Are Airlines Concealing UFO Risk from Insurers?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2023
Location: London
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Are Airlines Concealing UFO Risk from Insurers?
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.
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.
Last edited by DarioG; 16th Mar 2023 at 11:33.
"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!
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!
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.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2023
Location: London
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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).
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.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2023
Location: London
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"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.
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.
Leave alone conspiracy theories about cover-ups of non-existent UFO risks.
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.
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.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2023
Location: London
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
That risk is nothing new, and I'm sure the insurers take that into account when setting their rates.