NARCAP TR - 5
“ Pilot Survey Results”
Part
I
Richard F. Haines
Chief
Scientist
and
Ted Roe
Executive Director
National Aviation Reporting Center on
Anomalous Phenomena
December 20, 2001
Copyright
Abstract
This paper presents the results of a confidential aircrew survey
presented to 298 currently rated and flying commercial pilots
employed by a U. S. airline. Remarkably, a total of 70 completed
surveys (23.5%) were returned to NARCAP within a 35 day period
suggesting a high degree of general interest in this subject. Twelve
questions were asked, most of which dealt with the possibility of
past sightings of unidentified aerial phenomena (UAP) and how these
pilots dealt with the experience afterward. Forty respondents were
Captains (mean = 9,130 flight hrs.) and thirty were First Officers
(mean = 4,799 flight hrs.). A number of interesting things were
learned from this survey. It was found that (1) of the sixteen
pilots (23% of total) who said they had seen something they could
not identify in flight only four (25% of the sixteen) reported it to
their company or to a government authority and only one of these
pilots (a First Officer) who saw a UAP (he did not report it) felt
that it was a threat to aviation safety. (2) Using a scale from one
to ten concerning how interested each respondent was in the subject
of UAP (ten is maximum) the mean rating by Captains was 5.4 (SD =
3.3) while the mean rating by First Officers was 7.3 (SD = 2.3). Ten
Captains (25%) indicated no interest at all but no First Officers
showed no interest. (3) Mean level of interest in UAP tends to
increase slightly with total flight hours despite the Captains’
responses who were not at all interested in UAP. (4) A variety of
reasons were given for not reporting their UAP sightings. They
included: not knowing whom to report it to or how to do so, judging
the event to be unimportant, judging the phenomenon to be a military
test, and (being) just too strange to report. These findings are
discussed along with specific recommendations for future activities.
Introduction
Survey Background:
In the summer of 2001, NARCAP was approached by a commercial
airline captain currently flying for one of the largest carriers in
the U.S.A. He was familiar with NARCAP’s mission (cf.
www.narcap.org) and expressed a willingness to informally represent
our interests in some appropriate way within his airline.
As we discussed the topic of UAP and aviation safety, we
emphasized the fact that our organization had not developed enough
information to have any specific recommendations to give to the
aviation industry regarding particular responses to these apparent
safety related events. We advised him that NARCAP was conducting
pilot outreach programs to achieve several important objectives. The
first being to raise general awareness in the pilot community about
safety related UAP incidents. NARCAP has a highly focused interest
in safety related encounters with rare or anomalous atmospheric
phenomena and we would like to be contacted in the event of a
specific incident. Our second objective is to develop accurate
metrics regarding how often these events actually happen.
In the course of several conversations with this pilot, the idea
of conducting a survey within the pilot community began to develop.
It seemed to be a clear, direct and simple way to gain answers to
some very important questions while also serving as an effective and
relatively inexpensive outreach to the pilot community.
One of the authors (RFH) and NARCAP Technical Specialist Capt.
Robert Durant began to design the questionnaire while our pilot
began the process of requesting official permission from his
management to distribute the aircrew survey.
While our first pilot was encountering certain difficulties that
might delay approval of administering the NARCAP survey he suggested
that we contact another pilot who flies for another commercial
airline. NARCAP contacted this second pilot. In the course of our
discussions, he agreed to attempt to distribute NARCAP’s survey
within his company. He approached his management and received
permission to distribute our survey to all of their aircrews. As
described below, NARCAP duly forwarded almost 300 surveys, with
return-postage paid envelopes. These surveys were placed in their
“in-house” mail boxes. Happily, this second pilot informed NARCAP
that he has suffered no job-related difficulties in the course of
this project.
Reporting Bias and Historical Reasons for it:
The issue of UAP and commercial airlines is a complicated one.
There is clearly a longstanding bias in place that severely inhibits
the reporting of UAP incidents. This bias also acts to stifle open
discussion of the topic of UAP amongst aircrews, management, safety
administrators, and the researchers who try to acquire information
on this important topic .
Many UAP encounters involve radar contacts. Many are ground-based
radars that provide verification of the presence of uncorrelated
targets near aircraft whose crews report observations of UAP . Due
to the presence of this bias, observations and incidents go
unreported even though these “radar/visual” events involve aircrews
and passengers, radar operators, air traffic controllers and
supervisors.
This reluctance to report safety-related UAP incidents has its
roots in several significant historical events. These events have
served to create, or have significantly contributed to, an
atmosphere of fear. Fear of ridicule, fear of having one’s
competence questioned, fear of losing one’s career, fear of
government reprisal, even fear of the phenomena itself are all cited
as reasons why pilots are not officially reporting many
observations, close pacing and near mid-air collisions, and even
alleged collisions with UAP .
In the early 1950s, as the potential threat of a confrontation
with the Soviet Union solidified, it was clear that there was a need
within America for early warning of a potential Soviet attack. In
1954 officials from the U. S. military and from the airline industry
held a press conference announcing Joint Army, Navy Air Force
Publication 146 (JANAP 146) and outlining communications
instructions for reporting vital intelligence sightings or CIRVIS.
It is important to remember that not until 1972 did the U. S. have
the satellite capability to over-fly the Soviet Union and thereby
obtain advance warning of an impending attack. Commercial airline
pilots were considered an integral part of a forward observation
corps. JANAP 146 and CIRVIS were instituted as a mandatory reporting
system that eventually included both American and Canadian
commercial and general aviation. All unusual observations were to be
forwarded through the CIRVIS system to the U. S. military. Once an
observation had been reported, the reporting aviator was obligated
not to disclose the report to the press or public under threat of
fine and imprisonment. This makes sense, security wise. JANAP 146
was interested in aircraft, formations of aircraft, missiles, and
UFOBs.
Concurrently, the U. S. Air Force conducted an investigation into
UFOs under several code names including Project Sign, Project Grudge
and Project Bluebook. Reports of unusual observations, including
military and civil aviation reports, were forwarded to its Air
Technical Intelligence Command for review by air force investigators
and civilian contractors. Project Bluebook closed in 1969 with
public assurances that UFOs were not a threat to national security,
that there was no evidence that they were extraterrestrial vehicles
and that UFOs did not challenge any known laws of physics. The
Condon Report, commissioned by the U. S. Air Force and conducted by
the University of Colorado concurred and added that further research
into UFOs/UAP would contribute little of scientific value. These
conclusions have been challenged in later years (Jacobs, 1975;
Saunders and Harkins, 1968, Sturrock,1986).
In 1977, Janap 146E was released. This version relaxed the
mandatory reporting requirement and suggested instructions to report
if the reporter felt that the observation represented a matter of
national security.
When journalist Leslie Kean recently interviewed the president of
one the largest airline pilots union in the U. S. A., she asked him
specifically about pilot reports of observations, near misses and
close pacing incidents with UFOs. His response was “If these things
happened, don’t you think I would know about it?”.
Since
investigators have many declassified American and international
reports of civil, private, and military aviation related
observations, since (the U.S.A.F.) Project Bluebook is declassified
and all cases are available for review, why doesn’t he know about
it? Either he is not interested and has never taken the time to read
the available evidence or he knows about this evidence and prefers
not to speak out about it for some reason.
The fact is that from 1947 to 1977, data concerning UAP flowed
directly away from civil aviation into the military domain. When the
various accident, incident, and near-miss databases of the FAA, NTSB
and NASA were established, the categories of observation for UFO/UAP
events were not even included. In short, pilots were given no way to
openly report such bizarre sightings. Perhaps this was a reflection
of the opinions of the U. S. Air Force and a study of UFOs it
sponsored (conducted by the University of Colorado) perhaps this was
an oversight, or perhaps the bias against reporting and discussing
UAP related aviation incidents was already well entrenched at the
time these databases were established. Additionally, the majority of
the UAP pilot cases that have been declassified have been made
available approximately in the last decade. Unfortunately, this
relatively recent access to these data has not been brought to the
attention of the aviation community until now.
The phenomena of close pacing and near miss incidents with UAP
has continued to the present, quite unabated, and with an apparent
disregard for the opinions of the U. S. Air Force and the Condon
Committee (i.e., the University of Colorado study). Commercial
pilots have been faced with these experiences, with no official
means of reporting them since the late 1970’s. The present survey
further supports this view as well. However, the minority of airmen
who do choose to report these encounters often choose to use more
politically correct terms like “unidentified object, unidentified
aircraft, unknown aircraft, and unidentified traffic,” or “balloon”
to describe their sightings. Since many of these reports are
submitted anonymously the airline managers involved are often
unaware of them and can offer no support.
An interesting
trend, supported by the present survey, is that there is a large
contingent of respondents who expressed a great deal of interest in
the topic of UAP encounters. This suggests that there is a receptive
audience for a balanced presentation of UAP/aviation safety related
information.
Method
A one page, pencil and paper survey was developed (Figure 1) and
made available to all two hundred ninety eight pilots of a major
regional U. S. airline between September 13, 2001 and September 15,
2001. One of the company’s pilots made these arrangements and
carried out the distribution . NARCAP is extremely grateful to him
for this service to this particular cause of aviation safety.
narcap.survey.1
7-10-01 rev.2
Confidential Aircrew
Survey
THANK YOU FOR TAKING THE TIME TO RESPOND TO THIS BRIEF,
CONFIDENTIAL SURVEY WHICH WILL GREATLY HELP OUR ORGANIZA-TION IN
PLANNING ITS FUTURE OPERATIONS RELATED TO AIR SAFETY AND ANOMALOUS
AERIAL PHENOMENA. ALL COMMENTS WILL BE COMPLETELY CONFIDENTIAL.
The National Aviation Reporting Center on Anomalous Phenomena
(NARCAP) has been established as a scientific, non-profit
organization of aviation professionals who are working together to:
(1) provide a confidential reporting center for air crew, ATC
personnel, and radar operators who want to report strange or
unexplainable phenomena that impacts aviation safety without fear of
ridicule or career impairment, and (2) collect scientifically valid
data with which to gain significant new understandings about the
nature of these atmospheric phenomena.
Your assistance in completing this survey is appreciated very
much. Your comments will not be traceable back to you. SIMPLY FILL
IN OR CHECK ANSWERS TO THE QUESTIONS BELOW AND RETURN THIS FORM TO
NARCAP in the addressed envelope provided. Use opposite side if
necessary.
1) Check your current job: Capt. ___; F/O ___; F/E ___; Other
________________________
2) Approximately how long have you held
this job/position? __________ Total Flt. Hrs.______
3) In all of
my aviation career (check one) I have___; I have not____ ; Unsure
____
ever seen anything while I was in the air or on the ground
that I could not identify.
4) If you marked “I have seen
something…” (above) did you report it to someone? (check one)
Yes
___; No ____.
5) If you marked “did not report it” (above)
please tell why:
___________________________
______________________________________________________________________
6)
If you marked “I did report it” (above) please tell to whom (at
least in general) and their
response:
_______________________________________________________________
7)
In your professional opinion, did the phenomenon you saw pose any
threat to flight safety
in any way? Yes ___; No ___; Possibly
___; Not sure ____
8) Add any comments/qualifications here:
_________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
9)
Does your company have any formal or informal policy for reporting
unidentified aerial
phenomena. (check one):Yes___; No____; I
don’t know____
10) On a scale of 1 to 10 (10 is max.) about how
interested are you in these phenomena? ____
11) If you have
experienced some aviation safety incident involving an unidentified
aerial
phenomenon of any type (electrical phenomena; gaseous
plasma; solid object, etc.)
would you be willing to provide
NARCAP with a completely confidential report for
scientific
study? (We employ the same procedures as NASA’s Aviation Safety
Reporting
System). Yes____ ; No____ ; Not at this time (maybe
later) ____
12) How (and when) may we contact you?
________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
-
Thank you for your assistance -
Contact us at: 1-800-732-3666
(24 x 7) or by mail at NARCAP P. O. Box 140
Boulder Creek, Calif.
95006 or visit our web site at: www.narcap.org
Several features of this survey are notable: (1) It was
carried out in a completely confidential manner so that no-one could
trace the respondent’s identity, (2) It was linked to aviation
safety and not to ufo or other “borderline” topics. These first two
features probably contributed to the higher than anticipated
response rate, and (3) It attempted to raise issues that are still
considered to be “sensitive” and therefore previously overlooked by
the nation’s aeronautics research community (e.g., question 3, 6, 7,
9, 10).
Results
The findings of this survey will be presented in the original
order of questions on the survey but will employ a common
statistical data presentation format as:
[Total Number of
Respondents] [Percentage of Respondents]
Question 1. Check your current job: Capt. ___; F/O ___; F/E
___; Other _________
[70] [100 %]
Table 1 shows the job breakdown for these seventy respondents.
Table 1
Respondents’ Job
Breakdown
_________________________________________________________________
Captain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 (57%)
First
Officer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 (43
%)
_________________________________________________________________
Question 2. Approximately how long have you held this
job/position? ______ Total Flt. Hrs.______
[70] [100 %]
Table 2 presents the distribution of total flight hours listed on
the survey for possible future comparison with a similar
distribution for this and other airlines. Such comparisons assist in
showing how representative this survey sample was or whether there
was a particular response bias.
Table 2
Distribution of Total Flight Hours
__________________________________________________________________
From
To Captains First Officers
__________________________________________________________________
<
100 1 (with this airline)
101 500
501 1000 1
1001 2500 1
2
2501 5000 8 17
5001 7500 8 7
7501 10,000 9 3
10,001
12,500 6
12,501 15,000 4
15,001 17,500 1
17,501 20,000
20,001 22,500 1
22,501 25,000
25,001 27,500
27,501
30,000 1
________________________________________________________________
The mean of this entire distribution was 7,274 hours (S.D. =
4,543). Considering a pilot’s relatively good vantage point during
flight from which he or she may see something unusual, it is
important to relate reported flight hours to whether or not the
respondent claimed to have seen something that could not be
identified (question 3) either in the air or on the ground. The
survey’s data were divided into the three groups shown in Table 3.
Table 3
Flight Hours by Responses to Question 3
_______________________________________________________________________
Flight
Hours I Have Seen Something I Have Never Seen Something I am Unsure
I Couldn’t Identify I Couldn’t Identify
From To No. No. No.
_______________________________________________________________________
<
100 1
101 500
501 1000 1
1001 2500 2 1
2501 5000 2
22 1
5001 7500 6 7 2
7501 10,000 5 7
10,001 12,500 6
12,501 15,000 1 3
15,001 17,500 1
17,501 20,000
20,001 22,500 1
22,501 25,000
25,001 27,500
27,501
30,000
1
______________________________________________________________________
Totals
= 16 51 3
The graph of Figure 2 shows the frequency count
(ordinate) of all respondents in years (abscissa). This experience
ranged from 0.3 years to 36 years!
Figure 2
Distribution of Years of Flying Career
Question 3. In all of my aviation career (check one) I
have___; I have not____ ; Unsure _____
ever seen anything while I
was in the air or on the ground that I could not identify.
[70] [100 %]
While the wording of this question confounds the matter of where
the witness was
located during the sighting it does provide some
insight into the relative proportion of
all respondents who have
experienced something that they considered to be unusual. It
is
acknowledged that the fact that one could not identify what
was seen does not prove the
existence of UAP as
extra-terrestrial. However, it should raise the discussion to the
next
level, a level that calls for much more scientific study
than it has heretofore been given.
Table 4 presents the results from question 3.
Table 4
Number (%) of Respondents Indicating
_________________________________________________________________________
Captain
First Officer
I Have Seen Something I Could Not Identify 9 (22.5%) 7
(23.3%)
I Have Never Seen Something 28 (70%) 23 (76.7%)
I am Unsure 3 (7.5%) 0
(0%)
_________________________________________________________________________
Totals
= 40 (100%) 30 (100%)
Question 4. If you marked “I have seen something…” (above)
did you report it to someone? (check one) Yes ___; No ____.
[70] [100 %]
This is a particularly important question that has never before
been asked in any formal
way. It is important because, if these
regional airline pilots surveyed are representative of
all other
U. S. commercial pilots, which they probably are, it permits a rough
approximation
to be made concerning the total number of UAP
sightings that have gone unreported. As
shown in Table 5 only one
out of four witnesses of a UAP reported it!
Table 5
Results Related to Reporting One’s Sighting
___________________________________________________
Total number of pilots having seen a UAP . . . . 16
(100%)
Number who did report the sighting . . . . . . . . . 4 (25
%)
Number who did not report the sighting . . . . . . 12 (75
%)
___________________________________________________
If there are about 600,000 commercial pilots currently flying in
the U.S.A. and 23
percent of them saw something they couldn’t
identify this amounts to 138,000 witnesses. So if 75 percent of
these witnesses didn’t report it this amounts to 103,500 unreported
sightings! Clearly more precise statistical data is needed to refine
these numbers.
Question 5. If you marked “did not report it” (above) please
tell why: __________________
[11] [100 %]
Of course this is another key question as it goes to the issue of
all-important motivational factors. If we are to plan an effective
strategy to obtain more high quality UAP sighting data from the
aviation community we must understand what is preventing them from
making a report. Most of the answers given to this question (Table
6) are not all that surprising. In fact, most are very reasonable
and do not suggest any deliberate cover up by these respondents.
Responses 4, 6, and 9 may, however, conceal other motives.
Table 6
Reasons Given Why Respondents Did not
Make a Report (N =
70)
____________________________________________________________________
1. “Not certain just how to report it.”
2. “No one to report
to” (I was in a VFR environment); “No factor on flight
operations
(I was at (an) extreme altitude).
3. “Assumed (it) was something
military.”
4. “I didn’t know anyone who would be interested or
could do anything about it.”
5. “I didn’t know who to call or
what to say.”
6. “It seemed unimportant.”
7. “I’m not sure.
The captain and I talked about it – assumed military action.”
8.
“I was reasonably sure the objects were military related.”
(32)
9. “It was too strange to report.” (33)
10. “We were
close to Area 51 so I knew it wouldn’t believed.” (55)
11.
“Wasn’t sure that it wasn’t a high perf. (sic) military aircraft.”
(57)
_________________________________________________________________
Question 6. If you marked “I did report it” (above) please tell
to whom (at least in general) and their response:
[4] [100 %]
Table 7 presents these results, each of which appears both
reasonable and correct.
Table 7
To Whom was the Report Submitted?
(Survey number in
parentheses)
_______________________________________________________________
1.
“U.S. Air Force. I was military – investigated – no explanation.”
(8)
2. “ATC – They didn’t see anyone else on their radar.”
(29)
3. “ATC – Las Vegas area.” (66)
4. “Asked ATC if they had
seen anything on radar.”
(69)
_______________________________________________________________
Question 7. In your professional opinion, did the phenomenon you
saw pose any threat to flight safety in any way? Yes ___; No ___;
Possibly ___; Not sure ____
[22] [100 %]
Table 8 presents the results from this question. Several pilots
answered the question
even though they indicated that they had
not seen a UAP.
Table 8
Did you Consider UAP Phenomena to be a Threat to (your) Flight
Safety?
______________________________________________________________
Answer
Captains First
Officer
__________________________________________________________________________
Yes 0 1
No 6 5
Possibly 1 1
Not Sure 6 2
_____________________________________________________________
Total 13 9
Considering earlier research by one of the authors (Haines,
2000), the results from this
question are of particular interest
and somewhat perplexing. It was found that only one
(1.4%) of
the 70 respondents, a First Officer with 9,500 hours of flight time,
said he
had seen a UAP, did report it, and felt that there was a
threat to aviation safety posed in some way by the phenomenon.
NARCAP would be very interested in learning more about this
particular sighting.
Of additional interest are the sixteen respondents who had seen
something unusual.
Here, eleven felt the phenomenon was not a
threat to flight safety and two more indicated
that a threat was
only a possibility. Eight were not sure. It is these last eight
respondents who are of particular interest to NARCAP because they
may well have experienced a UAP.
Question 8. Add any comments/qualifications here:
_________________________________
This question was not analyzed since no one completed it.
Question 9. Does your company have any formal or informal
policy for reporting unidentified aerial phenomena. (check
one):Yes___; No____; I don’t know____
[70] [100 %]
Interestingly, only one captain and one first officer indicated
that their airline had a policy for reporting UAP. The captain had
9,000 hours of flight, had seen a UAP, and had
reported it while
the first officer had 7,500 hours of flight time but had never seen
a UAP.
All other respondents indicated either that there was no
such policy or that they didn’t
know of one.
The absence of a specific reporting policy sends a clear message
to pilots that it is
all right not to submit a report on a
sighting. There will be no negative repercussions for not making a
report. Of course, this only reinforces the negative reporting bias
that current exists with regard to UAP.
Question 10. On a scale of 1 to 10 (10 is max.) about how
interested are you in these phenomena? ___
[70] [100 %]
The distribution of scores on this question are presented in
Figure 3. This distribution is positively skewed toward being
interested in UAP with a mean score of 6.2 and SD = 3.
Figure 3
Distribution of Scores Concerning
How Interested Respondent
is in the Subject of UAP
Question 11. If you have experienced some aviation safety
incident involving an unidentified
aerial phenomenon of any type
(electrical phenomena; gaseous plasma; solid object,
etc.) would
you be willing to provide NARCAP with a completely confidential
report for
scientific study? (We employ the same procedures as
NASA’s Aviation Safety Reporting
System). Yes____ ; No____ ; Not
at this time (maybe later) ____
[32] [100 %]
Of the thirty two pilots who responded to this question seventeen
were captains and fifteen were first officers. Since only nine
captains and seven first officers indicated that they had sighted a
UAP these responses suggest that either some of these pilots didn’t
understand the question or that they deliberately answered it anyway
for some unknown reason. Table 9 presents these results.
Table 9
Responses to Question “Would you be Willing
to Provide NARCAP
with a Completely Confidential Report”
_______________________________________________________
Captain
First Officer
Yes 10 9
No 3 1
Not at this time 4
5
_______________________________________________________
Additional Survey-Related Issues:
Number of Completed Surveys Sent to NARCAP by Mail vs. Number
Given to Pilot to Send to NARCAP. It was discovered that all of the
seventy completed surveys were mailed to NARCAP directly. This fact
suggests that these pilots may not have wanted to be identified with
their responses by the pilot who assisted NARCAP with the
administration of this survey.
Relationship Between Total Flight Hours and Years Flying. Figure
4 presents this relationship in graphic form.
Figure 4
Relationship Between Total Flight Hours and Years Flying
Relationship Between Total Flight Hours and Level of Interest in
UAP. This data is plotted in Figure 5.
Figure 5
Relationship Between Total Flight Hours and Level of Interest in
UAP
Referring to Figure 4, it may be noted that level of interest
in UAP tends to increase slightly with increasing number of flight
hours.
Conclusions and Recommendations for the Future
Several conclusions may be drawn from this survey: (1) Pilots
continue to be very hesitant to speak about their highly unusual
sightings and this hesitancy translates into a negative reporting
bias. The reporting rate found here was twenty five percent. (2)
Despite what some aviation officials state, commercial pilots
continue to see unexplained aerial phenomena, and (3) Personal
interest in UAP is relatively high and tends to increase with an
increase in flight hours.
Based upon these survey results NARCAP recommends the following
to those who are interested in enhancing aviation safety: (1)
Airline management should issue clear and positively worded
guidelines related to encourage reporting of all unidentified aerial
phenomena whether or not they may have in-flight safety
significance. Only through such positive encouragement by management
will the long-standing biases against reporting UAP be reversed. The
fact that only a few respondents voluntarily provided their name and
address may suggest that they are afraid of being personally
identified with this subject. Such generalized fear only acts to
inhibit objective reporting. (2) Additional pilots should be
surveyed in order to increase the statistical reliability of this
study.
References
Haines,R. F., A Review of selected sightings from aircraft from
1973 to 1978. Proc.
of 1978 MUFON Conference, Pp. 114-140, San
Francisco, CA, July 7-8, 1979.
Haines, R.F., Fifty-six Aircraft Pilot Sightings Involving
Electromagnetic Effects.
Proc. of 1992 International UFO
Symposium, MUFON, Albuquerque, NM,
July 10-12, 1992.
Haines, R. F., Aviation Safety in America – A Previously
Neglected Factor, (cf.
Reference Section of www.narcap.org.; see
especially pp.X – Y), 2000.
Jacobs, D., The UFO Controversy in America. University of Indiana
Press,
Bloomington, Chpt. 9, 1975.
Kean, L., PilotEncounters with UFOs: Study Challenges Secrecy
(and Denial).
The Providence (R.I.) Journal, Pg. B4, May 3,
2001.
Kean, L.,Unexplained sightings met with denial. The Examiner (San
Francisco),
May 8, 2001.
Saunders, D., and R. R. Harkins, UFOs? Yes! Signet Books, New
York, 1968.
Sturrock, P., An Analysis of the Condon Report on the Colorado
UFO Project. Journal of
Scientific Exploration, vol. 1, no. 1,
1986.
Weinstein, D., Aircraft UFO Encounters: Radar/Visual Cases, Vol.
1, 1945-1952, Project
ACUFOE, Privately Published, Paris, France,
(40 cases), 1999.
Weinstein, D., Aircraft UFO Encounters:
Radar/Visual Cases, Vol. 2, 1953-1956, Project
ACUFOE, Privately
Published, Paris, France, (26 cases), 1999.
Weinstein, D., Aircraft UFO Encounters: Radar/Visual Cases,
Vol.3, 1957-1966, Project
ACUFOE, Privately Published, Paris,
France, (20 cases), 1999.
Weinstein, D., Aircraft UFO Encounters: Radar/Visual Cases, Vol.
4, 1967-1976, Project
ACUFOE, Privately Published, Paris, France,
1999.
Weinstein, D., Aircraft UFO Encounters: Radar/Visual Cases, Vol.
5, 1977-1998, Project
ACUFOE, Privately Published, Paris, France,
(36 cases), 1999.
Appendix A
Text of Survey Objective Statement Placed Near
Additional
Copies of Survey in Crew Room
“This seems like a worthy effort to build a statistical database
in the interests of science and safety. Even if you haven’t
witnessed any unusual or unidentified aerial phenomena (UAP), please
do me a huge favor and take a minute to check the boxes and either
mail it directly (in the prepaid envelope) or, for your convenience,
drop it in my v-file and I’ll post it for you.
“I’ve placed a copy of the survey in your v-file, but feel free
to give one to any of your friends who may have seen something worth
reporting. (Airline name) is definitely at the forefront of this
venture, and your voluntary participation will be kept strictly
confidential and would be most appreciated.
Thanks in advance,
(Name of pilot)
Appendix B
Informal Internet Poll on UFOs as a Hazard to Aviation
Mr. Loy Lawhon conducted an informal, non-scientific poll on his
web site (http://ufos.about.com/gi/pages/poll.htm) during the period
from about July to October 2001 asking the question “Do you think
UFOs are a hazard to aviation?” As of October 8, 2001 fifty five
(33%) of the respondents said “yes, there have been many near-misses
and a few possible collisions;” fourteen (8%) said, “No, not any
more so than the ordinary objects that UFOs really are;” Sixty two
(37%) said, “No, UFOs are too fast – they can maneuver around
aircraft easily;” seventeen (10%) said, “I don’t know;” and eighteen
(10%) said “You didn’t list my answer.” No details were given
regarding the piloting experience or aviation background of any
respondents.
Commentary:
While airline pilots are excellent eye witnesses of so-called
UAP as a group for various reasons discussed elsewhere (Haines,
1979; 1992) they are not necessarily the most reliable reporters due
to various social pressures placed upon them by their employers and
society in general (Haines, 2000). Indeed, many pilots have told us
(NARCAP) that they were instructed not to discuss any in-flight
events that could negatively impact their airline’s economics, e.g.,
passenger confidence. Apparently this dictum has been interpreted to
include sighting an unidentified phenomenon in the air, almost
regardless of its visual features or judged impact upon flight
safety. This fact is very unfortunate since this kind of response
produces an under-reporting bias by U. S. pilots today; America’s
aviation community needs to understand all of the major and minor
factors that interact to affect aviation safety. If even some low
probability-of-occurrence factors are left out, for whatever reason,
our knowledge will be incomplete and our ability to plan for optimal
flight planning and control strategies will be inhibited/reduced/ .
We may be deliberately overlooking critical factors.
In order to gain a better idea of the approximate reporting
frequency of aircrew of UAP NARCAP decided to conduct as many
separate surveys to currently flying pilots of major U. S. airlines
as possible. This paper presents the results obtained from the first
such survey involving a relatively small airline in which the
management was brave enough to permit it to take place. It will be
through the actions of similarly open-minded airline management that
further data will be collected that may contribute that one or two
final - but previously overlooked - factors that will contribute to
much safer flight in America.
