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.


New NARCAP Study... Spheres and Aviation Safety

page: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on Nov, 11 2010 @ 03:57 PM

Originally posted by Kandinsky
If they succeed in proving UAPs pose a risk to aviation safety, an open, official investigation would be the next step.

I really hope you are right here Kandinsky, but I think that that will never happen.
One reason I think for that is that when they would hold an open official investigation, they know for shore that they would lose the absolute control they have regarding that phenomenon now.
Another even more important reason is because such a “not open” official investigation is already done, and you can read the outcome of that in yellow.

Aviation Safety in America - A Previously Neglected Factor
Richard F. Haines Chief Scientist
October 15, 2000

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 publically.

(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 (5) A central clearing house should be identified to receive UAP reports (e.g., ASRS; Global Aviation Information Network (GAIN).

posted on Nov, 11 2010 @ 04:57 PM
Ted Roe is a credit to any forum he posts on!

posted on Dec, 23 2010 @ 11:39 AM

I've read and greatly appreciated nearly all of the NARCAP reports, and generally they deserve the highest praise. The O'Hare UAP report takes some digesting, but IMHO it is perhaps the best single report in this area put together in the last decade.

But where did the O'Hare UAP go after it burnt its tunnel through the cloud layer? I wonder if NARCAP has thought of extending its work into space?

With his two operating spacecraft, his history of funding UAP studies (the two NIDS triangle reports recently discussed by Kandinsky in his new thread below) his exciting expansion plans, his base in Arizona close to localities where many UAPs have been reported, and his piles of cash, Robert Bigelow would seem ideal partner for NARCAP.

Working together, Bigelow and NARCAP could perhaps at last start constructing some of the automated UAP detection and monitoring systems that people like Scot Stride of JPL and Peter Davenport of NUFORC have been talking about for years.

posted on Dec, 23 2010 @ 02:19 PM
This is great stuff!!! Welcome and thanks!

new topics

top topics
<< 1   >>

log in