Why Are Major Organizations Refusing to Share an Independent HIMS Survey?

For years, influential voices in aviation and aeromedical circles have acknowledged that parts of the current system need improvement—yet the same refrain keeps showing up: “There’s no data.”

So we built a method to collect it: an independently run survey designed to capture the full spectrum of lived experience—from pilots who felt well-supported to pilots who felt harmed. Participation is voluntary. Responses are encrypted end-to-end. Only one person holds the decryption key. The goal is simple: let real experiences speak, and let facts guide reform.

Now that meaningful data is arriving quickly, we’re also seeing something else: multiple major organizations and aeromedical entities have declined to circulate the survey.

Air safety and pilot care are not competing priorities

Air safety is paramount. But pilot well-being is not secondary—it’s foundational. A system that punishes disclosure, discourages honest reporting, or creates fear-driven participation can push people underground. When pilots don’t feel safe to be honest, safety suffers.

That’s why refusal to share a secure, independent survey raises a fair question: If we agree the system needs improvement, why avoid the data that helps us improve it?

Plausible reasons organizations hesitate to share independent surveys

1) Narrative control and “approved channels”

Large institutions often prefer controlled pathways—internal committees, official working groups, and carefully curated feedback loops. Independent surveys can feel unpredictable, even when responsibly conducted. The concern isn’t always that the data will be false; it’s that the data could be inconvenient.

2) Conflicts of interest and incentive misalignment

In many ecosystems, the same structure that claims to “support” participants may also benefit financially from long monitoring periods, repeat evaluations, recurring administrative processes, and vendor relationships. Even when individuals are well-intentioned, incentives can drift away from what’s best for the pilot.

• Revenue dependency: reform can look like reduced demand for services built around prolonged oversight.
• Professional entanglement: when oversight, service delivery, and financial gain overlap, independence erodes.
• Gatekeeping power: some systems reward control over access, timelines, and “good standing.”

3) Liability posture and legal risk avoidance

If independent data reveals patterns—delays, inconsistent standards, coercive tone, unexplained extensions, or financial burdens—organizations may worry that circulating the survey could be framed as acknowledging systemic shortcomings. Legal departments often default to risk minimization, even when the intent is improvement.

4) Reputational risk

No institution wants to be associated with outcomes pilots describe as dehumanizing, punitive, or opaque. If leaders fear results may reflect poorly on the status quo, the easiest move is to avoid amplifying the tool that measures it.

5) Fear of “opening the floodgates”

Independent data collection can scale fast—especially when trust is high. Some stakeholders may worry a large response set will create public pressure for change before they’re prepared to respond. Once you can measure a problem, it becomes harder to ignore.

6) Institutional inertia

Even when people agree change is needed, large systems move slowly. The default can be: “Not our initiative,” “Not our approved channel,” or “Not our process.” But inertia is not neutral—when pilots are suffering, delay has consequences.

7) Misunderstanding security and confidentiality

Some organizations may worry—fairly—that any survey could expose participants. That’s exactly why we built this project with encryption and minimal-access architecture. If stakeholders have concerns, we welcome them—security should be challenged and strengthened, not used as a reason to avoid measuring real outcomes.

What this behavior signals—and why it matters

When leaders say “there’s no data,” then resist a safe path to gather it, pilots are left to draw their own conclusions. At minimum, it can signal misaligned incentives: preserving the status quo may be valued more than transparently measuring its impact.

And here’s the unavoidable link: If a pilot doesn’t feel safe, supported, and treated with dignity, then safety in the National Airspace System is weakened—not strengthened.

Bottom line: The most credible path to reform is transparency. If the system is working, the data will show it. If the system is failing, the data will show that too. Either way—pilots, families, and the flying public deserve the truth.