@NEMROD 34
Je vous lis et j’avoue que la communication est difficile. Quand j’étais d’accord je l’ai exprimé, OK.
Où ai-je (ailleurs ?...) conseillé de ne pas vous lire ? Quand je le fais moi-même....
Pour vos multiples fautes d’orthographe et mots manquants, lettres répétées à la limite...

J’ai tendance à penser que notre vision est opérationnelle la plupart du temps. C’est tellement vrai que même pressé au volant de la voiture et souhaitant ardemment voir un feu vert je vois que le feu est rouge.
Si notre vision nous trahissait massivement dès que nos émotions sont en jeu nous serions disparus.
Quand le pilote de JAL 1628...
Si comme le dit Haynes (1)
" More than one hundred documented close encounters between UAP and commercial, private, and military airplanes are reviewed relative to these three topics. These reports are drawn from several sources including the author’s personal files, aviation reports prepared by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration administered "Aviation Safety Reporting System (ASRS)." 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 publicly. (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 (6) A central clearing house should be identified to receive UAP reports (e.g., ASRS ; Global Aviation Information Network (GAIN). This unclassified clearinghouse should collect, analyze, and report UAP sightings for the continuing benefit of aviation safety as well as scientific curiosity. Whatever UAP are they can pose a hazard to aviation safety and should be dealt with appropriately and without bias."

Je n’ai pas à traduire sinon que "UAP" c’est la lanterne chinoise, la foudre en boule, le machin quoi...
Vous admettrez j’espère que là on est dans le concret aussi.

(1) http://www.narcap.org/reports/001/airsafety_p1.htm