Same as Devon, as soon as somebody throws your report into the magic 'he thinks it's a spaceship' box, your reputation as a pilot is lost. Also means that, as long as it is just a report and stays out of that box (like Chris is describing it), it may not harm anything regarding your job.

 

So I guess the 'fired' phrase is a bit too harsh. Not fired, but running the risk of being looked at as nuts or something. Not all folks relate the word UFO to the actual meaning, but more to the TV based explanation.

 

By this, I still feel like I should post this one. :ph34r: http://www.flickr.co...N06/1196208102/

We think it was one of those remote control blimps kids have. It was about 5 feet long.

 

Or some snot stuck to the window. Happens quite a lot with RyanAir

Graham, I know exactly what you mean. Wait.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-KDviXJCfHg

Actually I was thinking more along the lines of this:

 

Good point, Devon.

 

'Callsign, do you want to report a UFO?'

'Negative, I rather keep my job.' :mellow:

 

Good point, Devon.

 

'Callsign, do you want to report a UFO?'

'Negative, I rather keep my job.' :mellow:

 

Hollywood is NOT real life.

 

For starters the ATCO should know that filing a loss of separation incident report would be appropriate in this case.

Hollywood is NOT real life.

You mean they don't really wear those helmets?

You mean they don't really wear those helmets?

 

Those are the parts that are obviously fake. No I mean the more subtle things, like the way you don't have a right to exactly one phone call if you're arrested in the US, or the way science very rarely works the way it's portrayed in movies, or the way DNA profiling in real life takes a couple of days to weeks, rather than five minutes.

 

Or the way there's standard protocols in real life for what to do in case of a loss of separation incident.

But isn't a 'loss of separation incident' report a bit off to the actual happening when you can't tell what that thing was in front of your plane? Even more so if it pulled some stunts a plane can't do?

 

Not to mention that face the green guy in the cockpit made. ^_^

 

So, more seriously, the fact that the flying object was unknown may be more prominent than the fact that it disregarded separation limits. Not? What happens to the reports about UFOs by the way? Does one get an official answer on the unknown/known status or is it just a 'report and forget' item?

Hollywood is NOT real life.

 

Oh... come... on... hollywood movies might as well be listed as documentaries of american life.

 

So all those folks I arrested and took downtown rated more than one call? wow... sry about that... someone better tell to BimmerCop as I bet he also doesn't know this.

 

And this idea about the radar... I always thought it took sophisticated electronic means or other ingenious ways (like aluminum strips) to confuse a radar's reception. Thanks CoolIP for clearing up that it only takes a jar of jam (jelly or preserves I reckon will not work). I also wondered where the radar and electronic sounds came from... video makes all that clear. Again Thanks!

But isn't a 'loss of separation incident' report a bit off to the actual happening when you can't tell what that thing was in front of your plane? Even more so if it pulled some stunts a plane can't do?

 

The separation alert sounded, radar showed two primary targets getting closer than the minimum separation limits. Sounds like a loss of separation incident to me. Whether or not there are additional details that make it a very odd loss of separation incident is beside the point.

 

Anyhow, the FAA currently does have an official UFO reporting policy: http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/ATpubs/AIM/aim0706.html (section 7-6-4)

A friend of mine flew the SR-71 during the cold war. I asked him if UFO's exist and had he ever seen one?

 

He told me, "I'm not going to say they do exist but I'm not going to say they don't".

 

He's in this picture

 

 

The separation alert sounded, radar showed two primary targets getting closer than the minimum separation limits. Sounds like a loss of separation incident to me. Whether or not there are additional details that make it a very odd loss of separation incident is beside the point.

 

Anyhow, the FAA currently does have an official UFO reporting policy: http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/ATpubs/AIM/aim0706.html (section 7-6-4)

 

Having seen too much of what real people do in this world as opposed to what the pretty numbers and paperwork says, I am still gonna suspect strongly that people are using an awful lot of personal discretion in reporting odd incidents with no corroborating evidence.

 

Having seen too much of what real people do in this world as opposed to what the pretty numbers and paperwork says, I am still gonna suspect strongly that people are using an awful lot of personal discretion in reporting odd incidents with no corroborating evidence.

 

Sure, my main point was that the video clip didn't give a very accurate portrayal of the real world (especially since in the video clip they would have the radar tapes).

 

Also if you take away the speculation about alien activity many UFO reports boil down to: 'I saw some odd lights', which is not really very report-worthy, even if the investigation of such incidents can lead to pretty cool results. For example there's a place in Australia where the UFOs turned out to be the headlights of cars on a road many kilometers away. Under the right atmospheric conditions the air would reflect and or refract the lights to create weird lights in the sky, which I find a pretty cool finding in it's own right, even if it's less exciting than extra-terrestrials.

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE

HEADQUARTERS 81ST COMBAT SUPPORT [uSAFE]

APO NEW YORK 09755

 

REPLTY TO

ATTN OF: CD 13 Jan 81

 

SUBJECT: Unexplained Lights

 

TO: RAF/CC

 

1. Early in the morning of 27 Dec 80 (approximately 0300L), two USAF

security police patrolmen saw unusual lights outside the back gate at

RAF Woodbridge. Thinking an aircraft might have crashed or been forced

down, they called for permission to go outside the gate to investigate.

The on-duty flight chief responded and allowed to patrolmen to pro-

ceed on foot. The individuals reported seeing a strange glowing object

in the forest. The object was described as being metalic in appearance

and triangular in shape, approximately two to three meters across the

base and approximately two meters high. It illuminated the entire forest

with a white light. The object itself had pulsing red light on top and

a bank(s) of blue lights underneath. The object was hovering or on legs.

As the patrolmen approached the object, it maneuvered through the trees

and disappeared. At this time the animals on a nearby farm went into a

frenzy. The object was briefly sighted approximately an hour later near

the back gate.

 

2. The next day, three depressions 1 1/2" deep and 7" in diameter were

found where the object had been sighted on the ground. The following

night (29 Dec 80) the area was checked for radiation. Beta/gamma readings

of 0.1 milliroentgens were recorded with peak readings in the three de-

pressions and near the center of the triangle formed by the depressions.

A nearby tree had moderate (.05-.07) readings on the side of the tree

toward the depressions.

 

3. Later in the night a red sun-like light was seen through the trees.

It moved about and pulsed. At one point it appeared to throw off glowing

particles and then broke into five separate white objects and then dis-

appeared. Immediately thereafter, three star-like objects were noticed

in the sky, two objects to the north and one to the south. all of which

were about 10° off the horizon. The objects moved rapidly in sharp angular

movements and displayed red, green and blue lights. The objects to the

north appeared to be elliptical through an 8-12 power lens. They then

turned to full circles. The objects to the north remained in the sky for

an hour or more. The object to the south was visible for two or three

hours and beamed down a stream of light from time to time. Numerous indivi-

duals, including the undersigned, witnessed the activities in paragraphs

2 and 3.

 

 

(signature)

CHARLES I. HALT, Lt Col, USAF

Deputy Base Commander

 

The Halt Affidavit

In June 2010, retired Colonel Charles Halt signed a notarized affidavit, in which he again summarized what had happened, then stated he believed the event to be extraterrestrial and it had been covered up by both the US and UK: "I believe the objects that I saw at close quarter were extraterrestrial in origin and that the security services of both the United States and the United Kingdom have attempted—both then and now—to subvert the significance of what occurred at Rendlesham Forest and RAF Bentwaters by the use of well-practiced methods of disinformation."

Halt also dismissed claims that he and his men had confused a UFO with a lighthouse beam: