Pilots - Good Observers or Bad???

[Ron Collins]

In Leslie Kean's book and in her recent response to Jim Oberg she says that pilots are good observers. In fact in her response she says she received an email from Dr. Richard Haines talking about it.

Response to Oberg

Richard Haines, who has written more than 70 papers in leading scientific journals and published more than 25 U.S. government reports for NASA, was formerly chief of the space agency's Space Human Factors Office and served for 21 years as a retired senior aerospace scientist at NASA's Ames Research Center. Having studied pilot sightings and related aviation safety issues for more than 30 years, and having personally interviewed hundreds of pilots during that time, Haines has concluded that pilots are indeed excellent witnesses, given their thorough training, expertise and hours of flying time.

As you know, Dr. Haines is a founding member of NARCAP and it's chief scientist. (according to the same article) His resume' would shows that he knows what he is talking about. (Dr. Haines' Bio)

So when he and via his experiences and opinions, Kean's book and response start painting the picture that pilots both commercial and military are good witnesses, in fact they are excellent witnesses. I became understandably confused. Not because Oberg told me the opposite, but because Ted Roe and I talked about this very thing on the forums very recently.

Posts 12 then on the next page posts 22 and 26
UFO book based on questionable foundation -- page2

So now I am exceedingly confused. I have Ted Roe making a case for pilots being as good a witness of the phenomenon as anyone else and Kean, Haines, and the other witnesses in her book telling me they they are the best witnesses. In fact they go on to make a case for why they are and part of it is backed up by Hains' research while at NASA. Leslie Kaen is a contributor to articles on the NARCAP site as is Dr. Haines. So, why the mixed messages? Since this is probably the undercurrent theme of Kean's book I think it is important to get an answer to this.

Are Military and Commercial pilots better witnesses of aerial phenomenon than normal people and why/why not.

 

[Sean Elifritz]

In Leslie Kean's book and in her recent response to Jim Oberg she says that pilots are good observers. In fact in her response she says she received an email from Dr. Richard Haines talking about it.

Response to Oberg


As you know, Dr. Haines is a founding member of NARCAP and it's chief scientist. (according to the same article) His resume' would shows that he knows what he is talking about. (Dr. Haines' Bio)

So when he and via his experiences and opinions, Kean's book and response start painting the picture that pilots both commercial and military are good witnesses, in fact they are excellent witnesses. I became understandably confused. Not because Oberg told me the opposite, but because Ted Roe and I talked about this very thing on the forums very recently.

Posts 12 then on the next page posts 22 and 26
UFO book based on questionable foundation -- page2

So now I am exceedingly confused. I have Ted Roe making a case for pilots being as good a witness of the phenomenon as anyone else and Kean, Haines, and the other witnesses in her book telling me they they are the best witnesses. In fact they go on to make a case for why they are and part of it is backed up by Hains' research while at NASA. Leslie Kaen is a contributor to articles on the NARCAP site as is Dr. Haines. So, why the mixed messages? Since this is probably the undercurrent theme of Kean's book I think it is important to get an answer to this.

Are Military and Commercial pilots better witnesses of aerial phenomenon than normal people and why/why not.

I don't know if they are better witnesses or not. But I do know that pilots nowadays tend to be better educated than the general public and that being in the air puts you closer to a UFO than being on the ground does.

 

[Angel of Ioren]

In Leslie Kean's book and in her recent response to Jim Oberg she says that pilots are good observers. In fact in her response she says she received an email from Dr. Richard Haines talking about it.

Response to Oberg


As you know, Dr. Haines is a founding member of NARCAP and it's chief scientist. (according to the same article) His resume' would shows that he knows what he is talking about. (Dr. Haines' Bio)

So when he and via his experiences and opinions, Kean's book and response start painting the picture that pilots both commercial and military are good witnesses, in fact they are excellent witnesses. I became understandably confused. Not because Oberg told me the opposite, but because Ted Roe and I talked about this very thing on the forums very recently.

Posts 12 then on the next page posts 22 and 26
UFO book based on questionable foundation -- page2

So now I am exceedingly confused. I have Ted Roe making a case for pilots being as good a witness of the phenomenon as anyone else and Kean, Haines, and the other witnesses in her book telling me they they are the best witnesses. In fact they go on to make a case for why they are and part of it is backed up by Hains' research while at NASA. Leslie Kaen is a contributor to articles on the NARCAP site as is Dr. Haines. So, why the mixed messages? Since this is probably the undercurrent theme of Kean's book I think it is important to get an answer to this.

Are Military and Commercial pilots better witnesses of aerial phenomenon than normal people and why/why not.

Pilots are less likely to mistake a conventional aircraft for a UFO than a regular person that is not interested in aircraft. Even though I'm not a pilot, I've always been interested in airplanes, so I'd like to think I would be less likely to consider an airplane as a UFO. However, pilots are still human, and all humans are able to make the same errors in judgment and we are all susceptible to mistakes in memories. I mentioned in another post that I saw an airplane at just the right angle a few weeks ago to maker it look like something extraordinary - after a few minutes of looking at it, I realized it was just an airplane.

 

[Xylo]

However, pilots are still human, and all humans are able to make the same errors in judgment and we are all susceptible to mistakes in memories.

I think that the best observers would be fighter pilots, as they rely upon quick identification of high speed aircraft as it might possibly save the lives of their comrades. I do believe that pilots are better observers than the general lay public, since their experience leads them to readily identify that which is normal versus that which is abnormal in the skies.

 

[Ron Collins]

It makes sense to me that military and airline pilots are better trained with regards to weather phenomenon, flight characteristics, and identification of known aircraft. My issue is that while Ted Roe agreed that pilots would not make the obvious mistakes (venus, the moon, etc.) the are still wrong just as often as normal folks that see the moon and venus and understand it isn't a craft from Zeta Reticuli. My question isn't easy to answer. Can weather balloons, lenticular cloud formations, rare weather phenomenon, misidentified aircraft, meteors, light reflecting off a flock of birds, or swamp gas really confuse pilots just as much a it does Bob from accounting? When does experience and training give way o human sensory filings?

 

[Kandinsky]

I'm glad you've asked the question and hopefully we'll see a good discussion develop. In terms of the core hypothesis of UFO/UAP reports, it's incredibly important.

We've got Jim Oberg in particular and Dr Clarke et al to a lesser degree, casting serious doubts on the credibility of aviation witnesses. They aren't just suggesting reasonable doubt, but extending 'reasonable doubt' into a de facto likelihood that pilots will be inaccurate and commonly mistaken. Oberg wouldn't continually refer to the Hynek study if he wasn't convinced that pilots are not credible witnesses. He uses his own credibility and the Hynek report to undermine that of the pilots. If I was in his position and intent on debunking UFO/UAP reports, I'd be utterly delighted that one of the most credible names in support of the core hypothesis (Hynek) is the hammer used to bludgeon the reports. Irony in practice.

Firstly, I think a modern study into pilot reliability is long overdue. The aviation industry is not the same as it was and standards of education are much higher. Civil aviation now exists in a world of litigation culture and much busier skies. I'll use Manchester Airport, England as an example. If you read this (http://www.ukaccs.info/manchester/comphist.pdf). it's clear that commercial aviation has changed profoundly in technology and numbers. 21, 000 flights in 1950 and 111600 in 1986. It was a 170 000 in 2009 (Manchester Airport Consultative Committee - Airport Profile)

Greater risks equal greater liabilities to public perception and running costs. It's inevitable that pilots and crew will have a better eduaction of astronomical phenomena than their forbears in Hynek's study. I could be wrong here, but without applying the same analysis to the modern sample of pilots, we won't know.

Hynek's study didn't show a poor performance of those pilots identifying other aircraft, it identified a number of cases where UAP reports were made of re-entering satellites. Descriptions included highly advanced flight characteristics of craft manoeuvres. In fact, they turned out to be satellites on steady trajectories.

Oberg is no Menzel, although he shares the same implied certainty that all UAP/UFO reported sightings can be explained with enough information. He refers to the same strong cases of pilot misidentifications to support his contention that *all* can be explained. The 1990 re-entry of the Proton rocket that was seen above Europe and the '94 launch of the Russian Progress rocket are favourites. Pilots reported sighting moving objects zipping about and even approaching their aircraft. The point here is that he was right and correct to identify these cases with 'prosaic' explanations.

If he can explain these cases, shouldn't we suspect that *all* of them can be similarly explained? At the very least, it adds doubt to pilot credibility and supports the Hynek study that pilots are rubbish witnesses. It's the common-sense notion that, by extension, anything with a duck's bill and webbed feet is a duck. Especially if it lives in water!

Within the sample of pilot sightings, others find anomalies. Our 'duck' is sometimes a platypus...

Dr Haines is even more qualified than Oberg to draw conclusions from pilot sightings. He's possibly better qualified than Hynek to analyse pilot reports and certainly more consistent. He's been high up at NASA's Ames Research Center, is an engineer and is qualified in psychology. With his experience, he still allows that pilots can be credible witnesses...accurate even. The NARCAP special reports analyse a number of pilot sightings that they find credible. The recent Project Sphere has also accepted pilot testimony as accurate and in some cases backed up by separate civil and military radars and ATC.

For me, if Oberg identifies a 'prosaic' explanation for a UFO/UAP sighting, I'll pay attention and try to check out his evidence. Likewise if Dr Haines and the NARCAP guys present a strong case of UAP, I'll pay attention. I won't dismiss all pilots as unreliable witnesses or put them on a pedestal as faultless witnesses. Instead, each case can, and should, be judged on its merits. I don't believe modern pilots are 'bad observers,' but without a genuine analysis it remains an opinion and so I turn to more informed authorities.

Just as a final thought...despite pilots being 'bad observers' in the opinion of Oberg and the Hynek study...what some described was accurate in detail enough to identify the various rockets. In that case, where subsequent analysis was unable to find prosaic explanations...by Oberg's criteria...the sighting was truly 'unexplained.'

 

[Ted Roe]

Hi Ron,
Yes, you have correctly identified a difference in positions between Dr. Haines and myself. I feel that pilots are acceptable witnesses and that we can trust them to tell us what they are seeing but I don't feel that they are a better witness. Dr. Haines and co feel that they are better because of the degree of education and experience they tend to have. You could say that we both agree that pilots are not poor witnesses.
.
I don't doubt that they are vulnerable to delusions, or illusions. I do doubt Obergs perspective and I disagree that pilots make poor witnesses.

We need to remember that there are other variables that effect reporting including beliefs, technical training, experience, etc... Some pilots are fully capable of doing an analysis of what they have seen and offer a very clear perspective on it. Others simply see something and its up to the investigator to dig in find out if they actually were reporting an anomaly. Still others feel that there is no need to bother making the report, its all a waste of time dealing with a bunch of whackos, who cares what it was? Still others become quite animated and concerned and go right off the deep end with assumptions that are not necessarily appropriate... Pilots are people too.

Example, a guy on a flight from Australia looks down in time to see a contrail pass beneath his plane and extend out into the distance. At the far end of his point of view he sees a dot. He checks his watch and when he lands he submits his report that something passed beneath his plane that he could not identify and it seemed to pass rather close... Subsequent analysis matches the time and location of the contrail with the expected intersection of two flight paths by two conventional aircraft - his and the one that passed below him. He couldn't tell what it was and made a report. A subsequent study bears out a prosaic explanation.

Is he a bad witness? No. Did he successfully resolve that it was or was not a UAP? No...

The interesting point that Oberg and others fail to engage is that while the demographic of pilots has changed from HS grads to college educated, military trained professionals the reports themselves remain the same. The same profiles, the same threads of commonalities occur in the reports regardless of the education or experience of the reporter. That is a far more significant point, in my opinion, than suggesting that pilots do and have always got it wrong.

The Hynek argument is moot because, at the time, Hynek was speaking about the demographic of pilots prior to educational standards being imposed on the industry. At Hyneks time there were a lot of WWII pilots who had become commercial aviators and many of them were simply highschool educated. That is not the case today and hasn't been the case for new pilots entering the industry for decades. To focus on what Hynek said 40years ago speaks to Obergs bias rather than the facts of the matter.

Further, pilot witnesses have made observations of UAP that led to scientific discoveries even though science dismissed those reports as delusional for decades. Blue Jets and such are the example I am referring to. Pilots had been seeing them for years and experts in atmospheric conduction claimed that vertical electrical discharges such as those described by pilots simply did not exist. Well, a couple of true scientists did a survey of pilots, identified 15 cases of reports of vertical discharges and narrowed down the matter enough to get camera confirmation of the UAP that the pilots were reporting. They not only discovered the phenomena of Jets, Sprites, Dwarves, Elves, pixies, etc... they also discovered that pilots make pretty good witnesses/observers. It wasn't that the pilots were bad observers, it was science that was failing to observe that pilots are capable witnesses. In short, it was scientific bias - "that doesn't happen therefore those who saw it happen are bad witnesses"... its a lame approach to investigations used by those whose agenda or paradigm is threatened by having to consider the alternative.


I think that Obergs failing lies with his ignorance about UAP research today. There are major instrument supported studies that have been underway for years that long ago validated that UAP exist. The case for mobile balls of light existing is a very strong one that is well supported by science. These UAP are quite mobile as well. So Oberg claims what? That pilots are bad witnesses of phenomena that are already proved to exist? Or is he saying that those phenomena don't exist and that pilots who see them are just perpetuating a myth?

 

[CapnG]

"Observer" is such a waffling term, it implies an inherent factor of opinion and judgement. Let's try and stick to the quantifiable. Pilots (by necessity) have superior eyesight (espescially in the military). If we start from that simple fact, how can anyone claim that pilot "observations" are therefore on par or as faulty as the common man's? There's no logic to it.

 

[Ted Roe]

I think the presumption that better eyesight equals a better witness isn't quite accurate. Pilots are subject to illusions and delusions. Example, on an aircraft there are running lights. Green on the right, Red on the left.... At night pilots with perfect eyesight have flown their aircraft straight into an intersection while believing that they were following an aircraft simply because of the red and green stop lights appearing to be similar to those on an aircraft.

We can suspect that as a group pilots make better observers but we can't simply assume that an observation is valid because a pilot reported it. There is more to investigation and resolution than that. This is another point where Oberg and co fall short. They don't investigate anything without a motive to arrive at a predetermined conclusion. They pick cases that are borderline and use them to smear all cases. So because Oberg has a couple of examples of pilots misidentifying things that should be enough to claim that pilots as a whole are bad witnesses and are especially bad when it involves UAP (because UAP don't exist, according to Oberg and Co). The bottom line is that they are wrong on both points and the position is only tenable if the data is cooked...

We can feel pretty good about what a pilot tells us and we can document that. Sometimes we can validate it with radar data, secondary witnesses, etc... What makes an aviation case provocative, in my opinion, is that we can acquire data not only from the pilot but sometimes from the ATC, from radar, etc. We can examine audio recordings of the pilot and atc, we can compare it with radar data or other supporting materials and eventually a majority report will emerge that will be fairly reliable. Sometimes there are concurrent reports of electrical, communications, navigations system failures as well. In this way the aircraft can be considered a sensing device that can tell us about the UAP and the emanations coming from it. The clincher for pilot cases is that we use the same investigative tools each time.

 

[CapnG]

At night pilots with perfect eyesight have flown their aircraft straight into an intersection while believing that they were following an aircraft simply because of the red and green stop lights appearing to be similar to those on an aircraft.

I find this claim highly dubious. Barring total exhaustion/impairment, I fail to see how ANYONE could do this given that aiplanes usually have altimeters as standard equipment and inersections are usually covered by street lights (not to mention populated by CARS!).

However, assuming for the moment such a thing has happened I would count it as extremely rare. In other words it's possible but unlikely and that is where our concerns should lie; with the likely. Pilots are simply more likely to be better eyewitnesses than laymen owing to their superioir eyesight and training.

 

[Ted Roe]

Well, you might find it dubious but it can happen because it has happened. The most common illusion that pilots encounter at night is in sparsely populated areas where lights on the ground appear as an extension of the stars in the skies such that the horizon is no longer visible. In that state, as dangerous as it is, it is entirely possible to find oneself following traffic based on the appearance of green and red lights from a stoplight that appear to be an aircraft against a starry background......We have aai's on staff that could tell you even spookier stories of investigations they did involving illusions. That is just one kind of visual illusion.
The fact is that superior eyesight won't protect a mind from illusions and delusions. Pilots are susceptible to several different kinds like autokinesis, for example. They do know that they are limited in their ability to estimate size and distance and will often say so but so do people on the ground.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sensory_illusions_in_aviation
And some cases reflect the fact that the pilot has no idea what he is looking at and involve further investigation to narrow that down to a UAP or something prosaic.
Is a pilot who sees a blue ball of light flying past a better witness than a ground observer who sees a blue ball of light fly past?
http://www.skybrary.aero/bookshelf/books/812.pdf
Like I said before, I don't think pilots are exceptional witnesses... they are no more credible to me than a ground observer is. Sure they have better vision and training as whole when compared with other types of witnesses but they are as likely to dismiss something without making a report, just as likely to jump to a conclusion about the source of a report and just as likely to fall into belief systems about what they have seen as anyone else. This puts me slightly at odds with Dr Haines and Leslie but I am ok with that...its the consistent use of investigative tools used by aviation accident investigators and perceptual experts that really validates or discounts an observation....

 

[dyingsun]

Well, the factor of ridicule certainly comes into play right here. I still think that pilots, either commercial or millitary, do indeed make great witnesses.For what, is still the question.

 

[Kandinsky]

So Oberg claims what? That pilots are bad witnesses of phenomena that are already proved to exist? Or is he saying that those phenomena don't exist and that pilots who see them are just perpetuating a myth?

Ted, in my experience, Jim Oberg doesn't accept the truth of a core phenomena....they only exist due to a lack of information.

The Hynek Study is therefore very useful to his argument when it's providing statistics of pilot misinterpretation in the high 80% range. Joe Average is around 50%. It allows Oberg to feel confident in his assertions and generates a lot of doubt in the minds of readers. In discussion, it provides a great advantage. He's got a study by a respected researcher (Hynek) that nobody has read.

I recently pointed out some flaws in his typical argument and he responded pretty decently. The gist of my criticism was that he seeks to discredit any and all credibility of witnesses and technology. At the same time, he himself stands as an authority and refers to experience in debates. I suggested that if the public are to accept his 'authority' then they must also accept the authority of other credible witnesses e.g. pilots, astronomers etc. I could have written my argument in a clearer way, but he took it in good grace and came over as a decent guy.

 

[Ron Collins]

Ted, in my experience, Jim Oberg doesn't accept the truth of a core phenomena....they only exist due to a lack of information.

The Hynek Study is therefore very useful to his argument when it's providing statistics of pilot misinterpretation in the high 80% range. Joe Average is around 50%. It allows Oberg to feel confident in his assertions and generates a lot of doubt in the minds of readers. In discussion, it provides a great advantage. He's got a study by a respected researcher (Hynek) that nobody has read.

I recently pointed out some flaws in his typical argument and he responded pretty decently. The gist of my criticism was that he seeks to discredit any and all credibility of witnesses and technology. At the same time, he himself stands as an authority and refers to experience in debates. I suggested that if the public are to accept his 'authority' then they must also accept the authority of other credible witnesses e.g. pilots, astronomers etc. I could have written my argument in a clearer way, but he took it in good grace and came over as a decent guy.

Was this an email or on his site??? I would love to read it.

 

[Kandinsky]

Was this an email or on his site??? I would love to read it.

Hiya Ron. My post is here in a Leslie Kean thread...Leslie Kean: UFOs: Generals, Pilots and Government Officials Go On the Record (new book) Aliens and UFOs - Single Post

Jim's reply is here...Leslie Kean: UFOs: Generals, Pilots and Government Officials Go On the Record (new book) Aliens and UFOs - Single Post

 

[Ron Collins]

The interesting point that Oberg and others fail to engage is that while the demographic of pilots has changed from HS grads to college educated, military trained professionals the reports themselves remain the same. The same profiles, the same threads of commonalities occur in the reports regardless of the education or experience of the reporter. That is a far more significant point, in my opinion, than suggesting that pilots do and have always got it wrong.

I agree, this aspect is far more revealing than a perspective debate. The consistency of reported characteristics should be the talking point and I wonder if it will be once the initial knee jerk accusation/justification roller coaster slows a bit. Often in debating the paranormal subjects we find ourselves inexplicably focused on the wrong aspects of the problem. I will do a bit of research on that point and start a thread about it as well.

I think I now understand how your opinions differ from Haines and Kean (et al). You both make a good case. I really want to know more about this. Are you aware of any current research into pilot perception reliability vs non-pilot reliability?

 

[Ron Collins]

Hiya Ron. My post is here in a Leslie Kean thread...Leslie Kean: UFOs: Generals, Pilots and Government Officials Go On the Record (new book) Aliens and UFOs - Single Post

Jim's reply is here...Leslie Kean: UFOs: Generals, Pilots and Government Officials Go On the Record (new book) Aliens and UFOs - Single Post

I think your point was well presented. His reply to you made him seem much less pompous than many of his articles. Perhaps it was the relaxed tone of the exchange, I'm not sure. I have no doubt that he believes that all sighings are prosaic if we had enough information to apply to them. So I think that it was a little disingenuous when he offered up cases that he didn't know of a prosaic explanation for. That seemed a veiled appeasement. Other than that I thought his response was very measured and amicable.

 

[Creepy Green Light]

Speaking as a pilot (private) and an ex U.S. Naval Aircrewman - poor.