It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


This is why most pilots don't talk about ufos

page: 3
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in


posted on May, 9 2010 @ 11:23 PM
I heard about the Phoenix lights sighting from inside airborne commercial airliners & the pilots were radioing back & forth asking the others if they were seeing the same thing,

then some ominous deep voice came on the radio and said 'What did you see?'

Pilots: 'Nothing'

This is an unconstitutional freedom of speech violation.

Lies create National Insecurity & TREASON.


The Pentagon is a Treasonous cluster of mobsters. Shoot those traitors on sight if you are a REAL patriot.

[edit on 9-5-2010 by slank]

posted on May, 9 2010 @ 11:35 PM
I see you bumped this thread. When I saw the title of the thread again I remembered what happened to Capt Terauchi, the pilot of JAL1628 when he reported a UFO, he wasn't allowed to fly after that! So that would make me think twice about reporting a UFO if I was a pilot.

Dr Haines talked to the airline and eventually helped get Terauchi reinstated, but still he probably never should have been "fired" so to speak in the first place. So the reason some pilots don't talk about UFOs may be from seeing what happened to Terauchi and not JANAP146.

But as you pointed out, we still have a lot of pilot UFO reports in spite of both those reasons (JANAP and fear of ridicule or job loss).

posted on May, 10 2010 @ 01:39 AM

Originally posted by Phage
There is nothing in JANAP 146 regarding penalties of any sort.
The purpose of the document is (was) to explain how to report any sightings which may affect national security.

(a) Single aircraft or formations of aircraft which
appear to be directed against the United States
or Canada or their forces.
(b) Missiles.
(c) Unidentified flying objects.
(d) Hostile or unidentified submarines.
(e) Hostile or unidentified group or groups of
military surface vessels.
(f) Individual surface vessels, submarines, or aircraft
of unconventional design, or engaged in suspicious
activity or observed in an unusual location or
following an unusual course.
(g) Unlisted airfields or facilities, weather stations,
or air navigation aids.
(h) Any unexplained or unusual activity which may
indicate a possible attack against or through
Canada or the United States, including the
presence of any unidentified or other suspicious
ground parties in the Polar region or other remote
or sparsely populated areas.

[edit on 12/12/2009 by Phage]

Sorry for the HIGHLIGHT phage...
But that highlight to most ppl is ALIENS..That is were the problem begins.
The use of wrods are sensitive. Even official GVMT ppl use the word "UFO"
to define Aliens..And the same ppl hold the key to the worlds destruction.

posted on May, 10 2010 @ 02:21 AM
reply to post by Tzsephanyahu

This seem to be the case... I have three very good friends in their mid thirties who are all pilots and guess what i usually ask them when i see them...
Yes, "have you seen any ufo lately?" The answer so far from all three is always "nope" and i have this genuine gutfeeling they are telling me the truth.

All three are airlinepilots from smaller european companies.

posted on May, 10 2010 @ 02:26 AM
Well think about it, it's like a policeman or fireman walking in the building and saying "just seen a damn ufo moving at 20,000 miles an hour" not only does it get the chiefs attention and make people think something funny about you, but some smart-ass in the back screams out "if it was going that damn fast, how did you even see it."

posted on May, 10 2010 @ 02:28 AM
Most commercial Pilots do not discuss UFO's because they'd probably be fired if they talked about them or be considered crazy.

These Airlines dont want a Pilot flying their commercial that "sees things" after all.

posted on May, 10 2010 @ 02:29 AM

Originally posted by SuperSlovak

I'm almost positive 90% of pilots have had a ufo experience but won't talk about it because of this. That's why you only hear retired pilots talking about ufos. I'm sure nasa has a similar gag order, it's unfortunate.

Yup, pilots spend every working hour looking at the sky.
Nobody else does that.
It would be logical to assume they see more UFOs than us Earth bound people.

posted on May, 10 2010 @ 08:50 AM

Originally posted by Silver Shadow
Yup, pilots spend every working hour looking at the sky.
Nobody else does that. It would be logical to assume they see more UFOs than us Earth bound people.

Silver Shadow, I'd agree there and despite fear of ridicule, damage to reputation, potential unemployment etc.. there are a huge amount of pilot UFO reports now in the public domain - if you've not seen them before then Dr Richard Haines makes some very interesting remarks in this interview and there's a good article below dealing with pilot cases such as the Valencia incident, the Goose Bay incident, the Lisbon incident, the Canadian Pacific sighting etc..

Passenger Plane Sightings

Statistics show that across the world UFO sightings occur at a rate of around one every two or three minutes. Not surprising then that pilots of commercial airliners should be high on the list of people to have most witnessed them. It is a fact that ever since the beginning of flight and commercial aviation strange craft or disk shaped objects have proved the bafflement of many a professional pilot. In many cases the sightings have been witnessed by the entire crew and passengers - literally hundreds of separate witnesses to each individual incident.

In the early days of commercial aviation these sightings proved something of a novelty. Pilots and air crew were happy to recount their experiences to any one who would listen. Gradually however this openness began to disappear. Airlines became increasingly sensitive to these issues, some even going as far as to prohibit their pilots from talking publicly of their sightings.



posted on May, 10 2010 @ 08:57 AM
reply to post by Mr_skepticc

Mr Skeptic -I think people would be genuinely shocked if they actualy looked at the sheer number of seemingly credible, completely bizarre UFO reports being submitted by Police Officers around the world:

Police Report thread


posted on May, 10 2010 @ 09:01 AM
One reason for trying to control information on UFOs is that many UFOs ARE government aircraft, sometimes being classified in nature. The F-177s created a lots of UFO sighting reports when they first started flying. Other types of vehicles need similar protection.

Years ago, there were DEFINITELY unspoken rules against talking about "real" UFOs, and I knew pilots who saw and spoke, and that taught many others to not speak. Over the years, however, that has really loosened up, and I know pilots and astronauts who will freely discuss variouns events in their careers, as long as no one else is around.

I can tell you from experience that a lot of the shuttle astronauts have had experiences that cannot be explained by known technology. However, they are not so much fearing the "authorities" as they are their future employers. Astronauts do not get paid much while in service, but make LOTS of money doing consulting to firms that want to have a former astronaut to support their "high tech" products. A compromised astronaut is simply replaced by one who is not compromised, and that is what most astronauts do when they leave the program. Once they've made some money, then they start speaking up. In this day and age, there is not so much stigma about discussing UFOs as in the past, and in another ten years, you'll hear many more astronauts telling their stories.

posted on May, 10 2010 @ 01:30 PM
This is an interesting thread, I am entertained by some of the comments. But as a 20-year USAF pilot who now flies for a major airline, I think I can add some insights.

First, this JANAP publication. I have never heard of any such regulation. The regulations that governed my operations never prohibited me from reporting a UFO sighting. (I just never saw one during my years of flying. I have seen and reported on this forum a sighting I had many years ago however.) I'm not saying that the JANAP 146 never existed, but the date on the one posted on many sites is 1954. I'm sure there were many "interesting" regulations from our earlier military days.

Second, why don't pilots report. That is an EXCELLENT question. The underlying reason is what some of you have guessed. Reputation is a very important aspect of being a pilot. You want to be known as a rock-solid guy with good hands and sound judgment. You don't want to be known as the crazy guy who sees little green men. I did have a recent experience with a fellow pilot (the two of us were crewing an aircraft crossing the US). I asked him whether or not he had ever seen something--he relayed his story of seeing a silver sphere over Delaware. He DID report the sighting to the military air traffic control agencies, but he never heard anything else, nor was asked to provide additional details. He said he was open to talking about the issue, but only after someone initiates the conversation.

I do solemnly promise that if and when I finally witness a confirmed UFO while airborne, I will report it to NUFORC and post it here. Then I'll sit back and watch the fun.

posted on May, 10 2010 @ 01:50 PM
reply to post by JoeBarna

Hey Joe -there's some pretty interesting reading here when it comes to pilot UFO/UAP sightings and under reporting bias:

Aviation Safety in America: Under-Reporting Bias of Unidentified Aerial Phenomena and Recommended Solutions. Ted Roe


posted on May, 10 2010 @ 02:23 PM
reply to post by karl 12

Wow, thanks Karl12. You're right, it is very interesting reading. There was a section on the report that discussed pilot interest in unidentified aerial phenomena--most said yes. That's true. We pilots are interested in everything that flies. I am going to bookmark that NARCAP site for future reading.

posted on May, 12 2010 @ 12:03 PM
reply to post by JoeBarna

Hey Joe, thanks for the reply and the NARCAP site certainly has some interesting reading for a rainy day.

I don't know if you've read the NICAP Evidence report before but that's also got a section on aviation professionals:

..Recognizing that airline pilots have special training and are in a unique position for observation, the Defense Department includes them in the military system of reporting vital intelligence sightings (CIRVIS), as detailed in the Joint Chiefs regulation JANAP-146. In 1954, the groundwork for CIRVIS reports was laid by meetings between representatives of the airlines and Military Air Transport Service intelligence branch. The reason?
"The nation's 8,500 commercial airline pilots have been seeing a lot of unusual objects while flying at night, here and overseas," Scripps-Howard reported. "But," the report continued, "there hasn't been much of an organized system of reporting to military authorities. . . [the airlines and MATS] agreed to organize a speedy reporting system so that a commercial pilot spotting strange objects could send the word to the Air Force in a hurry. The Air Force could then send jet fighters to investigate."



posted on Jan, 24 2011 @ 06:50 PM
Kenneth Arnold asks a pertinent question about pilot UFO sightings (found at 20:20).

Google Video Link

posted on Jan, 25 2011 @ 01:42 AM

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
That JANAP146e looks too old to still be in effect, does anyone know when it became obsolete (assuming it did) and what regulations have superceded it and what they say about UFO reporting?

I think the gist of the OP appears to be correct even if as Phage pointed out 146e does not include the penalty specifics, there were penalties provided for elsewhere.

When I was on active duty, I remember having to shred JANAP-146 around 1996 or 1997. From what I recall, it was superseded by higher authority but not replaced by anything new. Basically it became obsolete.

The weird thing is, I specifically remember asking my supervisor about the blurb on reporting UFOs. I had to know the contents of JANAP-146 along with dozens of other military communications publications as part of my duties. As some others have commented, his answer was UFO doesn't mean flying saucer/alien spaceship, that is just meant what it said, UFO. I didn't question that reasoning at the time. I wasn't seriously interested in the subject until after I left the service. However I think the implication is obvious now. It's talking about UFOs in the loaded sense of the word. What the hell kind of literal "UFO" would qualify as a vital intelligence report, other than a UFO in the sense of a technological object ?

I do think there was a late revision of JANAP-146 that not only referred to the US Code, but specifically called out the penalty of up to 10 years in prison and up to a $10,000 fine or both. I'm not positively sure, since it was a long time ago, but I think the copy we had at my command spelled out the penalty. When I first started researching UFOs 6-7 years ago, something about hearing that refrain clicked. It would been one of the last official versions in existence. I think I even saw that version once on the internet before, but I haven't been able to locate it now. As someone mentioned already, military publications are constantly getting changes. It was one of my collateral duties and a major pain in the rear. I haven't given up looking. If I can find a scan with the specific penalty spelled out, I'll be sure to post it in this thread.

Here's something else interesting I found:

look up Title 18, US Code 793, Chapter 37

1994 - Pub. L. 103-322 substituted "fined under this title" for "fined not more than $10,000".

So that title was updated as late as 1994. I really believe the last copies did have that change along with the statement about prison time.
edit on 25-1-2011 by Schaden because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 25 2011 @ 01:50 AM
S&F because it makes sense lol. Nd only because it makes sense. Understand

posted on Jan, 25 2011 @ 03:30 AM
Most Pilots fear talking about UFOs due to fear of being ridiculed. Not to mention, the risk of being grounded and put into some office.

posted on Jan, 25 2011 @ 05:57 PM

Originally posted by Miccey
But that highlight to most ppl is ALIENS..That is were the problem begins.
The use of wrods are sensitive. Even official GVMT ppl use the word "UFO"
to define Aliens.

So I was looking through my copy of Above Top Secret by Tim Good, in the appendix was a remarkable picture from JANAP 146 concerning MERINT reports. The page in Good's book is a landscape layout, and clearly for military and possibly civilian ships. It says at the top "Please Post in Radio Room and on the Bridge".

I googled for that same image and couldn't find it, but found this MERINT instruction form with an identical illustration to the MERINT procedure in the ATS book, the formatting is slightly different, additionally this version looks like it was authorized for distribution to post offices.

So UFO isn't merely "unidentified flying object". It's a picture of what can only be described as a flying saucer ! And this one has a note that isn't in the version in Good's book, "or unidentified objects in the water".

posted on Jan, 25 2011 @ 09:23 PM
reply to post by Schaden

The artwork for those publications is often done by some civilian contract. Much like how a number of Navy instructional videos were done in cartoon format by Disney, featuring popular characters (it ended up being a huge success and reduced incidents and improved retention by a substantial margin).

In either case - the whole point was to, effectively, use airline pilots and various other observers as sentries to warn against threats being launched against the U.S. and Canada from Russia. Did we somehow forget the 1950s-1980s and what was going on at the time?

The structure for reporting this sort of stuff has changed - but there is not nearly the same drive to have pilots reporting sightings to various chains of command that end up going to NORAD.

Airline pilots can and do talk about various sightings. The reason we don't hear about them much is that the chatter is often isolated to those communities (how many people socialize substantially outside of work and in the context of "I saw a strange object flying around the other day"?) Further - even for more social pilots, what is the logical basis for believing people will talk about it much outside of his presence? How often do you hear stories of "My friend knows a friend who knows a friend who saw a UFO!"

As for why they do not run to the media... what do they have, other than "I saw a shiny thing in the sky and it seemed to move around awkwardly?" - not to ridicule - but it's hardly an extraordinary sighting. People with more extraordinary experiences are more likely to report to media sources (particularly on shows like "UFO Hunters" and the like), and we do occasionally hear about those.

There are probably just not as many extraordinary experiences as the average ATSer seems to expect.

new topics

top topics

<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in