ADDITIONAL LINKS: http://www.nicap.org/papers/92apsiee.htm FIFTY-SIX AIRCRAFT PILOT SIGHTlNGS INVOLVING ELECTROMAGNETIC EFFECTS Richard F. Haines, Ph.D. Copyright 1992 ABSTRACT Reports of anomalous aerial objects (AAO) appearing in the atmosphere continue to be made by pilots of almost every airline and air force of the world in addition to private and experimental test pilots. This paper presents a review of 56 reports of AAO in which electromagnetic effects (E-M) take place on-board the aircraft when the phenomenon is located nearby but not before it appeared or after it had departed. These effects are not related to the altitude or airspeed of the aircraft. The average duration of these sightings was 17.5 minutes in the 37 cases in which duration was noted. There were between one and 40 eye witnesses (average = 2.71) on the aircraft. Reported E-M effects included radio interference or total failure, radar contact with and without simultaneous visual contact, magnetic and/or gyro-compass deviations, automatic direction finder failure or interference, engine stopping or interruption, dimming cabin lights, transponder failure, and military aircraft weapon system failure. There appears to be a reduction of the E-M energy effect with the square of increasing distance to the AAO. These events and their relationships are discussed. This area of research should be concentrated on by other investigators because of the wealth of information it yields and the physical nature of AAO including wavelength/frequency and power density emissions. INTRODUCTION The subject of pilot reports of anomalous aerial phenomena has been of deep interest to me for over 15 years for several reasons. (1) Pilots possess a high level of training and personal motivation for making careful observations. (2) Their (usually) high level of experience in flight helps them make rapid and accurate assessments of often ambiguous situations. (3) Their capability to radio for immediate assistance or confirmation of events (e.g., ground radar, etc.) often provides corollary data. (4) Their ability to fly in different directions and altitudes provides them an opportunity to gain a better view of the anomalous phenomena or objects (5) Maintenance of their professional reputations is important to them so that they will usually consider all of the alternative explanations before making a final report of an unknown object. Finally, (6) Their aircraft often possess sensitive electronic equipment that sometimes detect various aspects of the phenomenon. In short, pilots are usually very good observers whose reports contain valuable information for the investigator. I have prepared several review articles of pilot sightings for the periods 1942 to 1952 (Haines, 1983), 1950 to 1954 from the Korean War (Haines, 1990), and from 1973 to 1979 (Haines, 1979). In the first of these reviews, 283 cases were covered and in the second and third, 40 and 72 reports, respectively. More than 300 pilot cases were summarized by Challenger and Haines (1980). Other reviews of individual pilot sightings have been published by Del Giudice (1987), Haines (1980, 1982(a), 1982(b), NICAP (1980), Shanklin (1955), Stacy (1987-88), Wichman (1971), and Zeidman (1979). In addition, Gillmor (1968), Greenawald (1971), Ruppelt (1956), Wilkins (1954), and Zigel (1968), to mention a few, have published books or articles that include pilot sightings, some of which involve electromagnetic effects on board the aircraft. Perhaps the broadest conclusions that can be drawn from this large body of information are: (1) AAO seen from the air possess the same physical characteristics as do those that are reported from the ground; (2) some AAO are clearly capable of out-flying any aerial device mankind has yet built, (3) some AAO possess electromagnetic radiation characteristics which can interact with and interfere with man-made avionic systems at a distance. This report deals with this third matter in particular. MORE AT THE LINK --------------------------------------------------- http://www.narcap.org/reports/001/airsafety_p1.htm Executive Summary This paper addresses the question of whether there is reliable data demonstrating a significant relationship between aviation safety in America today and unidentified aerial phenomena [UAP] (also called unidentified flying objects [UFO] or flying saucers). Three kinds of reported UAP dynamic behavior and reported consequences are addressed, each of which can affect air safety: (1) near-miss and other high speed maneuvers conducted by the UAP near the aircraft, (2) transient and permanent electromagnetic effects onboard the aircraft that affect navigation, guidance, and flight control systems, and (3) close encounter flight performance by the UAP that produces cockpit distractions which inhibit the flight crew from flying the airplane in a safe manner. More than one hundred documented close encounters between UAP and commercial, private, and military airplanes are reviewed relative to these three topics. These reports are drawn from several sources including the author’s personal files, aviation reports prepared by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration administered "Aviation Safety Reporting System (ASRS)." Interestingly, all of the U.S. government sources illustrate the fact either that pilots don’t report their UAP sightings at all or, if they do, they almost never use the term UAP, UFO, or flying saucer when reporting their near-miss and/or in flight pacing encounters. I conclude that: (1) In order to avoid collisions with UAP some pilots have made control inputs that have resulted in passenger and flight crew injury. (2) Based upon a thorough review of pilot reports of UAP over the conterminous United States between 1950 and 2000 it is concluded that an immediate physical threat to aviation safety due to collision does not exist because of the reported high degree of maneuverability shown by the UAP. However, (a) should pilots make the wrong control input at the wrong time during an extremely close encounter the possibility of a mid-air collision with a UAP still exists, and (b) if pilots rely upon their instruments when anomalous electromagnetic effects are causing them to malfunction the possibility of an incident or accident exists. (3) Documented UAP phenomena have been seen and reported for at least fifty years by pilots but many of these reporters have been either ridiculed or instructed not to report their sighting publicly. (4) Responsible world aviation officials should take UAP phenomena seriously and issue clear procedures for reporting them without fearing ridicule, reprimand or other career impairment and in a manner that will support scientific research, (5) Airlines should implement instructional courses that teach pilots about optimal control procedures to carry out when flying near UAP and also what data to try to collect about them, if possible, and (6) A central clearing house should be identified to receive UAP reports (e.g., ASRS; Global Aviation Information Network (GAIN). This unclassified clearinghouse should collect, analyze, and report UAP sightings for the continuing benefit of aviation safety as well as scientific curiosity. Whatever UAP are they can pose a hazard to aviation safety and should be dealt with appropriately and without bias. ----------------------------------------------------- http://www.narcap.org/technicalreports.htm A LISTING OF REPORTS.
Welllllllllllll it looked OK on preview. Sigh. Trying again:
ADDITIONAL LINKS:
http://www.nicap.org/papers/92apsiee.htm
FIFTY-SIX AIRCRAFT PILOT SIGHTlNGS INVOLVING ELECTROMAGNETIC EFFECTS
Richard F. Haines,
Ph.D. Copyright 1992
ABSTRACT
Reports of anomalous aerial objects (AAO) appearing in the atmosphere continue to be made by pilots of almost every airline and air force of the world in addition to private and experimental test pilots.
This paper presents a review of 56 reports of AAO in which electromagnetic effects (E-M) take place on-board the aircraft when the phenomenon is located nearby but not before it appeared or after it had departed.
These effects are not related to the altitude or airspeed of the aircraft. The average duration of these sightings was 17.5 minutes in the 37 cases in which duration was noted.
There were between one and 40 eye witnesses (average = 2.71) on the aircraft. Reported E-M effects included radio interference or total failure, radar contact with and without simultaneous visual contact, magnetic and/or gyro-compass deviations, automatic direction finder failure or interference, engine stopping or interruption, dimming cabin lights, transponder failure, and military aircraft weapon system failure.
There appears to be a reduction of the E-M energy effect with the square of increasing distance to the AAO. These events and their relationships are discussed. This area of research should be concentrated on by other investigators because of the wealth of information it yields and the physical nature of AAO including wavelength/frequency and power density emissions.
INTRODUCTION
The subject of pilot reports of anomalous aerial phenomena has been of deep interest to me for over 15 years for several reasons.
(1) Pilots possess a high level of training and personal motivation for making careful observations.
(2) Their (usually) high level of experience in flight helps them make rapid and accurate assessments of often ambiguous situations.
(3) Their capability to radio for immediate assistance or confirmation of events (e.g., ground radar, etc.) often provides corollary data.
(4) Their ability to fly in different directions and altitudes provides them an opportunity to gain a better view of the anomalous phenomena or objects
(5) Maintenance of their professional reputations is important to them so that they will usually consider all of the alternative explanations before making a final report of an unknown object. Finally,
(6) Their aircraft often possess sensitive electronic equipment that sometimes detect various aspects of the phenomenon.
In short, pilots are usually very good observers whose reports contain valuable information for the investigator. I have prepared several review articles of pilot sightings for the periods 1942 to 1952 (Haines, 1983), 1950 to 1954 from the Korean War (Haines, 1990), and from 1973 to 1979 (Haines, 1979). In the first of these reviews, 283 cases were covered and in the second and third, 40 and 72 reports, respectively.
More than 300 pilot cases were summarized by Challenger and Haines (1980). Other reviews of individual pilot sightings have been published by Del Giudice (1987), Haines (1980, 1982(a), 1982(b), NICAP (1980), Shanklin (1955), Stacy (1987-88), Wichman (1971), and Zeidman (1979). In addition, Gillmor (1968), Greenawald (1971), Ruppelt (1956), Wilkins (1954), and Zigel (1968), to mention a few, have published books or articles that include pilot sightings, some of which involve electromagnetic effects on board the aircraft.
Perhaps the broadest conclusions that can be drawn from this large body of information are:
(1) AAO seen from the air possess the same physical characteristics as do those that are reported from the ground;
(2) some AAO are clearly capable of out-flying any aerial device mankind has yet built,
(3) some AAO possess electromagnetic radiation characteristics which can interact with and interfere with man-made avionic systems at a distance.
This report deals with this third matter in particular.
MORE AT THE LINK
---------------------------------------------------
http://www.narcap.org/reports/001/airsafety_p1.htm
Executive Summary This paper addresses the question of whether there is reliable data demonstrating a significant relationship between aviation safety in America today and unidentified aerial phenomena [UAP] (also called unidentified flying objects [UFO] or flying saucers).
Three kinds of reported UAP dynamic behavior and reported consequences are addressed, each of which can affect air safety:
(1) near-miss and other high speed maneuvers conducted by the UAP near the aircraft,
(2) transient and permanent electromagnetic effects onboard the aircraft that affect navigation, guidance, and flight control systems, and
(3) close encounter flight performance by the UAP that produces cockpit distractions which inhibit the flight crew from flying the airplane in a safe manner.
More than one hundred documented close encounters between UAP and commercial, private, and military airplanes are reviewed relative to these three topics.
These reports are drawn from several sources including the author’s personal files, aviation reports prepared by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration administered "Aviation Safety Reporting System (ASRS)."
Interestingly, all of the U.S. government sources illustrate the fact either that pilots don’t report their UAP sightings at all or, if they do, they almost never use the term UAP, UFO, or flying saucer when reporting their near-miss and/or in flight pacing encounters.
I conclude that:
(1) In order to avoid collisions with UAP some pilots have made control inputs that have resulted in passenger and flight crew injury.
(2) Based upon a thorough review of pilot reports of UAP over the conterminous United States between 1950 and 2000 it is concluded that an immediate physical threat to aviation safety due to collision does not exist because of the reported high degree of maneuverability shown by the UAP.
However, (a) should pilots make the wrong control input at the wrong time during an extremely close encounter the possibility of a mid-air collision with a UAP still exists, and (b) if pilots rely upon their instruments when anomalous electromagnetic effects are causing them to malfunction the possibility of an incident or accident exists.
(3) Documented UAP phenomena have been seen and reported for at least fifty years by pilots but many of these reporters have been either ridiculed or instructed not to report their sighting publicly.
(4) Responsible world aviation officials should take UAP phenomena seriously and issue clear procedures for reporting them without fearing ridicule, reprimand or other career impairment and in a manner that will support scientific research,
(5) Airlines should implement instructional courses that teach pilots about optimal control procedures to carry out when flying near UAP and also what data to try to collect about them, if possible, and
(6) A central clearing house should be identified to receive UAP reports (e.g., ASRS; Global Aviation Information Network (GAIN).
This unclassified clearinghouse should collect, analyze, and report UAP sightings for the continuing benefit of aviation safety as well as scientific curiosity. Whatever UAP are they can pose a hazard to aviation safety and should be dealt with appropriately and without bias.
-----------------------------------------------------
http://www.narcap.org/technicalreports.htm
A LISTING OF REPORTS.