Monday, September 30, 2013
What the air traffic controller saw
In addition to the many
UFO reports I receive from average observers, I sometimes get reports from
people with above average observing abilities. These include pilots, air
traffic controllers, police, astronomers and military officers.
Debunkers are quick to
point out that even people with better-than-average observing abilities make
mistakes, so just because a pilot reports a UFO is no reason to automatically assume
it’s a spaceship from Neptune. Indeed, UFO databases are chock full of
sightings by police and other good observers who were unable to identify stars,
planets and aircraft, believing them to be UFOs instead.
However, this ignores the
facts that this category of observers is very different from those of most
other UFO witnesses. First, an experienced observer is used to looking at the sky
and making judgment calls about objects that are up there. The difference is best
illustrated by many of the Youtube videos posted by UFO buffs in which a
distant light is caught moving slowly over a city skyline, leading the
videographer to excitedly comment about mysterious orbs, a “scout craft” or
dimensional beings manifesting to motivate the witness to proselytize about
alien contact. An experienced aircraft observer, on the other hand, would not
only know it was an aircraft, but likely be able to discern the type of plane,
its configuration, origin, destination and other characteristics.
So although experienced observers
can and do misinterpret some objects in the sky, the likelihood of their doing
so is much lower than that of the typical layperson. Therefore, if a pilot, who
is used to seeing lights on other aircraft at night, reports seeing a
configuration of lights moving in an unexpected manner or the lights themselves
don’t conform to a pattern he or she has seen before, it’s definitely
noteworthy.
In fact, pilots are
required to report sightings of UFOs to authorities, as per the official Rules
of the Air (RAC) Manual published by Transport Canada (the Canadian equivalent
of the FAA) to which all pilots must conform.
http://www.tc.gc.ca/media/documents/ca-publications/RAC-AIM-2013-1_ENG-5.pdf
The relevant section that applies to UFOs, and mentions them specifically, is:
http://www.tc.gc.ca/media/documents/ca-publications/RAC-AIM-2013-1_ENG-5.pdf
The relevant section that applies to UFOs, and mentions them specifically, is:
1.12.2 CIRVIS Reports – Vital Intelligence Sightings
CIRVIS reports should be made immediately upon a vital intelligence sighting of any airborne and ground objects or activities which appear to be hostile, suspicious, unidentified or engaged in possible illegal smuggling activity. Examples of events requiring CIRVIS reports are:
These reports should be made to the nearest Canadian or U.S. government FIC or ATC unit.
- unidentified flying objects, submarines, or surface warships identified as being non-Canadian or non-American;
- violent explosions;
- unexplained or unusual activity, including the presence of unidentified or suspicious ground parties in Polar regions, at abandoned airstrips or other remote, sparsely populated areas.
According to the manual
for flight services, pilots who see UFOs must report them, out of a duty to
protect national security and sovereignty. The fact that there is such a
regulation implies that there is a need to do so, and that such reports are in
fact made.
And they are.
The most recent of these to
catch my attention is a report concerning a sighting on Friday, September 27,
2013, at 2051 hrs local (8:51 pm) approximately four kilometres north of the James
Richardson International Airport in Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada. It’s a CIRVIS
report filed by an air traffic controller who is also a professional pilot.
This person filled out the
reporting form thoroughly, and it’s easy to get a sense of what had been seen.
The witness was driving on a new freeway that is still not fully completed,
circling north of the airport in an area of the city known as Brooklands or
Centreport.
The witness saw four
orange lights in a V-shaped formation, suggesting an aircraft of some kind, except
that the witness noted there was “no A/C beacon” visible. The objects were at
an estimated altitude of a “couple of thousand feet” and were heading northwest
with the “approx. speed of a ‘single Cessna,’” except that they were not making
any sound. After a short period of observation, the objects “appeared to ‘dissipate’
like going behind cloud” and were lost to sight.
That’s it. The report was
sent to NORAD for filing in its own CIRVIS UFO records.
Analysis? Well, since it
was practically right over a major airport, it would be logical to think it was
an aircraft. Not four aircraft, incidentally, since four planes in tight formation
over a controlled airspace at night with low cloud ceiling seems a bit
unlikely. But one aircraft might be possible. But no beacons or strobes?
The other thing to note is
the estimated altitude. Most people can’t estimate distance well at night. An
air traffic controller usually can, however.
So the choices we have
now, given the available information, are that the object with four lights was
either a conventional aircraft with an odd (and illegal) configuration of
lights, or it was something else. By definition, a UFO.
And I sure hope that this
air traffic controller wasn’t hallucinating, as some debunkers occasionally
suggest. I might be on a plane when he or she is manning the radar screens next
time, and I would prefer that my plane not be a figment of anyone’s
imagination.
Labels: UFO sighting report Canada Winnipeg pilot CIRVIS 2013
# posted by rutkows @ 8:44 AM 
Comments:
<< Home
Having had a lifelong interest in the subject of UFOs I often bring up the subject in discussion. What I am struck by, again and again, is how surprisingly inexact the observations and reports are that I am given. In nearly every instance I only discuss with people I know or have some reasonable familiarity with (I am merely an enthusiast, not an investigator); I am not 'putting them on the spot' nor hammering them for info under duress. In no case, and I have received many dozens of reports, has anyone ever been able to describe to me with confidence the date, time of day, weather conditions, relative size of the object seen, direction of travel. The verbal 'sketches' I get are extremely vague, bereft of helpful context, and are nothing more than brief, narrative set-pieces based on guesses.
In some of the cases the witness is a close friend or relative and in most of the cases they are persons whose opinion I respect and whose intelligence is unquestioned.
Eyewitness reports have been given short shrift by defense lawyers for decades, but surely one would attempt, if sighting something of high strangeness, to observe with as much clarity & completeness as could be mustered in hopes of uncovering a logical explanation for the event.
I look forward to your insights on why this might be the case, and to other related issues.
Post a Comment
In some of the cases the witness is a close friend or relative and in most of the cases they are persons whose opinion I respect and whose intelligence is unquestioned.
Eyewitness reports have been given short shrift by defense lawyers for decades, but surely one would attempt, if sighting something of high strangeness, to observe with as much clarity & completeness as could be mustered in hopes of uncovering a logical explanation for the event.
I look forward to your insights on why this might be the case, and to other related issues.
<< Home
