Are Airlines Concealing UFO Risk from Insurers?

[DarioG]

Dear PPRuNe

Firstly, I apologise if this is not the right place to place this query.

I am a journalist that works for The Blind Spot, an independent journalistic venture that seeks to identify blind spots in the economy.

We are attempting to investigate the current zeitgeist among pilots and crew regarding UFO sightings. As we all know, UFO sightings and the presence of UFOs in the collective consciousness has increased dramatically since 2017. This makes sense; UFOs are not something physical - they only represent an UNIDENTIFIED object in the sky. Therefore, their sighting is entirely subject to bias. Since the presence of UFOs in the collective (and I'm guessing in the pilot's mind) has increased since national authorities are taking them seriously, this naturally leads to an increase in sightings.

However, I have just recevied information from at least one air transport ministry, Canada's, which is a little interesting.

It suggests that UFO sightings reported to CADORS peaked in 2017 and have been decreasing since. Why? If my hypothesis is that sightings of something defined by UNIDENTIFIABILITY are very subject to conscious bias, it follows that sightings should have increased - whether carried out by professional observers or not. Or, at the very least, they should not have decreased.

UFO risk for flight safety is in a similar place to the pre-9/11 of terrorism. Though accepted as a real risk by those in the know, authorities would publicly minimise the risk as they could get away with their denials - until they couldn't. We are one UFO incident away from UFO hysteria becoming a problem in the pockets of commercial airlines. Therefore, it wouldn't surprise me if airlines are incentivised to hide these reports, especially now that they are being taken more seriously by the government, the media, and consumers.

This is purely a speculative hypothesis, but sound logic seems to back up its plausibility.

I was hoping I could get in touch with pilots, ATC's, or any individual that may be able to help in my query. You can contact me here or at [email protected]. Anonymity is guaranteed, if sought - and I can meet up physically in London and buy you lunch or a pint if that helps.

[AerocatS2A]

"Are Airlines Concealing UFO Risk from Insurers?"

No.

Now I predict you will interpret answers like mine as being part of the cover up and answers opposed to mine as being factual. Good luck!

[Busdriver01]

I would suggest a 'rumour network' full of anonymous accounts who may or may not actually be pilots is not the place to be finding good evidence for anything. There is no cover up - there is nothing to cover up. In all my years flying ive not once heard anyone report to ATC a UFO (a term deliberately used to incite visions of E.T paying us a visit). The Gatwick Drone incident was about as close as we have come in the UK.

[DarioG]

"Are Airlines Concealing UFO Risk from Insurers?"

No.

Now I predict you will interpret answers like mine as being part of the cover up and answers opposed to mine as being factual. Good luck!

Not at all, but it would help if you expanded on your answer.

I would suggest a 'rumour network' full of anonymous accounts who may or may not actually be pilots is not the place to be finding good evidence for anything. There is no cover up - there is nothing to cover up. In all my years flying ive not once heard anyone report to ATC a UFO (a term deliberately used to incite visions of E.T paying us a visit). The Gatwick Drone incident was about as close as we have come in the UK.

There is no 'good place' to find 'good evidence' of ANYTHING related to my query. That's why I'm here. Regardless, your testimony (if you are a pilot, as you say) does square with other pilots I've spoken to. It's quite a mercurial subject. Some pilots have encountered strange things in the sky or their radar, or heard of such things, whereas others have never once experienced or even heard of such a Phenomenon.

But to your point, I would say that the Canadian public data I'm currently seeing shows an average of 13.25 sightings of unknown aerial phenomena reported to CADORS (not necessarily quoted as 'UFOs', but always reported as an unidentified object(s) in the sky) over the last 8 years. Of these, there is an average of 2 incidents a year reported to CADORS I deem 'threatening', as they involve close fly-by's, overflight of restricted airspace, or zipping by the aircraft on its approach to the runway.

There is a reason I have never used the term 'Alien' or E.T.. A good investigator is agnostic to his results. I take UFOs to be just that; Unidentified Flying Objects. We needn't assume what we don't know. I still stand by my hypothesis that, since the US government has deemed UFOs a threat to flight safety, there may be an economic impact to UFOs (which was never a factor beforehand).

[ZFT]

Jet Blast material?

[Less Hair]

What do you mean by UFO risks? Rocket parts re-entering atmosphere and hitting something? IIRC, the Soviet Union paid at least something to Canada for one of its satellites crashing inside Canada back then. No insurance needed.

[DarioG]

What do you mean by UFO risks? Rocket parts re-entering atmosphere and hitting something?

So here's a few I would deem a 'UFO risk'.

"An illuminated object crossed the approach course of a de Havilland DHC-8-400 (JZA8744) operated by Jazz, from Montreal (CYUL), QC, to Quebec City(CYQB), QC, on final runway 29. According to the controller, it could have been a drone. JZA8744 did not see the object, but the controller provided its location. No impact on operations."

"Aviation Incident Report #16974: A Héli Mistral Service Inc. Aerospatiale AS 350 BA (C-FXED) allegedly struck an unidentified object while in flight, about 5NM to 8NM northeast of Trois-Rivières, QC (CYRQ). At least one main rotor blade was damaged by the impact and had to be replaced. The pilot was unable to identify the object."

"The pilot of a North Star Air Ltd. Pilatus PC-12/45 (C-GVKC/BF708) from Thunder Bay, ON (CYQT) to Sachigo Lake, ON (CZPB) reported an object passing over their right wing, approximately 3 feet in diameter. No traffic on radar in the vicinity."

"Aviation Incident Report #17797 and #17804: A member of the public reported seeing an object that could not be classified as a fixed-wing rotary wing aircraft, a drone, nor any type of lighter-than-air aircraft. It was over Kitchener, apparently north of Fairview Park mall, moving silently and rather slowly from around 050. It then made a wide right turn to a heading around 020, and crossed the approach flight path to Runway 08 at the Kitchener/Waterloo, ON (CYKF) aerodrome, an obvious hazard to an incoming aircraft. It maintained the heading of 020 until it was too far to see. At all times, it remained below cloud base. As it was receding, a small single-engine plane, a high-wing monoplane with tricycle gear on a heading of approximately 090, appeared to pass relatively close to this object. Pictures available on request."

Of course, rocket parts that are unidentified re-entering the atmosphere, if unidentified, are a UFO risk. Remember - UFOs are Unidentified Flying Objects - not saucers or aliens.

[meleagertoo]

I don't think that airline pilots are the type to be any more susceptible to zeitgeists than they are to poltergeists.
Leave alone conspiracy theories about cover-ups of non-existent UFO risks.

[Sailvi767]

35 years and almost 30,000 hours. Involved in two UFO sightings. The first was clearly a weather ballon that passed a bit close for comfort. My FO however was hysterically sure it was a UFO. Claimed it went by to fast for a ballon. Couldn’t seem to grasp we went by it at 460 knots.The second was a pilot on 123.45 mid Atlantic losing it over watching Venus rise. Lots of catcalls about if this was his first time on the North Atlantic. Other than that nothing seen or heard on the radio.

[MechEngr]

I believe that Gatwick was started by some poor schlub seeing a light on a construction crane, calling in to ask if it was a drone, followed at some time by police using their own drone and then more people calling in to report a drone. I think they arrested a couple because a neighbor thought they owned a drone - they did not. They did get £200,000 after being held without evidence for 36 hours.

[HOVIS]

OP. This is satire, right? 🙄

[Gizm0]

Oh dear..... MODS: please!!

[DarioG]

35 years and almost 30,000 hours. Involved in two UFO sightings. The first was clearly a weather ballon that passed a bit close for comfort. My FO however was hysterically sure it was a UFO. Claimed it went by to fast for a ballon. Couldn’t seem to grasp we went by it at 460 knots.The second was a pilot on 123.45 mid Atlantic losing it over watching Venus rise. Lots of catcalls about if this was his first time on the North Atlantic. Other than that nothing seen or heard on the radio.

You have hit the nail on the head my friend.

The risk is not the UFOs themselves, but consumer/regulator/military reaction to an unidentified sighting, that is (understandably) mostly mundane in origin. Do you see what I mean? You've described exactly what UFO risk is. It's the fear factor of seeing something unidentified - and that will only increase as UFOs become clouded in more 'negative' language as a result of the American inquiry.

OP. This is satire, right? 🙄
It beggars belief that considering the inquiries ongoing in the Senate Intelligence Committee, and the AARO project at the Department of Defense, that specifically list UFOs as 'clear risk' to flight safety, you may still believe this is a satirical topic.

I don't think that airline pilots are the type to be any more susceptible to zeitgeists than they are to poltergeists.
Leave alone conspiracy theories about cover-ups of non-existent UFO risks.

Unfortunately, pilots are humans like you or I. They may be less susceptible than ordinary folk, but they're still human. Please see the reply (ironically, the one right below you) to see an example of what I meant.

[deltahotel]

Well I'm not, although I can be a bit reticent about Chemtrail deployment.

[nickp]

I thought chemtrails were impossible until I realised the earth is flat - I didn't have to keep pushing the stick forwards to stop us climbing.

[SWBKCB]

The risk is not the UFOs themselves, but consumer/regulator/military reaction to an unidentified sighting, that is (understandably) mostly mundane in origin. Do you see what I mean? You've described exactly what UFO risk is. It's the fear factor of seeing something unidentified - and that will only increase as UFOs become clouded in more 'negative' language as a result of the American inquiry.

So how does this link to airlines, risk and insurance companies?

[nomilk]

And I thought that insurers pay their risk assessment department good money to do ... risk assessments. Now I find out that airlines can just conceal it and insurers have no way to find out ... because they do not read the papers or watch the news?

[SWBKCB]

And all the airlines do it and nobody says anything? Who co-ordinates - to think I used to laugh at my mate who bowed to the great god IATA... :eek:

[tdracer]

Unfortunately, pilots are humans like you or I. They may be less susceptible than ordinary folk, but they're still human. Please see the reply (ironically, the one right below you) to see an example of what I meant.
There have already been a handful of commercial aircraft shot down when those firing the missiles thought they were shooting at something else. The governments and operators have taken steps to minimize that risk, but it still happens.
That risk is nothing new, and I'm sure the insurers take that into account when setting their rates.

[mobov98423]

most ridiculous thread (original topic from original poster) i've ever read

[pax britanica]

Actually i think it is a reasonable question but presented because UFOis immediately taken to mea ET not what it just says unidentified flying objects.-there are now lots of those.

Just recently we have the Chinese Balloons, just the other day drones and the next one will be the LEO satellites falling to earth. So I think there is a resonablreasonable airliners encountering UFOS of this sort, 10 years ago no drones no high tech balloons and no LEOs. 2023 thousands of em, airliners plus the odd mil jet are no longer the only things sharing airspace nowadays.

I do agree it is wriiten in an odd way and does kind of suggest ' alien origins '

[TheEdge]

https://youtu.be/HXLFC-hwQ6M
Have a look at this ;)

[Dunhovrin]

A lot of bold assertions in the original posting:

As we all know,

Do we?

UFO sightings and the presence of UFOs in the collective consciousness has increased dramatically since 2017

What about the 1950s?

If my hypothesis is that sightings of something defined by UNIDENTIFIABILITY are very subject to conscious bias, it follows that sightings should have increased

Ignoring the word salad, “very subject to”, why would people see more things they can’t identify?

I’m losing interest in this. As others have said, you’re trying to get us to join you in forcing facts to match your hypothesis. I’d stick to writing about “Where finance and media intersect with reality” (wasn’t that a tagline for The Day Today?).

[ATC Watcher]

The problem with UFO sightings is that there is always a large gap between the sightings and the rational explanation that comes later. .Once the "scoop" is out it remains even when the explantaion is out there which you have to look for most of the time . The current Starlink Sats sightings is one example, or the last week sights of Venus and Jupiter brightly aligned before sunset caused lot of calls, for instance .
One personal exmaperience of that : in te 80s during a night shift I saw a primary radar return moving extremely fast in the North of France south of Luxemburg , there was a Swissair DC10 in the vicinity and since it was not busy I asked the pilots if they saw anything . they did not , we then chat a bit on UFOs on the R/T , and that was it. I made a note that on our logbook and a few days later a technician came and explained the phenomena, reciprocal garbling , reflexions of targets, something known.. Unfortunately one guy is Swissair made a whole story it and still today you can still read the story as a sighting of an UFO by an air traffic controller confirmed by a Swissair pilot .. I bet you a lot of such "sure confirmed sightings " are just oveblown explanable things .
I think insurers have similar views. If one day an aircrraft collides with a UFO I am sure they will revise their premiuns , but until now, it has been quite safe in that front. .

[meleagertoo]

Any insurance premium levied on 'risk' from never observed, let alone risk-assessed UFOs has the same credibility and integrity as a premium based on an invasion by Rhinocerouses. Less so in fact, as we do actually know that Rhinos exist...

[pattern_is_full]

I think insurers have similar views. If one day an aircrraft collides with a UFO I am sure they will revise their premiuns , but until now, it has been quite safe in that front. .

+1

"Not all questions can be answered, but many answers should be questioned."

For DarioG:

I don't believe airlines are concealing UFO encounters or risks from insurers to any significant extent.

It is possible not all are reported, either by pilots or their employers, if any - but that is not the same as active concealment (presumably to keep premiums down).

It is the job of insurance company actuaries to estimate risks. I am sure they are constantly combing many sources for information on which to base those estimates (because their profits depend on them) - including both formal aviation reports, and news reporting. I am sure they also keep their eye on even less formal mentions of UFO events (if not, they are failing to do their job adequately).

(BTW, for the purposes of this discussion I am using UFO to mean "Under-identified Flying Objects" - things which are not detected on radar and/or not indentified by transponders or flight plans, even if they are seen and sometimes recognized, at the time, or later.)

In the absence of many actual losses thus far to UFO-involved claims, I would expect insurers to have an estimated probability/fudge-factor (likely quite low, but not zero) plugged into their premium-calculation algorithms, probably somewhere down below "Acts of God" and such. And the same for the probability of losses due to reactions to UFOs.

IF UFOs or reactions to them do become a liability for insurers (producing notable losses), then they will certainly adjust their own calculations accordingly. As suggested above by ATC Watcher. Probably well before it has a major impact on payouts and profits.

A few decades ago, some guy in the LA area attached his lawn chair to a bouquet of weather balloons and drifted up into the busy LA Basin airways. More recently there have been reports from the same area of a guy (or guys) flying "jet packs" in the same skies. Those were not exactly secrets, so I am sure the possibility is on the radar (no pun intended) of insurance companies. They were also extremely rare events that probably count as no more than a "rounding error" in the possible risks in aviation.

At least thus far.

But everyone involved in a professional capacity (pilots, airlines, insurers, FAA, NTSB) should, and I expect are, keeping tabs on the subject. They do talk to one another.

[flynerd]

If one's aircraft has an incident with a UFO, then so long as you get the drivers license details and address, most Insurers will cover you.
Methinks that April 1st is rapidly approaching.

[inbalance]

They are offering me a free 4 week vacation at Fhloston Paradise every year.
Together with Leeloo Minai Lekatariba Lamina Tchai Ekbat De Sebat.
And all of that, just to keep my mouth shut.
So why should i talk about it?

[HOVIS]

It beggars belief that considering the inquiries ongoing in the Senate Intelligence Committee, and the AARO project at the Department of Defense, that specifically list UFOs as 'clear risk' to flight safety, you may still believe this is a satirical topic.
They can have an enquiry about anything, doesn't make it true.
I have no idea what 'AARO' is.
Drones are the only obvious example of a 'UFO' that could cause a problem. Lots of things in aviation that actually exist could cause pilots to be fearful. I remember when FR24 first appeared, I spoke to pilots that were really paranoid about it. "Tracked? In real time?" they cried!
As for space debris, really? Come on! If it all fell out of the sky at once then yes we would have a problem, it doesn't, we don't.

[Flyhighfirst]

They can have an enquiry about anything, doesn't make it true.
I have no idea what 'AARO' is.
Drones are the only obvious example of a 'UFO' that could cause a problem. Lots of things in aviation that actually exist could cause pilots to be fearful. I remember when FR24 first appeared, I spoke to pilots that were really paranoid about it. "Tracked? In real time?" they cried!
As for space debris, really? Come on! If it all fell out of the sky at once then yes we would have a problem, it doesn't, we don't.

You would have more chance of winning the lottery than space debris hitting an aircraft in flight.

[HOVIS]

Indeed.
I don't do the lottery either. 😁

[Equivocal]

OK, I'll own up. I'm not a professional pilot and only an ex-controller. But.......over my 40+ year career I have seen a few UFOs. I have reported some of these events, well, one actually. If I'm going to be completely honest, I actually saw one last night - lights in the sky, and I could not work out what it was. But then I put my glass of wine down, thought for a few minutes, realised that I'm about a mile away from Schiphol airport, so it might have been an aircraft.....but I really don't know for sure. I reckon the pilots answering this question and saying they've never seen one are covering things up.

[AN2 Driver]

I honestly think that it is quite unfortunate that the expression UFO as in Unidentified Flying Object has become a moniker for "extraterrestrial activity" or whatever. Because in the true sense of the expression, unidentified objects flying in any class of airspace are a concern, particularly today where stuff like drones or similar things are available to just about anyone.

Personally, I find it troubling that we may well not get reports about man made objects disturbing air travel because the potential repercussions for filing one: being looked at as a conspiracy nut and put down the "green man watcher" drawer.

There is enough stuff flying around which is outside the control of ATC and therefore qualifies as "unidentified flying object" without being "alien" or otherwise non significant for the purpose of the discussion about aviation safety. Drones of all kinds, including military and civilian, would probably qualify as the largest concern. Anyone who has been around for a bit also has had encounters with balloons, birds (some vultures can fly quite high) and other stuff.

As to the OP's question: No, I do not believe that airlines or any other operator conceal anything from insurers. First of all, the way of communication would be via platforms like CADORS in Canada and equivalent others elsewhere. Insurers certainly are aware of those and keep watching them carefully. But from their point of view, the lack of resulting accidents involving this kind of risks, I would think they have other more pressing concerns. They have been vocal about drones and imho rightly so and that would be the only thing which might worry them and there is no concealment anywhere in the attempt to sort those.

Clearly, there always will be unexplained sightings of what appears to be "objects" and often enough are objects of some kind which simply can't be identified with the means at hand at the moment. In the interest of aviation safety, I personally think that pilots are professional enough to report what they encounter and do not let themselves be scared off from doing so by fears of being labled a conspiracy nut.

And something else: I know quite well that in this forum there is a certain "bite reflex" whenever journalists pop up here, but I would hope that people like the OP here, who openly identify themselves and are asking legit questions and who willing to listen to what we can tell them from a professional stand point, deserve a better treatment than others who hide and then exploit the information taken from here. Clearly we do not know what will come out of his request, but I guess playing with open cards that he does he deserves the benefit of good will on our side. We can always bitch about what the press does WITHOUT asking us first but when we get the change to get our word in, imho we should use it.

[Sallyann1234]

Quite simply, since there has been no known case of an aircraft being brought down by a UFO there is no such risk to be insured.

[meleagertoo]

Quite simply, since there has been no known case of an aircraft being brought down by a UFO there is no such risk to be insured.
Finally, a voice of reason and sanity.
Nothng to see here folks, move along please!