulness, performance, speed, safety, and efficiency of aeronautical and space vehicles”, while directing NASA to operate in a manner that will “provide for the widest practicable and appropriate dissemination of information concerning its activities and the results thereof.”

The NASA Administrator has since distanced himself from the language in NASA’s response to the FOIA request, saying that he regrets “the impression that NASA was in any way trying to put commercial interests ahead of public safety. That was not and will never be the case.”

I’d like to hear the Administrator reiterate that stance at today’s hearing. And although I am glad that he has now agreed to release at least some of the NAOMS data publicly so that it can be used to help maintain and hopefully improve the safety of the nation’s airways, I feel strongly that all the NAOMS data should be made publicly available as soon as possible.

I intend to be vigilant to ensure that this release actually occurs in a timely manner.

Former National Traffic Safety Board Chairman Jim Hall, who is one of our witnesses today, got it right in his prepared testimony when he wrote that “It is difficult to overemphasize the importance of transparency and accountability in aviation. It is the single greatest reason why you are so safe when you get on an airplane today.” I wholeheartedly agree. We need to work hard to expand that transparency and accountability—not restrict it. And that is why all the information from the study must be released – and soon.

Yet, the struggle over the fate of the NAOMS data is not the only issue that needs attention at today’s hearing. We also need to decide where we should go from here. We will hear from a number of witnesses here today about the value of a comprehensive, ongoing survey and analysis approach to aviation safety trend analysis and accident precursor identification—the approach exemplified by the NAOMS project.

As Chairman of the Space and Aeronautics subcommittee, I have oversight responsibility for both NASA’s aeronautics and aviation R&D programs and FAA’s aviation R&D programs.

I intend to make sure that the government is taking all necessary steps to have the aviation safety data sources and analysis tools that will be needed to maintain air safety in the coming years.

Based on testimony we will hear today, there appears to be a great deal of merit to the NAOMS approach, and we need to assess whether NASA and FAA should reinstitute the project. Given its potential value and the modest amounts of funding required to make effective use of the NAOMS methodology relative to the more than $30 billion spent on NASA and FAA annually, I think the burden of proof should be on those who want to walk away from the investment made to date in the NAOMS project.

I am aware that a number of FAA officials have indicated that the FAA is not interested in NAOMS and would rather develop a new aviation safety information system combining data from multiple existing safety and performance data bases. Making as effective use as possible of existing data bases is a worthy objective, and one that quite frankly FAA should have been doing all along. However, FAA’s own documentation states that it doesn’t envision completing more than “the Phase 1 pre-implementation activities, including concept definition” for the proposed new combined Aviation Safety Information Analysis and Sharing (ASIAS) system until 2013 at the earliest.

That’s an unacceptably long time to wait, when it appears that NASA and FAA could be generating useful safety trend and accident precursor information – which will help keep the flying public safe – from a restarted NAOMS initiative almost immediately.

It also doesn’t address the question of whether NAOMS could provide additional valuable insights into the safety status and trends for the nation’s air transportation system beyond those available from existing data bases.

These issues go beyond what we are likely to have time to consider today, so I intend to have the Space and Aeronautics subcommittee pursue them in the coming months.

Mr. Chairman, we can take pride in the overall safety record of America’s air transportation system. However, we dare not rest on our laurels. We need to be vigilant to ensure that all is being done that should be done to maintain and improve that safety record – and the information gained from the taxpayer-funded NAOMS study is very important to our work. This hearing is an important step in meeting our safety oversight responsibilities, and I am glad we are holding it.