UM-Bot Posted July 6, 2017 #1 Share Posted July 6, 2017 The Civil Aviation Authority has been using an EU law to withhold information about pilot UFO sightings. http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/news/309226/ufo-dossier-covered-up-using-eu-legislation Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Caspian Hare Posted July 6, 2017 #2 Share Posted July 6, 2017 Does not seem to make sense to me. Maybe someone just like rules. Quote "Occurrence information can only be used for the purpose of maintaining or improving aviation safety, and the release of occurrence information to the general public or the media, including in response to Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests, is not permitted," the law states. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Merc14 Posted July 6, 2017 #3 Share Posted July 6, 2017 Occurrence information includes things other than UFOs and the reason there is a rule like this is because if you want your aircrew to report things so you can improve safety then you must protect them from public curiosity, humiliation and/or lawsuits. A pilot is NOT going to report something in the sky if he or she knows that some UFO believer will be publishing their name in a bookr knowcking n their door and harassing their family. A great example of what these believers can do is the harassment Bart Sibrel inflicted upon Buzz Aldrin. 6 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keithisco Posted July 6, 2017 #4 Share Posted July 6, 2017 Data protection laws would demand that no identifying characteristics (Such as Flight No., Time of Flight, Name/s of Pilot or Co-Pilot, or departure and arrival airport) are released without the express permission of those making the report. By the time such details are redacted you wouldnt get much information anyway. There is no smoking gun here 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lilly Posted July 6, 2017 #5 Share Posted July 6, 2017 35 minutes ago, Merc14 said: .. A great example of what these believers can do is the harassment Bart Sibrel inflicted upon Buzz Aldrin. Yeah, but you have to admit the sock in the jaw that Buzz gave to Bart was utterly 'priceless'. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BeastieRunner Posted July 6, 2017 #6 Share Posted July 6, 2017 46 minutes ago, keithisco said: Data protection laws would demand that no identifying characteristics (Such as Flight No., Time of Flight, Name/s of Pilot or Co-Pilot, or departure and arrival airport) are released without the express permission of those making the report. By the time such details are redacted you wouldnt get much information anyway. There is no smoking gun here A little logic goes a long way. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Merc14 Posted July 6, 2017 #7 Share Posted July 6, 2017 15 minutes ago, Lilly said: Yeah, but you have to admit the sock in the jaw that Buzz gave to Bart was utterly 'priceless'. Love watching that and the subsequent lawsuit was dismissed outright by the judge so Sibrel didn't even get a day in court. No one deserved a punch in the jaw more than Sibrel 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paperdyer Posted July 6, 2017 #8 Share Posted July 6, 2017 Since the UK pulled out of the EU, how can they hide behind an EU rule? If the pilot and the airline info is redacted, it wouldn't be that easy to find out the pilot's name would it? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Merc14 Posted July 6, 2017 #9 Share Posted July 6, 2017 47 minutes ago, paperdyer said: Since the UK pulled out of the EU, how can they hide behind an EU rule? If the pilot and the airline info is redacted, it wouldn't be that easy to find out the pilot's name would it? They haven't pulled out of the EU yet, they are still a member. Also, if the information was given with an understanding it would be protected information they can hardly go back on that now just because they may leave the EU. Lastly, if an aircrew member wants to go public with a sighting I know of no rules limiting them from doing so yet few ever do and there must be a reason for that, no? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Caspian Hare Posted July 7, 2017 #10 Share Posted July 7, 2017 Is privacy the concern if personal information is always redacted as the article says? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Merc14 Posted July 7, 2017 #11 Share Posted July 7, 2017 2 hours ago, The Russian Hare said: Is privacy the concern if personal information is always redacted as the article says? Give someone the time altitude, position and heading and they can use software to find the aircraft that was there and form there the aircrew's name. Like I said, if the aircrew want top go public there is no law preventing them from doing so, the fact that they rarely do speaks volumes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
godnodog Posted August 24, 2017 #12 Share Posted August 24, 2017 On 7/6/2017 at 8:06 PM, paperdyer said: Since the UK pulled out of the EU, how can they hide behind an EU rule? If the pilot and the airline info is redacted, it wouldn't be that easy to find out the pilot's name would it? When did the UK leave the EU? Cause last time I checked they´re still part of it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kartikg Posted August 25, 2017 #13 Share Posted August 25, 2017 if the data is made public, it might hurt the profits of airlines at least in the short term . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kartikg Posted August 25, 2017 #14 Share Posted August 25, 2017 if the data is made public, it might hurt the profits of airlines at least in the short term . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Merc14 Posted August 25, 2017 #15 Share Posted August 25, 2017 5 hours ago, kartikg said: if the data is made public, it might hurt the profits of airlines at least in the short term . I have to ask, who would choose not to fly because some airline pilot saw a UFO? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I'mConvinced Posted September 1, 2017 #16 Share Posted September 1, 2017 On 25/08/2017 at 1:14 PM, Merc14 said: I have to ask, who would choose not to fly because some airline pilot saw a UFO? Given the huge number of bona fide abduction cases proved each year I'm in awe of your confidence. No way I'd risk it, odds must be 25% or greater surely? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Merc14 Posted September 1, 2017 #17 Share Posted September 1, 2017 1 hour ago, I'mConvinced said: Given the huge number of bona fide abduction cases proved each year I'm in awe of your confidence. No way I'd risk it, odds must be 25% or greater surely? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ozymandias Posted September 2, 2017 #18 Share Posted September 2, 2017 Aw jeez, not another coverup! I tell ya, I'm so glad these sleuths expose all this stuff 'cos we're all just sleepwalking through what's really going on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kartikg Posted September 3, 2017 #19 Share Posted September 3, 2017 On Friday, August 25, 2017 at 5:44 PM, Merc14 said: I have to ask, who would choose not to fly because some airline pilot saw a UFO? Not if just one or two incidents, but if a bunch of documents are released suddenly the confidence in that airline will drop with different people for different reasons . average people and investors would think that there are incompetent or tired pilots who are seeing things and the other bunch of people who will scare others the stock price would dip for a few days . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RoofGardener Posted September 3, 2017 #20 Share Posted September 3, 2017 On 9/1/2017 at 9:35 PM, I'mConvinced said: Given the huge number of bona fide abduction cases proved each year I'm in awe of your confidence. No way I'd risk it, odds must be 25% or greater surely? "Bona fide abduction cases" ? "Proved" ? Hmmm.... perhaps not ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I'mConvinced Posted September 3, 2017 #21 Share Posted September 3, 2017 2 hours ago, RoofGardener said: "Bona fide abduction cases" ? "Proved" ? Hmmm.... perhaps not ? Sarcasm sometimes doesn't translate I guess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RoofGardener Posted September 3, 2017 #22 Share Posted September 3, 2017 Just now, I'mConvinced said: Sarcasm sometimes doesn't translate I guess. Sorry.. sorry.. I posted prior to having my first cup of tea of the morning ! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now