These recommendations were presented at the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics AV23 Conference on June 14, 2023. They were referred to by Ryan Graves during his testimony to the Congressional Oversight Committee on July 26, 2023. These recommendations are intended to offer FAA/ DoD AARO a solution to the problem of UAP reporting and civil aviation. To date, the FAA instructs pilots to report to civilian reporting centers and does not formally accept UAP/UFO reports per the FAA FAR AIM 7.7.4
- Ted Roe ~ coauthor, Executive Director, NARCAP, July 26, 2023 ted_roe@narcap.org
Recommendations to Improve Acquisition and Management of Aviation-Related UAP Data
Martin Snow[1]
Retired Aerospace/Defense Quality Engineering Specialist, Rochester, NY, 14624, USA
John M. Platte[2]
USAF, Ret., Clearwater, FL, 33765, USA
John-Michael Gutierrez[3]
USN, FPO AE, 09618, USA
Ted Roe[4]
National Aviation Reporting Center on Anomalous Phenomena, Anchorage, AK, 99645, USA
Ryan Graves[5]
Chair, AIAA UAPIOC, Hollis, NH, 03049, USA
The ability to understand UAP and its impact on aviation safety relies heavily upon the quality of data that can be retrieved and analyzed from aviation-related UAP sighting reports. Current guidance directs the aviation community to report UAP incidents to a civilian reporting center. The current multitude of (non-aviation-specific) civilian reporting centers is an obstacle to achieving this understanding of UAP. This paper proposes that a viable solution is the establishment of a single, national (or potentially international) reporting center for all aviation-related UAP incidents. An optimal platform to host this reporting center is the NASA Aviation Safety Reporting System (ASRS).
I. Nomenclature
AARO = All-domain Anomaly Resolution Office
AIAA = American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
AIM = Aeronautical Information Manual
ARTCC = Air Route Traffic Control Center
ASAP = Aviation Safety Action Program
ASRS = Aviation Safety Reporting System
ATC = Air Traffic Control
CI = Chief Investigator
CIRVIS = Communication Instructions Reporting Vital Intelligence Sightings
CMS = Case Management System
DepSecDef = Deputy Secretary of Defense
DoD = Department of Defense
DOI = Director of Investigations
FAA = Federal Aviation Administration
FAAST = Federal Aviation Administration Safety Team
FAR = Federal Aviation Regulations
FI = Field Investigator
FOIA = Freedom of Information Act, codified at 5 U.S.C. § 552
HAZREP = Hazard Report
IFO = Identified Flying Object
MUFON = Mutual UFO Network
NARCAP = National Aviation Reporting Center on Anomalous Phenomena
NAS = Naval Air Station
NASA = National Aeronautics and Space Administration
NDAA = National Defense Authorization Act
NOTAM = Notice to Airmen
NUFORC = National UFO Reporting Center
ODNI = Office of the Director for National Intelligence
UAP = Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena
UAPIOC = UAP Integration & Outreach Committee
UAS = Unmanned Aerial System
UFO = Unidentified Flying Object
USG = U.S. Government
I. Introduction
Characterizing the capabilities and performance of UAP and its impact on aviation safety has proven to be a difficult and elusive task. The acquisition and management of aviation-related UAP data is a requisite for proper characterization, but major obstacles include limited UAP reporting processes and lack of clarity in the UAP reporting guidelines. Civil aviation-related UAP reports and data reside across multiple, non-standardized civilian reporting centers. Military aviation-related UAP reports, on the other hand, remain classified within a government reporting system. Aviation-related UAP data is not readily available for analysis or investigation, being lost among the thousands of UAP sighting reports that are not associated with aviation. When aviation-related UAP data is extracted, it often contains a high degree of variability, with questionable integrity and traceability, due to the differences in methodology and procedure among the various reporting centers. In addition, aircrews and airport facility employees have historically faced stigma, ridicule, reprisals, and adverse airline policies geared toward discouraging the reporting of UAP incidents. Therefore, aviation-related UAP data is not only difficult to analyze and of questionable integrity, but it is also incomplete (or sometimes non-existent, in the event that an aircrew decides not to submit a UAP sighting report).
UAP have been known to pose flight safety risks for decades. There is a multitude of historically documented cases of aviation encounters with UAP, including more than 1,300 cases between 1916 and 2000 that were cataloged by the National Aviation Reporting Center for Anomalous Phenomena (NARCAP).[1] On June 25, 2021, the Office of the Director for National Intelligence (ODNI) released a preliminary report stating that between 2004 and 2021, there were 144 reports of UAP encounters by military personnel, with 11 of those described by pilots as “near misses with a UAP.”[2] In January 2023, the ODNI published a follow-up annual report on UAP that included 366 new UAP reports from military sources. While the number of near misses was not specifically identified in this latest report, it was determined that “UAP pose a safety of flight and collision hazard to air assets, potentially requiring aircraft operators to adjust flight patterns in response to their unauthorized presence in the airspace, operating outside of air traffic control standards and instruction.”[3]
II. Objective
The objective of this paper is to present an analysis and evaluation of (i) the current UAP incident reporting landscape, (ii) the lack of effectiveness of current UAP reporting centers in managing aviation-related UAP data, and (iii) the requirements for effective UAP reporting that have been identified by key stakeholders. This paper will present an overview of the acquisition, classification, investigation, and management practices of civil and military aviation UAP report data as performed by the major civil and military reporting centers and how the limitations of current UAP data acquisition impacts the evaluation of UAP on aviation safety.
This paper will also propose that a currently operational government-managed reporting system, NASA’s ASRS, can be adapted to offer the optimal solution for the acquisition and management of civil and military aviation-related UAP report data. This proposal provides a means to meet the reporting requirements of key stakeholders, such as the DoD’s All-domain Anomaly Resolution Office (AARO), that will enable the resolution of UAP cases and support new recommendations to improve aviation safety.
III. Findings
Current guidance for civil aviation UAP reporting in the United States resides in only two locations:
· Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) documentation; and
· National Aviation Reporting Center for Anomalous Phenomena (NARCAP).
The NARCAP website provides an “Advisory for Pilots, Aircrews, Air controllers, and Aviation Professionals: UAP/UFOs and Aviation Safety” which is comprehensive in scope, explaining the phenomenon and the possible effect on those who report a UAP encounter.[4] Unfortunately, civil aircrews, ATC, and airport facility employees are not directed to the NARCAP advisory since they are only trained to reference official FAA documentation.
The UAP reporting instructions from the FAA appear in the following documents:
i. Section 7-7-4 of the Aeronautical Information Manual (AIM) portion of the FAR/AIM handbook[5]
ii. Section 9-8-1 of the Air Traffic Control procedure 7110.65[6]
iii. Section 4-7-4 of the Facility Operation and Administration manual 7210.3[7]
The FAR/AIM handbook is used by civil pilots and aircrew, whereas the 7110.65 procedure and 7210.3 manual are used by Air Traffic Control (ATC) and airport personnel. The UAP reporting guidance is identical in all three of the FAA documents as follows:[8]
Unidentified Flying Object (UFO) Reports
a. “Persons wanting to report UFO/unexplained phenomena activity should contact a UFO/unexplained phenomena reporting data collection center, such as National UFO Reporting Center, etc.”
b. “If concern is expressed that life or property might be endangered, report the activity to the local law enforcement department.”
Per the existing FAA guidance, civil aircrews, ATC, or airport facility employees that witness an unusual or unexplained phenomena should submit their reports to any one of more than a dozen available UFO/unexplained phenomena reporting centers. The National UFO Reporting Center (NUFORC) is called out by name, but only as an example of one such center. The FAA-provided UAP reporting guidance is superficial at best and rarely results in the acquisition of report data of the quality that government and scientific organizations require for meaningful analysis. Such superficial guidance also means that an increased burden is placed on aircrews and ATC, which likely results in more UAP sightings going unreported.
While several civilian UAP reporting centers exist, for brevity, this paper will present an examination of the top three (NUFORC, MUFON and NARCAP), the current military aviation UAP reporting system, and two additional existing government reporting systems (i.e., ASRS and ASAP).
A. NUFORC
The National UFO Reporting Center (NUFORC) has been in existence since 1974 and is one of the most widely known and recognized civilian UFO reporting centers. NUFORC claims that it has processed more than 150,000 sighting reports to date.[9] According to the organization’s website:
“The Center’s independence from all other UFO related organizations, combined with its long-standing policy of guaranteed anonymity to callers, has served to make it perhaps the most popular and widely accepted national UFO reporting facility anywhere. The website and hotline are well known by law enforcement agencies, FAA ARTCC’s and flight service stations, National Weather Services offices, military facilities, NASA, and many 911 emergency dispatch centers all across the United States and in many parts of Canada. Those entities routinely direct the calls they receive regarding possible UFO sightings to the Center.”[10]
Although NUFORC has a publicly accessible database, the public only sees a summary description of each UAP report. The public database search function provides results by event date, state location, shape of UFO, or date posted. Reading individual reports is time-consuming, but there is no other way to distinguish reports that contain data acquired from an aircraft. Credentialed UFO/UAP investigators can request access to the more detailed reports, but it can take weeks for NUFORC to reply to such requests.
NUFORC has conducted investigations of select reports in the past, but no longer has an active investigation function. The quality of reports featured in the database are a mixed assortment of types including hoaxes, IFOs, and potential unknowns. NUFORC explicitly states that it cannot verify the validity of the data in its database.
Much of NUFORC’s reputation was established during past decades and it has begun to be overshadowed by other UFO reporting organizations. NUFORC is presently staffed by only two people, the Center Director, and a Technical Officer. The current Director has held the position since 1994 and is in his seventies, which makes the long-term viability of this reporting center questionable.
B. MUFON
The Mutual UFO Network (MUFON) was established in 1969 as the Midwest UFO Network. There was great interest in UFOs at that time, and the organization quickly outgrew its local roots to become a national and international UFO organization.[11] This growth prompted the organization to change its name to the Mutual UFO Network. MUFON’s mission statement is “The Scientific Study of UFOs for the Benefit of Humanity.”[12] MUFON is the largest of the civilian UFO reporting centers with more than 4,000 active members.
Unlike other civilian UFO reporting centers, MUFON maintains a comprehensive, electronic Case Management System (CMS) and utilizes a formal process to train UFO Field Investigators (FIs). FI training includes completion of a required curriculum from MUFON University, a certification exam, and completion of a number of mentored sighting report case investigations as a trainee.[13] FIs are organized by state and are further guided by state directors and Chief Investigators (CIs). Recurrent and proficiency training is provided to FIs at Symposiums, Boot Camps, and various state seminars. MUFON currently has approximately 600 active FIs.
MUFON’s UFO reporting procedures require witnesses to file an online UFO sighting report via the MUFON website. The report is automatically processed into the CMS and assigned to the appropriate state, after which the directors or CIs review it. Obvious hoaxes and IFOs are filtered out. The remaining cases worthy of further investigation are assigned to a FI. The scientific method is used wherever possible throughout the investigation. The FI interviews the witness(es), gathers evidence, and eventually reaches a disposition for the case, (i.e., Hoax, IFO, Unknown, Insufficient data and Information Only).[14]
The MUFON CMS is an excellent database with comprehensive search capability. However, it is not public facing and can only be accessed by MUFON members. Only a small, minimally detailed listing of the last twenty reports received by MUFON can be viewed by website visitors. While there are many different CMS search options available to FIs, public users do not have a means of extracting UFO reports filed by civil aviation witnesses. This is surprising, since there is a form specifically tailored to pilot and aviation-related UFO reports within the CMS system. These aviation-related reports are buried within the thousands of other non-aviation sighting reports. When civil aviation report data was requested directly from MUFON’s Director of Investigations (DOI), the data set received was audited and found to contain nearly 50% non-aviation-related reports, which demonstrates that MUFON does not have the capability to effectively extract this type of data from its CMS.
C. NARCAP
The National Aviation Reporting Center on Anomalous Phenomena (NARCAP) was founded in 1999 as a fully accredited 501(c)(3) non-profit organization.[15] Unlike other civilian reporting centers, NARCAP is tailored to aviation and dedicated to documenting and analyzing aviation safety-related encounters with UAP.
A major obstacle impacting analysis of the effects of aviation-related UAP encounters is the systemic aversion to UAP reporting. As stated by NARCAP’s Executive Director, Ted Roe:
“Among pilots, ATC, and aviation professionals there is a bias against reporting UAP encounters. The primary reason A not reporting UAP observations and incidents is a fear that it will have a negative effect on their job and their credibility. It is a general rule that conservative, responsible people like airline pilots do not see unusual things.
The roots of this bias can be traced back to historical developments related to the UAP subject, a general lack of information and education about aviation-related UAP encounters, and an entrenched institutional bias that is reinforced by unfounded academic and professional opinions.
Pilots and aviation professionals have been reporting UAP/UFO observations and incidents for over 100 years.[16] However, that information has never been examined by the aviation system. The trend is for the case and information to leave the aviation system and to never be evaluated for safety factors or scientific review within the US aviation system.
Beginning in 1953 there was a concerted effort by the intelligence community and the US government to eliminate the discussion of UAP/UFO by professionals and academics. The so-called “Robertson Panel” was convened by CIA in 1953 which decided that UAP/UFOs should be “stripped of their special status” to protect the public from “hysteria”.[17]
Soon after, in 1954, the US military released Communications Instructions for Reporting Visually Important Sightings (CIRVIS) via Joint Army Navy Air Force Publication 146 (JANAP 146) which effectively deputized the commercial aviation system as forward observers to report encroaching Soviet aircraft and other threats to national security. Pilots were obligated to report anything unusual and not allowed to speak of it under threat of fine and imprisonment. This regime was not relaxed until 1978.
These two historical factors had a chilling effect on aviation-related UAP/UFO reporting. Additionally, the requirements for pilots to be educated and have technical or science degrees further entrenched the bias because UAP/UFO information is intentionally and visibly absented from their education.
Institutional bias inside the Federal Aviation system has also contributed to under-reporting bias. A review of the Aeronautical Information Manual reveals that the Federal Aviation Administration does not accept UAP/UFO reports from pilots and aviation professionals and has not for several decades.[18] Potential aviation reporters are encouraged to report their observations or incidents involving UAP to “civilian reporting centers”. The effects of this are far ranging and adversely influence data collection, aviation safety, the willingness of pilots and aviation professionals to report, and it reinforces the bias against discussing UAP among aviation professionals.
In the published ODNI report of June 25, 2021, was acknowledgement that UAP with unusual technical signatures exist and it cited three primary concerns: National Security, Aviation Safety, and Stigma against accepting that UAP are real occurrences.”[19]
To counter UAP incident under-reporting due to the prevalence of bias and stigma, NARCAP modeled its reporting process after NASA’s ASRS and provides a high degree of confidentiality for reporting aircrews, ATC, and airport facility employees.[20]
“The issue of valid U.S. pilot reports of Unidentified Aerial Phenomena, UAP and the seeming lack of attention given to these reports by the aviation system is a complicated one. There is clearly a longstanding bias in place that severely inhibits the reporting and investigation of UAP incidents. This bias stifles open discussion of UAP amongst aircrews, management, safety administrators, and the researchers who try to acquire information on this important topic.
These incidents clearly affect aviation safety. Some UAP incidents include very close pacing, and close passes that are described by aircrews as near mid-air collisions. Some UAP incidents also include transient and/or permanent effects on avionics systems. The distraction to aircrews has a direct effect on cockpit resource management (CRM). In some cases, passengers and crew have been injured by emergency control inputs implemented by aircrews to avoid what is perceived as a potential collision with UAP. There are cases involving downed, or missing aircraft and crews.”[21]
Another unique aspect of NARCAP is its publication of scientific studies and reports based on its findings from UAP encounter analyses and investigations. These reports and studies are posted on the NARCAP website, publicly accessible and open to critical analysis and public peer review.[22]
D. DoD
UAP reporting procedures within the Department of Defense (DoD) have been evolving since the public release of the ODNI’s preliminary assessment on UAP[23] and the Deputy Secretary of Defense (DepSecDef) memorandum, both published on 25 June 2021[24]. The DepSecDef memorandum emphasized the importance of “establishing procedures to synchronize collection, reporting and analysis on the UAP problem set” and that “all members of the Department (DoD) will utilize these processes to ensure that the UAPTF, or its follow-on activity, has reports of UAP observations within two weeks of an occurrence.”[25]
Following publication of these documents, aircrews reporting a UAP encounter have been directed to do so with the help of their individual unit’s intelligence officer. This approach results in a classified report that is intended to be forwarded to the recently established All-domain Anomaly Resolution Office (AARO)[26] based at the Pentagon, the “follow-on activity” to the UAPTF referenced in the DepSecDef memorandum. In recent testimony to Congress, AARO’s director, Dr. Sean Kirkpatrick, explained the process for his office’s adjudication of cases involving military aviation encounters with UAP. Independent intelligence, scientific, and senior technical advisory group teams conduct peer-reviewed analyses for ultimate status determination and case resolution by Dr. Kirkpatrick and his office. The extent to which this process results in the successful reporting and full accounting of all military aviation encounters with UAP remains to be seen.
Prior to the DepSecDef memo, aircrews had little choice but to report UAP via more traditionally (unclassified) safety-related reporting methods, such as the Navy's Aviation Safety Awareness Program (ASAP) reports and Hazard Reports (HAZREPs).[27] Examples of reporting UAP via this method were chronicled in an online article via The War Zone publication titled “Here Are The Navy Pilot Reports From Encounters With Mysterious Aircraft Off The East Coast”, wherein eight Navy HAZREPs were obtained via a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request.[28] It is unclear whether additional Navy HAZREPs exist aside from those obtained by The War Zone as no other reports of this category appear to have been released to the public to date.
While the more recent UAP reporting guidelines and methods described by AARO may be clear for some units, the possibility remains that proper UAP reporting procedures may not be explicitly clear DoD-wide. At least in some units, preliminary investigation appears to indicate little to no understanding or even awareness of the Pentagon's AARO office at the operator level. Such challenges to UAP reporting remain a concern to the DoD, especially since Congressional testimony has established that UAP encounters have increased in frequency as compared to the timeframe covered by the ODNI’s preliminary assessment on UAP and DepSecDef memo.
However, it should be noted that within the DoD there already exists a long-standing precedent for providing military aviators an avenue through which encounters with “unidentified flying objects” should be reported as exemplified by the procedures explicitly outlined in the DoD’s own Flight Information Handbook (FIH)[29]. A section that covers “Communication Instructions Reporting Vital Intelligence Sightings (CIRVIS) Reports” instructs the following:
“CIRVIS (pronounced SUR VEES) reports are reports of information of vital importance to the security of the United States and Canada and their forces, which in the opinion of the observer, require very urgent defensive and/or investigative action by the US and/or Canadian Armed Forces… CIRVIS reports should be transmitted in plain language, as soon as possible, to any available US or Canadian military or civil air/ground communications facility… Report immediately by radio…unidentified flying objects…”
E. ASRS
NASA’s ASRS, while not specifically a UAP reporting platform, collects voluntarily reported incidents of FAR violations or aviation safety incidents. ASRS is administered by NASA but is funded by the FAA. The reports are sanitized to protect anonymity and maintained in a publicly accessible database. The system is non-punitive, with the data used for analysis to identify causes of incidents and trends, and to improve overall aviation safety.[30] The ASRS was updated to include incident reporting for UAS or drones, as new regulations were established and UAS began integrating into the air traffic management system.[31] Unlike other reporting databases, ASRS will conduct search requests and provide reports to members of the aviation community. As of 2021, ASRS staff have processed over 7,600 search requests.[32]
The FAA looks favorably upon the self-reporting of incidents as a positive safety practice by the civil aviation community. The FAA has stated that no incident reports filed with ASRS will be subject to any enforcement action unless the information pertains to criminal activity.[33] The high degree of confidentiality maintained by ASRS has made it a trusted process for members of the civil aviation community.
F. ASAP
The FAA’s ASAP is a reporting system similar to NASA’s ASRS but is focused on holders of specific type certifications and organizations (such as air carriers) that are required to have an internal safety program.[34] The ASAP system receives voluntarily submitted reports of safety incidents and analyzes the reports with the goal of enhancing aviation safety and preventing accidents. The reports in the ASAP system are not publicly accessible.
IV. Conclusions
The key enabler for a successful scientific-based analysis of UAP and assessment of the flight safety risk posed by UAP is the acquisition of accurate and complete aviation-related UAP report data. Having inaccessible, unverifiable data strewn across a multitude of non-standardized civilian and government reporting systems continues to present an obstacle to a complete understanding of the UAP landscape and often prevents meaningful data analysis.
The NDAA for Fiscal Year 2023 places significant focus on UAP reporting, ensuring that relevant data is shared by government agencies and protecting those who come forward with reports.[35] U.S. Senator Kirsten Gillibrand identified “Collection & Analysis of (UAP) Data into a Central Repository” as the top priority in her effort to establish a UAP office by way of the NDAA.[36]
On July 15, 2022, DepSecDef Kathleen Hicks announced the creation of AARO.[37] AARO is the successor to a previous organization within the DoD called the Airborne Object Identification and Management Synchronization Group (AOIMSG). Dr. Sean M. Kirkpatrick, who previously served as chief scientist at the Defense Intelligence Agency's Missile and Space Intelligence Center, was appointed as the director of AARO.[38]
On January 11, 2023, Dr. Kirkpatrick presented a briefing titled “The Defense Department’s UAP Mission & Civil Aviation” to the Transportation Research Board. In his presentation, Dr. Kirkpatrick stated that “UAP present complex hazards and threats across service, regional, and domain boundaries.”[39] Dr. Kirkpatrick further stated:
“Our mission success and our ability to contribute to aviation safety depends on observations and insights from the aviation community:
Aviators and crews informed about UAP and willing to report have historically had few official channels to submit observational data.
We are working with military, civil, and industry partners to develop and field reporting mechanisms available to aviators and crews.
By leveraging our systems, we will be able to quickly incorporate aviators’ and crews’ reporting into the corpus of data, to optimize scientific and intelligence analyses, and to provide feedback to the reporting individual and/or organization.”[40]
Dr. Kirkpatrick’s presentation identified key reporting information requirements considered necessary for UAP analysis:[41]
· UAP event description,
· UAP location relative to the observer with as much precision as practicable,
· Number of UAP-objects observed during the phenomenon and indications of intra UAP-object coordination and/or communication,
· Indications of advanced and/or enigmatic capabilities,
· UAP characteristics, including physical state (e.g., solid, liquid, gas, plasma); description (e.g., size, shape, color); signatures; propulsion means; payload,
· UAP performance envelope, including altitude and/or depth; travel path and trajectory; velocity; maneuverability,
· UAP behavior, including whether under apparent intelligent control, apparent response to observation and/or observer presence, and apparent indications of indifference or hostility,
· Observer’s date, time, location, and travel path for first and last observation of the UAP, with as much precision as practicable,
· Observer’s behavior toward the UAP,
· Sensors that detected the phenomenon (e.g., visual, radar),
· Any physiological or other effects apparently corresponding to the UAP observation,
· Observer’s assessment of the UAP, including the nature of the phenomenon and whether it was benign, a hazard, or a threat, and
· Identification of any other observers.
On April 19, 2023, Dr. Kirkpatrick provided testimony on AARO activities relative to UAP to the United States Senate Committee on Armed Services chaired by Senator Gillibrand. In the testimony, Senator Gillibrand referenced that AARO had been mandated to “establish a discoverable and accessible electronic method for potential witnesses of UAP incidents and potential participants in government UAP related activities to contact your office and tell their stories. Congress also set up a process whereby people are subject to non-disclosure agreements preventing them from disclosing what they may have witnessed or participated in could tell you what they know that risk of retribution from the or violation of their NDAs.”[42] She goes on to identify that AARO was required to submit their proposal for a “public facing website product for approval.”[43]
In consideration of the stated requirements and objectives by the Senate Committee on Armed Services and AARO for UAP reporting and the desire to leverage existing systems, our proposal is to establish a single, national (or potentially international) reporting center for all aviation-related UAP incidents. There are three viable options for accomplishing this objective:
i. Utilize an existing government reporting system such as the ASRS to receive UAP reports;
ii. Create a government reporting system equivalent to the ASRS (such as on FAA.gov); or
iii. Fund and staff a civilian reporting center to receive and archive the UAP reports.
The most promising platform is NASA’s ASRS, which can be leveraged by simply adding a reporting form option tailored to collect UAP reports. The ASRS is well-established and trusted within the aviation community and noted for its integrity and high degree of confidentiality. The ASRS process leads to sanitized incident reports, which effectively protect those filing the reports. Implementing a UAP reporting function within the ASRS is achievable in the short-term, as demonstrated by the recent addition of incident reporting for UAS. A preliminary search of the ASRS database yielded six UAP reports that were already filed by aircrews. The funding mechanism to incorporate UAP reporting into the ASRS is already in place (i.e., Congress has directed the FAA to provide such funding to NASA).
The ASRS could serve as a centralized UAP reporting system, focused on aviation for both civil and military entities. Ideally, a UAP reporting process within the ASRS would embody the following characteristics:
· Provide a high degree of confidentiality, in conjunction with anti-retaliation authority;
· Establish a reporting process that is tailored to accept witness information that is relevant to interested stakeholders (e.g., FAA, NASA, AARO, etc.);
· Allow for stakeholders to retrieve sanitized data for priority investigations, enabling research and analysis of accumulated aviation safety-related report data;
· Provide reliable online accessibility with an adequate system support; and
· Be endorsed, promoted, and well-supported by civil and military aviation authorities.
Ideally, NASA’s ASRS could be supported in such a manner that even military aviation UAP reports could be sanitized and de-classified for inclusion in the database. This would allow for a more complete data set with which to analyze UAP and its overall impact on aviation safety.
In order for NASA’s ASRS to successfully take on this UAP reporting/analysis/investigation role, Congress may need to provide additional funding, manpower, and other resources to the FAA and/or NASA. The type and amount of support necessary will depend on an assessment of NASA’s current capacity to support this new requirement.
The AIAA UAPIOC approached the NASA Director of the ASRS, Dr. Becky Hooey, for an initial discussion about the viability of utilizing the ASRS as a UAP reporting center. This proposal was well received, and creating this additional capability within the ASRS was viewed as achievable. Furthermore, leveraging an already established government system such as the ASRS aligns with the UAP reporting requirements communicated by Dr. Kirkpatrick on behalf of AARO.
The potential challenge to using the ASRS as a UAP reporting system lies in the confidentiality charter which governs the protection of those who self-report to the ASRS. The integrity of the ASRS has been established on trusted and reliable confidentiality. Confidentiality provides protection from retaliation or ridicule by airlines or organizations that discourage reporting and even imply to those employees that do report that there may be repercussions. However, confidentiality may prevent gathering necessary information about the UAP event that may be important toward the scientific analysis of this phenomena.
Our proposal suggests that as UAP reporting does not have an enforcement aspect to it, the aviation community may either opt-in or opt-out of complete confidentiality when using the ASRS to file a UAP report. If the confidentiality challenge cannot be remediated, the current Director of the ASRS suggested that as an alternate solution, an FAA hosting platform (such as FAA.gov) could be utilized to establish a robust aviation UAP reporting center.
The AIAA UAPIOC is positioning itself to support and advance this effort with NASA and the FAA. Working groups of aerospace technical experts within the UAPIOC have benchmarked multiple civilian and aviation UAP reporting formats. This information allows for the creation of a “gold standard” UAP reporting template for aviation. This “gold standard template” will incorporate the requisite reporting requirements identified by AARO and other stakeholders. The UAPIOC is also providing scientific, technical, and analytical support resources for stakeholders participating in the ongoing study of UAP and its impact on aviation safety.
Additionally, the UAPIOC has the expertise to craft and submit informative and up-to-date aviation-related UAP reporting guidance for FAA documentation (FAR/AIM, 7110.65, and 7210.3). Once a viable hosting platform has been established as the central UAP reporting center for aviation, it is our contention that the FAR/AIM guidance concerning UAP will need to be updated. For example, the FAR/AIM still uses the term “UFO,” instead of “UAP” as commonly used within the USG today. Currently, UAP reporting is voluntary, and stigma and ridicule have caused under-reporting. Due to aviation safety concerns, the importance of reporting UAP sightings/incidents/encounters needs to be effectively communicated. Reporting a UAP encounter that poses a safety risk to aircraft or crew should be highly encouraged or even made mandatory (since even a benign UAP sighting that distracts a flight crew from the normal operation of an aircraft is an aviation safety concern). Finally, FAA documentation should specifically direct all aircrews to report UAP incidents to NASA’s ASRS instead of a civilian reporting center.
A proposed update to FAA UAP incident reporting guidance follows:
Fig. 1 Example of FAA UAP Reporting Guidance.
To successfully meet the evolving UAP aviation-related reporting requirements of stakeholders such as AARO, NASA and the FAA, an effective aviation-related UAP reporting system needs to be in place. The reporting system is comprised of a number of important elements:
· A single, staffed and funded public reporting platform such as the ASRS,
· A reporting format or template within the ASRS platform that allows those reporting to provide the requisite information and detail required to evaluate the UAP event,
· Detailed reporting instructions, with emphasized priority and urgency, incorporated into official FAA documentation to direct pilots, aircrew, air traffic controllers and airport personnel to one central reporting platform such as ASRS,
· A public awareness effort, such as through the FAA Safety Team (FAAST), to communicate to the civil aviation community changes and updates to the UAP reporting requirements, and
· Removal of any stigma, ridicule, or vulnerability to retaliation of witnesses participating in the UAP reporting process.
The establishment of a single reporting platform provides the foundation for an effective aviation-related UAP reporting system. The authors therefore contend an effective and readily-available solution is to enhance the capabilities of the NASA ASRS to function as a central, publicly accessible UAP reporting platform for civil and potentially military aviation.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to express sincere gratitude to Kerry Schlossberg, Patrick Donovan, Ravi Kopparapu, Edward Stanton, Jr., Nijo Abraham, Philippe Ailleris, Peter Reali, Michael Lembeck, Nick Orenstein, Kevin Overmann, John Marino, and Erick Rossi De La Fuente for their guidance and support of this work.
[1] Weinstein, Dominique, NARCAP Technical Report 4, “Unidentified Aerial Phenomena – Eighty Years of Pilot Sightings”, February, 2001.
[2] Office of the Director for National Intelligence (ODNI), Preliminary Assessment: Unidentified Aerial Phenomena, 25 June 2021.
[3] Office of the Director for National Intelligence (ODNI), 2022 Annual Report on Unidentified Aerial Phenomena, 12 January 2023.
[4] National Aviation Reporting Center on Anomalous Phenomenon, “Advisory for Pilots, Aircrews, Air Controllers, and Aviation Professionals: Unidentified Aerial Phenomena, UAP, UFOs, and Aviation Safety”. Ted Roe, URL: https://www.narcap.org/about-narcap, [Retrieved April 10, 2023]
[5] Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)/Aviation Supplies & Academics (ASA), FAR/AIM 2023: Federal Aviation Regulations/Aeronautical Information Manual, Edition 2023.
[6] Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), JO 7110.65Z Air Traffic Control, May 05, 2021.
[7] Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), JO 7210.3CC Facility Operation and Administration, May 17, 2021.
[8] Op. cit. 5,6,7
[9] National UFO Reporting Center, URL: https://nuforc.org/about-us/, [Retrieved November 7, 2022]
[10] Ibid., URL: https://nuforc.org/about-us/ [Retrieved November 7, 2022]
[11] Mutual UFO Network, URL: https://mufon.com/history/, [Retrieved November 7, 2022]
[12] Mutual UFO Network, URL: https://mufon.com/about/, [Retrieved November 7, 2022]
[13] Mutual UFO Network, MUFON Field Investigator Manual, 6th Edition September 2015.
[14] Ibid.
[15] National Aviation Reporting Center on Anomalous Phenomenon, URL: https://www.narcap.org/about-narcap, [Retrieved November 8, 2022]
[16] Unidentified Aerial Phenomena - Eighty Years of Pilot Sightings: Catalog of Military, Airliner, Private Pilots sightings from 1916 to 2000, Dominique Weinstein 2001
[17] Haines, Gerald K., CIA's Role in the Study of UFOs, 1947-90, https://www.cia.gov, [Retrieved April 17, 2023]
[18] Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Aeronautical Information Manual, Section 7.6.4, page 531
[19] Office of the Director for National Intelligence (ODNI), Preliminary Assessment: Unidentified Aerial Phenomena, 25 June 2021.
[20] Ibid.
[21] Roe, Ted, NARCAP Technical Report 8, “Aviation Safety in America: Unidentified Aerial Phenomena and Under Reporting Bias”, May 29, 2002, page 3.
[22] National Aviation Reporting Center on Anomalous Phenomenon, URL: https://www.narcap.org/research, [Retrieved November 8, 2022]
[23] Office of the Director for National Intelligence (ODNI), Preliminary Assessment: Unidentified Aerial Phenomena, 25 June 2021.
[24] Office of the Deputy Secretary of Defense (DepSecDef), Memorandum for Senior Pentagon Leadership, Commanders of the Combatant Commands, and DOD Field Activity Directors, 25 June 2021.
[25] Ibid.
[26] Office of the Deputy Secretary of Defense (DepSecDef), Memorandum for Senior Pentagon Leadership, Commanders of the Combatant Commands, and DOD Field Activity Directors, 15 July 2022.
[27] Naval Safety Command, URL: https://navalsafetycommand.navy.mil/Portals/29/CNAF%20No11-Report%20That%20Common%20Ground%20Hazard%20ASAP%21.pdf, [Retrieved November 8, 2022]
[28] Rogoway, Tyler and Trevithick, Joseph, “Here Are the Navy Pilot Reports from Encounters with Mysterious Aircraft Off The East Coast”, The Warzone, URL: https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/33371/here-are-the-detailed-ufo-incident-reports-from-navy-pilots-flying-off-the-east-coast, [Retrieved November 8, 2022]
[29] DoD Flight Information Publication (Enroute) Flight Information Handbook, Effective 0001L 26 JAN 2023 to 0001L 7 SEP 2023, “CIRVIS Reports,” page B-37.
[30] National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), Aviation Safety Reporting System, “ASRS Program Briefing”, URL: https://asrs.arc.nasa.gov/overview/summary.html, [Retrieved November 7, 2022]
[31] National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), Aviation Safety Reporting System, “UAS Safety Reporting”, URL: https://asrs.arc.nasa.gov/uassafety.html, [Retrieved November 7, 2022]
[32] Ibid., “ASRS Program Briefing”, slide 32.
[33] Ibid., “ASRS Program Briefing”, slide 9.
[34] Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Aviation Safety Action Program (ASAP), URL: https://www.faa.gov/about/initiatives/asap, [Retrieved November 7, 2022]
[35] U.S. 117th Congress, H.R.7900, National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2023, URL: https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/7900, [Retrieved November 8, 2022]
[36] Gillibrand, Kirsten, U.S. Senator, URL: https://www.gillibrand.senate.gov/news/press/release/gillibrands-groundbreaking-unidentified-aerial-phenomena-amendment-included-in-final-ndaa_, [Retrieved November 8, 2022]
[37] U.S. Department of Defense Release, URL: https://www.defense.gov/News/Releases/Release/Article/3100053/dod-announces-the-establishment-of-the-all-domain-anomaly-resolution-office/, [Retrieved April 12, 2023]
[38] Ibid., U.S. Department of Defense Release
[39] Kirkpatrick, Sean, Ph.D., “The Defense Department’s UAP Mission & Civil Aviation”, slide 2.
[40] Ibid., “The Defense Department’s UAP Mission & Civil Aviation”, slide 6.
[41] Kirkpatrick, Sean, Ph.D., “The Defense Department’s UAP Mission & Civil Aviation”, slide 7.
[42] United States Senate Committee on Armed Services, “OPEN/CLOSED: HEARING TITLETO RECEIVE TESTIMONY ON THE MISSION, ACTIVITIES, OVERSIGHT, AND BUDGET OF THE ALL-DOMAIN ANOMALY RESOLUTION OFFICE”,
URL: https://www.armed-services.senate.gov/hearings/to-receive-testimony-on-the-mission-activities-oversight-and-budget-of-the-all-domain-anomaly-resolution-office, [Retrieved April 19, 2023]
[43] Ibid., United States Senate Committee on Armed Services