FAA changes its reporting of air traffic close calls Critics say new system deceptive; agency defends move

The Federal Aviation Administration is changing how it reports incidents caused by airplanes flying too closely to one another - and critics of the move say it is just another way for the agency to make its numbers look better without actually making the skies any safer.

The new record-keeping policy began on June 25, a few weeks before the U.S. special counsel alleged that managers of the air traffic control system at Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport were hiding similar errors and blaming them on pilots.

Under the new reporting system, the least severe incidents will no longer be considered "loss of separation" errors - defined as when airplanes fly more closely to one another than the rules allow. Instead, these relatively minor incidents will be reclassified as "proximity events." That change is getting much of the criticism.

"Confidence men take lessons from the FAA when it comes to fudging numbers," said aviation industry consultant Michael Boyd, head of The Boyd Group of Evergreen, Colo. "These people will cut corners. The FAA's definition of safety is when nobody gets killed."

The FAA says the new system isn't meant to hide anything. Instead, it takes the subjectivity out of the incident evaluations without changing any minimum standards, said Tony Ferrate, director of the Air Traffic Safety Oversight Service, a division of the FAA.

"We think that this is a quantum leap forward," he said. By using specific formulas, "we think this is a significant improvement in the way we measure separation between aircraft."

No one is quibbling about the basic separation standards requiring aircraft to stay apart by five miles horizontally or 1,000 feet vertically. When aircraft get closer to the airport, the separation decreases to three miles horizontally, unless a small aircraft is following a larger aircraft. Then some wake turbulence requirements kick in as well.

It's the new classification system that is the issue.

The new system will show a roughly 30 percent reduction in "loss of separation" errors right off the bat, said Bryan Zionist, a controller at Chicago center, the radar facility that covers the Midwest. He is also vice president of the air traffic controllers' union in the Great Lakes region.

This will happen because the most-minor incidents will no longer be classified as errors. According to a briefing made to air traffic control personnel, the total number of "loss of separation" errors was 967 in 2004, 1,181 in 2005 and 1,103 in 2006. That number is projected to drop to about 790 for 2007, once the minor incidents become "proximity events."

"But the reality of it all is they've done absolutely nothing," Mr. Zionist said.

James Mitchell, a spokesman for the U.S. special counsel, agrees. "In a system that already seems to have problems in undercounting, this creates another avenue to undercount operational errors by turning them into proximity events," he said. "There is an incentive to not allow operational numbers to go up. This is one of the reasons we have told the secretary of transportation this could be a national problem."

Last week, The Dallas Morning News reported that the U.S. special counsel is ordering a special investigation into the operation and management of the air traffic control system at D/FW, which also oversees air traffic into Dallas Love Field.

It will be the second investigation in just two years. The first occurred after an air traffic controller alerted the FAA that managers of the Terminal Radar Approach Control, which handles all air traffic over North Texas, intentionally ignored and covered up many instances in which jets flew too close to one another.

Doug Church, spokesman for the National Air Traffic Controllers Association, said the agency's new way to report minor infractions paints a rosy, but incorrect, picture.

"Standards have not changed. What has changed is the way [the FAA is] counting them. They believe their motives are pure. We believe their motives are not as pure. Changing numbers around to try and show the system is safe doesn't mean the system is safe," Mr. Church said.

The FAA's outdated air control system has been getting a lot of flak in recent years. Along with pressure from Congress to improve aviation safety, the airlines are pushing to get more planes in and out on time. All of this is occurring while the air traffic controllers' union is in a labor dispute with the FAA.

"We have a very serious situation where controllers are working longer and harder, and stretching the situation. We believe that results in more errors," Mr. Church said.

Aside from the overall drop in numbers, there are also concerns that the way that moderate errors are categorized will drop some incidents further down the scale of importance.

"It appears that this is very outcome-driven, instead of safety-driven," said Mr. Zionist. "The reality is: By imposing this, they could have an increase in events and the public would never know it. It's very devious. This is a long-term, orchestrated plan to make themselves look good."

Spokeswoman Laura Brown said the FAA will still be counting each time an airplane gets too close to another. The new way to calculate errors will enable the agency to focus more on "really serious incidents," she said.