Introduction
Civilian, military, and commercial
pilots have reported seeing unidentified aerial
phenomena (UAP) for over fifty years. These
ubiguitous phenomena have been reported by air crews
of almost every nation on earth and have led, in the
past, to the establishment of several official
civilian or military review boards or study groups
(e.g., Chile, France, Soviet Union, United States of
America). The interested reader should consult
(Haines, 1983, 1992, 1993, 1994, 2000; Hall, 1964;
Jacobs, 1975, Gillmor, 1968; Ruppelt, 1956) for
examples of such accounts.
As interesting as these general pilot
sighting reports are there is another type of aviation
event that is even more interesting and of more
potential importance to those who are technically and
scientifically minded, viz., UAP-related
electro-magnetic effects on board the aircraft that
could have impacted flight safety. The primary purpose
of this paper is to review over fifty years of pilot
reports which both authors have compiled over the
years. These cases involve one or more on-board
systems (navigation, guidance and control equipment,
cockpit displays, circuit breakers, other
electro-magnetically controlled systems) were
influenced allegedly when one or more UAP were
physically near the aircraft. Clearly, it is both the
physical proximity of the UAP as well as the transient
nature of these E-M effects that make them so
interesting. If it can be shown that there is a
direct, range-related influence of UAP on cockpit (and
other) on-board systems then the application of
traditional laws of physics is appropriate. And, if
these effects last only as long as the UAP is near the
aircraft and return to normal function after the UAP
departs, it suggests that they are caused directly by
the UAP and are not random or unrelated energy
interactions within the airborne system(s). The
following section discusses how these cases were
selected for study?
-
Electro-Magnetic Case Acceptance Rating Methodology
(EMCARM) -
This methodology provides a set of rating criteria
for pilot reports involving EM effects. EMCARM
represents a clear and relatively simple set of
acceptance guidelines with which to accept or reject
candidate EM reports. Table 1 presents the eleven
factors and their ratings.
Table 1
EMCARM Evaluation Factors
| Number |
Factor |
Criterion |
Rating |
| 1. |
Pilot Flying Experience |
> 5000 hrs. (commercial or military)
|
4 |
| |
|
1 to 5000 hrs. (commercial / military)
|
3 |
| |
|
> 1000 hrs. (private)
|
2 |
| |
|
1 – 1000 hrs (private)
|
1 |
| |
|
Not mentioned
|
0 |
| 2. |
Number of Aircrew Witnesses |
>3 |
3 |
| |
|
2 pilots (or 2 rated aircrew) |
2 |
| |
|
1 pilot/aircrew
|
1 |
| |
|
Not mentioned
|
0 |
| 3. |
Aircraft and UAP Altitude Scoring Matrix
(use number in appropriate cell) |
|
|
|
|
50 |
0 |
1 |
2 |
4 |
2 |
|
Aircraft Altitude
|
30 |
0 |
1 |
4 |
2 |
0 |
|
|
(ft x
1000) |
10 |
1 |
4 |
3 |
1 |
0 |
|
|
|
1 |
3 |
2 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
|
|
|
|
1 |
10 |
30 |
50 |
70 |
|
|
|
|
UAP
Altitude (ft. x 1000) |
| Number |
Factor |
Criterion |
Rating |
| 4. |
Separation Distance (d)
between Aircraft and UAP |
Very near (within 30 feet) |
4 |
| |
|
Moderately near (30<d<100 feet) |
3 |
| |
|
Moderately distant (100<d<5000 ft) |
2 |
| |
|
Very distant (> 5000 feet) |
1 |
| |
|
Can’t be determined/not mentioned |
0 |
| 5. |
Ambient illumination |
Full daylight |
3 |
| |
|
Very dim ( incl. dawn or dusk) |
2 |
| |
|
Dark |
1 |
| |
|
Not mentioned |
0 |
| 6. |
Duration of EM Effect(s) |
Only during closest approach and
ceased after UAP departed |
4 |
| |
|
Appeared when UAP arrived and did
not return to normal after UAP departed |
2 |
| 7. |
Severity of EM Effect(s) |
More than 3 independent
sub-systems affected |
4 |
| |
|
1 sub-system affected |
3 |
| |
|
1 or more sub-systems had to be
replaced |
3 |
| |
|
Not specified |
0 |
| 8. |
Sighting Duration (t) |
>90 minutes |
5 |
| |
|
10<t<60 minutes |
4 |
| |
|
2<t<10 minutes |
3 |
| |
|
0.5<t<2 minutes |
2 |
| |
|
<0.5 minutes |
1 |
| |
|
Not specified |
0 |
| 9. |
Aircraft Ground Speed (v) |
> Mach 1.0 |
3 |
| |
(Note: UAP must be near and
maintaining station with aircraft to validly apply
these ratings) |
250<v<600 mph (~Mach 1) |
2 |
| |
|
Stall<v<250 mph |
1 |
| |
|
If not specified (private single engine
aircraft=1; twin engine jet aircraft=2) |
1 or 2 |
| 10. |
UAP Ground Speed |
Ditto number 9, above |
|
| 11. |
UAP Maneuverability |
UAP circles aircraft that is flying
on constant heading |
3 |
| |
(Relative to aircraft) |
UAP maintains “station” precisely as
aircraft changes heading, altitude, etc. |
3 |
| |
(UAP must be nearby) |
UAP executes high precision flight, high-g turns,
hi accel. stops/starts
over relatively long periods of time
typ. > 5 min.) |
3 |
| |
|
other maneuvers
|
3 |
| |
|
Not specified |
0 |
| |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
|
MAXIMUM SCORE |
40 |
| |
|
|
|
In this report, a Category 1 incident
achieved an ENCARM score of 22 or more and was
included in the study while a Category 2 incident had
a score of less than 22 and was not included.
Category 3 incidents possessed scores between 20 and
21 and were reserved for possible future
investigation as more information became available.
The Category 1 threshold score is admittedly somewhat
arbitrary yet it does provide an approximate boundary
between the top 40%.
It should be understood that this type of report
rating methodology is most useful in evaluating a
large number of cases, each of which differs along
different lines of evidence.
Since no two cases are likely to be the same EMCARM
employs enough different factors and criteria to
bridge the broad array of case detail differences. Of
course, one practical difficulty in applying this
methodology is that many reports lack sufficient
detail to complete all eleven factors or to judge them
accurately. This calls for significantly more
rigorous data collection in the future.
E-M Effect Taxonomy
One of the authors (R.F.H.) developed a descriptive
aircraft systems taxonomy that was found to be useful
in his ongoing AirCatalogue (AIRCAT) research. This
taxonomy (cf. Appendix) provides a three level
designation system so that on-board systems can be
grouped according to common functions in
computer-based analyses. It was found to be useful in
the present study.
Consistent use of such a two-
or three-letter code will efficiently capture a large
majority of EM effects experienced on-board an
aircraft. Of course multiple codes should be used if
more than one system was affected. Aviation
specialists and mechanics can study these codes and
learn what they share in common (besides electrical
current and pulse frequency) and thereby possibly
understand what might have caused the system
effect(s).
Preliminary Results
The
following subjects are discussed in this section: (A)
Statistical Overview of Thirty Three (52%) of the
total
Sixty Four Cases Scoring 22 or Higher on the EMCARM
Rating Scale, (B) Study of E-M Effects – Experimental
Questions, (C). How E-M Effects Are Distributed by
Type of Aircraft, (D). Correlation Between Specific
E-M Effects and Distance to UAP, (E)
Relationship between E-M Effects and Reported UAP
Maneuverability, (F) Position of UAP relative to the
Aircraft and E-M Effects.
A. Statistical Overview of Thirty Three (52%) of
the
Total Sixty Four Cases Scoring 22 or
Higher on the EMCARM Rating Scale.
Fifty seven E-M cases were subjected to the EMCARM
"filter.” The results follow:
|
Scores |
Number of Cases |
|
Minimum score 9 |
1 |
|
Maximum score 31 |
2 |
|
Mean score 22 |
5 |
|
From 22 to 31 |
33 cases (category 1) |
|
From 9 to 21 |
31 cases
(category
2) |
EMCARM Criteria Selection Results for the 33 “Category
1” cases:
Factor 1: Pilot Flying Experience
| |
Number of Cases |
|
>500 hrs. (Commercial Rated Pilot – military
pilot) |
6 |
|
1-500 hrs (commercial pilot – military pilot) |
2 |
|
>1000 hrs (private pilot) |
5 |
|
1-1000 hrs (Private pilot) |
6 |
|
Not mentioned |
14 |
The "not mentioned" factor has the highest score (14).
High time commercial pilots also tend to see (or only
report?) more than do low time pilots.
Factor 2 : Number of Aircrew Witnesses
| |
Number of Cases |
|
>3 pilots / aircrew members |
10 |
|
2 pilots (or 2 rated crew members) |
12 |
|
1 pilot / aircrew member |
11 |
|
Not mentioned |
0 |
Factor 3 : Aircraft and UAP Altitude
|
altitude |
nb of a/c |
nb of UAP |
|
<1000 ft |
0 |
0 |
|
<10000 ft |
21 |
14 |
|
<30000 ft |
09 |
06 |
|
<50000 ft |
03 |
03 |
|
not specified |
0 |
10 |
__________________________________________________________
Factor 4 : Aircraft and UAP Separation Distance (d)
| |
Number of Cases |
|
Very near (within 30 ft)
|
3 |
|
Moderately near (30<d<100 ft)
|
2 |
|
Moderately distant (100<d<5000 ft) |
13 |
|
Very distant (>5000 ft) |
7 |
|
Not mentioned |
8 |
Separation distance between aircraft and UAP is
probably the single most important factor for E-M
cases. The above table shows that 18 cases occurred at
a distance of from 10 and 5,000 feet.
Factor 5 : Ambient illumination
| |
Number of Cases |
|
Full daylight |
14 |
|
Very dim (dawn or dusk)
|
0 |
|
Darkness
|
18 |
|
Not
mentioned |
1 |
Factor 6 : E-M Effect Duration
| |
Number of Cases |
|
Only during closest approach phase
(thereafter E-M symptoms disappeared) |
30 |
|
E-M symptoms
appeared with UAP
(and did not return to normal after UFO
departure) |
1 |
|
Not
mentioned |
2 |
The main results for this factor indicate that these
effects were transient in most of the cases - 30 of
the 33 (91%). In only one case did the E-M effects not
return to normal. This indicates that E-M symptoms
were very likely caused by the UAP.
Factor 7 : E-M Effect Severity
| |
Number of Cases |
|
More than 3 independent sub-systems affected |
2 |
|
1 sub-system affected |
31 |
|
1 or more sub-systems had to be replaced
|
0 |
|
Not specified |
0 |
Comments : In most of the 33 cases
only one or two sub-systems of the aircraft were
affected by E-M effects. But for case n°16
(24/03/1955), 9 different sub-systems were affected
(electrical system and power plant).
Factor 8 : Sighting Duration (t)
| |
Number of Cases |
|
>60 min. |
1 |
|
10<t<60 min. |
11 |
|
2<t<10 min. |
13 |
|
0.5<t<2 min. |
3 |
|
<0.5 min. |
3 |
|
Not specified |
2 |
Factor 9 : Aircraft Ground Speed (v)
| |
Number of Cases |
|
>Mach 1.0 |
2 |
|
250<v<600 mph (Mach.1) |
7 |
|
Stall<v<250 mph. |
23 |
|
Not specified |
1 |
During E-M effects, Aircraft ground speed was, for
most of the cases (23 among 33), between stall and 250
mph. More exactly, for 19 cases the aircraft speed was
between 100 and 250 mph. The minimum aircraft speed
was: 80 mph.
Factor
10 : UAP Ground Speed (v)
| |
Number of Cases |
|
>Mach 1.0 |
3 |
|
250<v<600 mph (Mach.1) |
7 |
|
Stall<v<250 mph. |
13 |
|
Not specified |
10 |
There are fewer cases where the speed of the UAP was
mentioned, but when it was (23 cases) the speed of the
UAP and the speed of the aircraft were the same in 19
cases (83%).
Factor 11 : UAP Maneuverability - Relative to
Aircraft (UAP must be nearby aircraft)
| UAP Maneuver |
Number of Cases |
|
UAP circles aircraft when aircraft flies straight
|
2 |
|
UAP flies “station” (paces) precisely as aircraft
changes heading, altitude, etc. |
16 |
|
UAP executes high precision flight, high-g turns,
high acceleration, stop/starts
for relatively long period of time
(e.g.,>5 minutes) |
8 |
|
Other maneuvers
|
7 |
| Not specified |
0 |
| |
|
| |
|
B. Study of E-M Effects – experimental questions
Distribution of E-M effects for the 33 "category 1"
cases, using Haines' Airplane E-M Effects Nomenclature
/ Taxonomy list:
A.
Distribution of E-M Effects symptoms for each cases
(including EMCARM aircraft/UAP separation distance
criteria 4)
|
Case
n° |
Date |
Location |
Type
of a/c* |
distance
a/c – UAP
(ft) |
EMCARM
factor 4
** |
No of
EM
effects |
EME Type
Level1 (Level2) |
EMCARM
total
score |
|
3 |
00/02/44 |
Australia |
M |
100 |
MD |
2 |
E(D)+E(R) |
27 |
|
8 |
24/07/49 |
USA |
P |
1500 |
MD |
1 |
P(P) |
23 |
|
11 |
10/02/51 |
Canada |
M |
100 |
MD |
2 |
E(D)+E(M) |
31 |
|
12 |
00/04/51 |
USA |
P |
|
0 |
3 |
E(M)+P(P)+M(O) |
24 |
|
13 |
18/09/51 |
Canada |
M |
170184 |
VD |
1 |
E(D)+R(A) |
|
