A COMPLAINT UNDER THE DATA QUALITY ACT
Submitted January 15, 2003!
Important Note:
Neither Woolsey nor Age60Rule.com advocate for or against either the age 60 rule or others' activities in its regard. Our advocacy is for honesty, accuracy, and full disclosure in the dialog concerning, and information disseminated about, the rule. It is in that endeavor that Woolsey -- as an individual and as Age60Rule.com -- submitted a formal complaint to the FAA under the Data Quality Act of 2001 on January 15, 2003. FAA did not open a public docket until mid-April - when ordered by DOT to do so - closing on June 16.
By letter received on September 13, the FAA responded. Woolsey filed his first request for reconsideration on October 10th. Additional reconsideration issues have been brought before the FAA as new information has become available.
To skip directly to:
The Data Quality Act (DQAct) and the Age 60 Rule
Data Quality and the Woolsey Complaint
The DOT/FAA Docket of June 16
FAA response of September 9
Woolsey request for reconsideration
First Amendment to request for reconsideration
FAA letter to Senator Cornyn
Woolsey letter to Senator Cornyn
Woolsey notice to OMB/OIRA
Second Amendment to request for reconsideration
Third Amendment to request for reconsideration
Woolsey Letter to the AsMA
Link to The Center for Regulatory Effectiveness
Questions/comments for Age60Rule.com.
A SHORT HISTORY OF THE DATA QUALITY ACT
The Data Quality Act:
In 1980 Congress enacted the Paperwork Reduction Act to, among other things, "minimize the paperwork burden for individuals, small businesses, ... and other persons." The Act was later amended to require that Executive branch agencies such as DOT and FAA improve the quality and relevance of the information they collect in order to strengthen agency decisionmaking and accountibility."
In 2001, Congress again sought to strengthen government accountibility with the Data Quality Act. This Act established specific standards for the "quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity of informtion (including statistical information)" relied upon and disseminated by these Executive Branch agencies, placing oversight responsibility in the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
SENATE COMMITTEE AND THE AGE 60 RULE
The Senate Appropriations Committee "Order":
The enhanced data quality standards of 2001 came too late. Two years earlier (in 1999), the Senate Committee on Appropriations (in delibrations on the FY 2000 budget) had "ordered" the FAA to perform an analysis of accident risk vs. pilot age in order to, at least ostensibly, compel the FAA to justify its age 60 rule.
But by its inappropriate data set (an aggregation of "all" commercial and non-commercial pilots with the age 60 rule forcing all airline pilots out at age 60) the Committee's ordered study was certain -- and almost certaily intended -- to produce the false and misleading appearance of an increase in risk beginning precisely at age 60. See the study definintion as item #3 (.pdf page 3) in the Committee Report:
Appropriations Committee Report (.pdf file, 344 kb.)
Note:
Both the study population (aggregate mass of all professional pilots) and analytical methodology (a single average risk for this aggregation of all pilots) are identical to the Footnote 5 data set and analyses of the rejected, discredited, and publication-refused 1983 Golaszewski Flight Time Study. [For FAA's early knowledge of the flaw, and its rejection of that study upon receipt in 1983, see the FAA/Chin letter (.pdf file, 72 kb.).]
Woolsey Query to the Senate Appropriations Committee:
Early this year (February 17, 2003), Woolsey addressed a query to Senator Ted Stevens, current Chair of the Appropriations Committee, seeking information on the evolution of the 1999 order to the FAA. Although no response has been received, the query, itself, can be viewed at:
Woolsey-Stevens Query (.pdf file, 8 kb.)
THE FAA'S OVERLY ENTHUSIASTIC RESPONSE
Since the study as ordered by the Committee was certain to produce the same false and misleading, yet dramatic appearance of an increase in risk for pilots over age 60 as had the 1983 Golaszewski study, it was a windfall for those who would falsely promote the age 60 rule as a "safty" device. Siezing the opportunity, FAA produced not only the one specific study ordered by the Committee, but six (yes, 6) different but similar analyses, contained in four separate, stand-alone Reports. Ranging still further afield, FAA took advantage of this opportunity (in its Report No. 2) to rebut an earlier Chicago Tribune newspaper article that had reported pilots over age 60 among the safest.
FAA currently promotes and disseminates all four of these reports as "Age 60 Rule Studies" through its Civil Aeromedical Institute (CAMI) web site at:
Links to the 4 FAA/CAMI Reports
In a rather transparent effort to enhance the "validity" of these false "findings" and promote their public acceptance, FAA also sponsored the principal author of the studies, FAA/CAMI employee Dr. Dana Broach, to present the most flawed of the six analyses -- a replica in both data and methodology -- of the rejected and discredited Golaszewski study. This presentation was made to the annual Aerospace Medical Association Meeting, May 6-10, 2001 at Reno, Nevada. (See the Woolsey letter to the AsMA regarding this presentation.) The PowerPoint slides Dr. Broach used in this public presentation are available here at
Broach AsMA PowerPoint Slides (.pdf file, 456 kb.)
THE WOOLSEY DATA QUALITY ACT COMPLAINT
The Woolsey Complaint:
If allowed to stand unchalenged, this replication of both the Golaszewski study and its discredited results, by order and under the authority of the Senate's Appropriations Committee -- and widespread dissemination by FAA via professional meetings and the Internet -- would resurrect and revalidate, under this new, Appropraitions Committee "order", the Golaszewski study's disengenuously false and misleading conclusions. To challenge this unwarranted result, Age60Rule.com's Woolsey submitted a formal Complaint to the FAA under the Paperwork Reduction and Data Quality Acts (with, luckily, an informational copy to OMB). This Woolsey Complaint can be viewed at:
Woolsey Data Quality Complaint
(.pdf file, 132 kb.)
Woolsey Data Quality Complaint
(html file, 316 kb.)
Submitted to the FAA on January 15, 2003 via certified mail, return receipt, FAA "misplaced" the 62-page Woolsey complaint. Three months later (mid April), an attorney at DOT - responding to an enquiry by OMB - learned that FAA had not responded to the complaint. This attorney promptly ordered that a docket be opened, using using a copy of the informational letter faxed to DOT by OMB. The docket notice (with a link to download the faxed copy in TIF and/or .pdf formats) can be viewed at:
Note:
No "abstract" is presented -- and my name ("Steve" Woolsey) as "submitter" is incorrect. A "link" at the bottom of the docket form allows viewing of all comments submitted.
By letter dated September 9, 2003 (postmarked September 11, received September 13), FAA responded to the Woolsey complaint of January 15. This reply was signed by the Federal Air Surgeon, Dr. Jon Jordan, not the Chief Informatnion Officer as required by the OMB DQAct guidelines. The major concession proffered by Dr. Jordan - indeed, the only concession - was to bury a caveat somewhere in Reports 3 and 4 admitting the effect of removing the super-safe air carrier flight hours from the denominators of the rate equations. I consider this offer of a caveat as nothing more than a clever ruse to suggest a genuine interest in truth, while keeping the false and misleading appearance of an increase in risk beginning at age 60 unchanged and "up front and in your face." This letter can be viewed at:
FAA Reply of September 9th, (.pdf file 268kb)
Woolsey Request for Reconsideration
The Woolsey request for reconsideration points out that the correct standard for review for this complaint should have been the criteria established in the Data Quality Act - quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity of the information (including statistical information) - not the lesser standard of the Administratve Procedures Act. And further, the correct reviewing office should have been that of the Chief Information Officer, not the Federal Air Surgeon. Additional correcting and rebuttal information regarding both the Jordan reply and Reports 1-4 was also included The Woolsey request for reconsideration can be viewed at:
Woolsey Request for Reconsideration, (html file, 196kb)
Woolsey Request for Reconsideration, (.pdf file, 72kb)
First Amendment to Request for Reconsideration
On July 30, the FAA informed Senator John Cornyn that it had under consideration petitions for exemptions to the age 60 rule. In this letter, the FAA cited to the four-part CAMI reports for the false and misleading proposition that "the accident rate for pilots in the 60-63 age group is statistically greater than the accident rate for pilots ... in the 55-59 age group" and "the probability of an aviation accident as a function of pilot annual flight hours was related to age." The imlication being that the FAA coonsidered these reports influential, and it intended to rely upon them in its deliberations on the petitions for exemptions. On this basis, Woolsey amends his request for consideration to ask that the more strict Clean Water Act standards be applied to his requested reconsideration. This amendment can be viewed at:
Amendment to Request for Reconsideration, (html file, 40kb)
Amendment to Request for Reconsideration, (.pdf file, 20kb)
View FAA Letter to Senator Cornyn:
FAA Letter of July 30, (.pdf file 148kb)
Woolsey notice to Senator Cornyn
Woolsey informs Senator Cornyn of the lack of a scientific basis for the rule, advising that if, however, "other factors such as economics, operational efficiencies, and/or political expediency better support retention of the rule, then candor in their disclosure, together with honest enquiry, should be the FAA's - and the public's - objective." The senator is invited to view the complaint, FAA response, and requests for reconsideration on this website.
Woolsey information to Senator Cornyn, (html file 12kb)
Woolsey information to Senator Cornyn, (.pdf file 8kb)
Woolsey Notice and Request to OMB/OIRA
Recognizing the FAA's failure to respond in a timely manner to the original complaint, and FAA's admission in its Cornyn letter that it considered the 4-part CAMI Reports "influential," Woolsey asks that OMB fulfill its resonsibility under the DQAct by monitoring the DOT/FAA response to his requests for reconsidertion. This notice and request for OMB/OIRA supervision can be viewed at:
Woolsey notice and request to OMB/OIRA, (html file 12kb)
Woolsey notice and request to OMB/OIRA, (.pdf file 8kb)
Second Amendment to Request for Reconsideration
On October 6, 2003 (loaded onto the DMS website on October 9th), the FAA denied the PPF petition for exemptions from the age 60 rule filed more than a year earlier. In its denial, the FAA cited, inter alia, to the four CAMI studies for the propositions that they: 1) were performed in accordance with instructions from the Senate Appropriations Committee in 2000; and 2) the results of the fourth study "showed an increasing risk for pilots over the age of 60." In its letter to Senator Cornyn, the FAA had merely indicated that it would consider these CAMI studies in its denial of the PPF petitions. Here, it did. By this action, the FAA raised the status of these reports to "influential" within the scope of the Data Quality Act, thus subject to a much higher standard of quality and reliability. In this second amendment to my original complaint I point this out to my DQAct complaint reviewing authority - with an info copy to John Graham, Administrator, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB. In this same request, I also point out deficiencies in the management and oversight at CAMI for these studies' preparation - as revealed in a FAA response to my FOIA request for information on that subject. This second amendment can be viewed at:
Second Amendment to Request for Reconsideration, (html file, 52kb)
Second Amendment to Request for Reconsideration, (.pdf file, 24kb)
Third Amendment to Request for Reconsideration
On April 5th, I filed once again an amendment to my request for reconsideration of the FAA's response to my January 15, 2003 complaint under the Paperwork Reduction and Data Quality Acts. The purpose of this additional amendment is to expose the false and misleading nature of the "caveats" inserted into Reports 3 and 4 of the 4-part FAA/CAMI study the FAA publishes on the internet and cites as authority in its regulatory functions. A second purpose is to again request a response to my original request for reconsideration. This new request can be viewed at:
Third Amendment to Request for Reconsideration, (html file, 24kb)
Third Amendment to Request for Reconsideration, (.pdf file, 12kb)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
You can view the PPF petition for exemptions and my FOIA documents by returning to the Home page, then selecting the relevant pages from the menu at left.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
The FAA/CAMI/Broach Presentation to the AsMA's 2001 Annual Meeting:
The Woolsey Data Quality Act complaint incorporates a letter that he (Woolsey) addressed to the president of the Aerospace Medical Association (AsMA). This letter criticizes the four Reports produced by FAA in response to the Senate "order," and the Association, itself, for having provided a forum for the principal FAA/CAMI author (Dana Broach) to present excerpts from Report 4 (the most flawed of all the analyses) at the Association's 2001 annual meeting. The Woolsey letter to the President of the AsMA (either html or .pdf format) can be viewed at:
Woolsey Letter to AsMA
(.pdf file, no links, 100 kb.)
Woolsey Letter
(html file with links, 180 kb.)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
CENTER FOR REGULATORY EFFECTIVENESS
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
|
QUESTIONS/COMMENTS/CRITICISMS Send your criticisms, questions and/or suggestions regarding this website to the Age60Rule.com Webmaster: |
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
= = = = END = = = =