Are Airlines Concealing UFO Risk from Insurers?
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 '
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 '
A lot of bold assertions in the original posting:
Do we?
What about the 1950s?
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?).
As we all know,
Do we?
UFO sightings and the presence of UFOs in the collective consciousness has increased dramatically since 2017
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?).
Pegase Driver
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. .
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. .
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...
"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.
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.
Methinks that April 1st is rapidly approaching.
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?
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
