Airliner in Scotland Narrowly Misses UFO While Landing, UFOs have been observed in some form since at least as far back as the 19th century. In the 1800s, they manifested themselves as giant airships at a time when man had yet to achieve heavier-than-air flight. Their most recent manifestation began just after the end of World War II, when they assumed the form of flying disks that could travel at speeds of many thousands of miles an hour at a time when we ourselves were just about to break the sound barrier. It seems that, no matter how much technological progress we make, UFOs, whatever they are, have manged to stay several steps ahead of us. But what are they, really? The following is one recent example of an encounter with a UFO, but it is far from the only one.
A passenger aircraft had a narrow miss with an unidentified object over Glasgow, a report has revealed.
The Airbus A320 was making its final approach to Glasgow Airport on 2 December when an object passed about 300ft underneath it. The pilot of the aircraft said the risk of collision with the object, which did not show up on radar, had been "high".
A report by the UK Airprox Board said investigators were unable to establish what the object had been.
The A320 was flying with its landing lights on, in clear conditions and at an altitude of about 4,000ft above the Baillieston area of Glasgow, when the pilot and non-flying pilot saw an object "loom ahead" at a range of about 100m. The object passed directly beneath the aircraft before either of the crew members had time to take avoiding action or had "really registered it".
But they both agreed that it appeared to have been blue and yellow or silver in colour with a small frontal area, but "bigger than a balloon".
The pilot asked the controller at Glasgow Airport if he was "talking to anything in the area" as he had "got quite close" to a blue and yellow aircraft, traveling in the opposite direction, which had passed just below him. The controller stated that he was not talking to anyone else in that area and that nothing was seen on radar.
Search action was taken with no result and the A320 pilot stated his intention to file a report to the agency which investigates near misses.
Air traffic control said they had no trace of any other objects in the area at the time of the incident, although the radar did spot an "unidentified track history" 1.3 nautical miles east of the A320's position 28 seconds earlier.
Once the aircraft had landed, the pilot told the Glasgow Aerodrome Controller: "We seemed to only miss it by a couple of hundred feet, it went directly beneath us. Wherever we were when we called it in it was within about 10 seconds. Couldn't tell what direction it was going but it went right underneath us."
Members were unable to reach a conclusion as to a likely candidate for the conflicting aircraft”
When asked if he thought it may have been a "glider or something like that" the pilot replied: "Well maybe a microlight. It just looked too big for a balloon."
The report concluded: "Investigation of the available surveillance sources was unable to trace any activity matching that described by the A320 pilot. Additionally there was no other information to indicate the presence or otherwise of activity in the area.".The report further said the investigative board had been of the opinion that the object was unlikely to have been a fixed wing aircraft, helicopter or hot air balloon, given that it had not shown up on radar. It was also thought that a meteorological balloon would be radar significant and unlikely to be released in the area.
A glider could not be discounted, the report said, but it was unlikely that one would be operating in the area because of the constrained airspace and the lack of thermal activity because of the low temperature.
Similarly, the board believed that a hang-glider or para-motor would be radar significant and that conditions precluded them, as they did para-gliders.
The report concluded: "Members were unable to reach a conclusion as to a likely candidate for the conflicting aircraft and it was therefore felt that the board had insufficient information to determine a cause or risk".
It should be noted that most UFO observations have tended to have logical explanations, such as a planet like Venus being mistaken for a UFO or something similar, but a small percentage of them have remained unexplained. A trained airline pilot is unlikely to make such a mistake, and furthermore, he would be reluctant to report such an incident unless he was absolutely sure, since pilots have been ridiculed and even lost their licenses for such an action. Even if only one of the thousands of UFO observations should turn out to be valid, that would be enough to prove that they were in fact real, if not intelligent visitors from other worlds..
A passenger aircraft had a narrow miss with an unidentified object over Glasgow, a report has revealed.
The Airbus A320 was making its final approach to Glasgow Airport on 2 December when an object passed about 300ft underneath it. The pilot of the aircraft said the risk of collision with the object, which did not show up on radar, had been "high".
A report by the UK Airprox Board said investigators were unable to establish what the object had been.
The A320 was flying with its landing lights on, in clear conditions and at an altitude of about 4,000ft above the Baillieston area of Glasgow, when the pilot and non-flying pilot saw an object "loom ahead" at a range of about 100m. The object passed directly beneath the aircraft before either of the crew members had time to take avoiding action or had "really registered it".
But they both agreed that it appeared to have been blue and yellow or silver in colour with a small frontal area, but "bigger than a balloon".
The pilot asked the controller at Glasgow Airport if he was "talking to anything in the area" as he had "got quite close" to a blue and yellow aircraft, traveling in the opposite direction, which had passed just below him. The controller stated that he was not talking to anyone else in that area and that nothing was seen on radar.
Search action was taken with no result and the A320 pilot stated his intention to file a report to the agency which investigates near misses.
Air traffic control said they had no trace of any other objects in the area at the time of the incident, although the radar did spot an "unidentified track history" 1.3 nautical miles east of the A320's position 28 seconds earlier.
Once the aircraft had landed, the pilot told the Glasgow Aerodrome Controller: "We seemed to only miss it by a couple of hundred feet, it went directly beneath us. Wherever we were when we called it in it was within about 10 seconds. Couldn't tell what direction it was going but it went right underneath us."
Members were unable to reach a conclusion as to a likely candidate for the conflicting aircraft”
When asked if he thought it may have been a "glider or something like that" the pilot replied: "Well maybe a microlight. It just looked too big for a balloon."
The report concluded: "Investigation of the available surveillance sources was unable to trace any activity matching that described by the A320 pilot. Additionally there was no other information to indicate the presence or otherwise of activity in the area.".The report further said the investigative board had been of the opinion that the object was unlikely to have been a fixed wing aircraft, helicopter or hot air balloon, given that it had not shown up on radar. It was also thought that a meteorological balloon would be radar significant and unlikely to be released in the area.
A glider could not be discounted, the report said, but it was unlikely that one would be operating in the area because of the constrained airspace and the lack of thermal activity because of the low temperature.
Similarly, the board believed that a hang-glider or para-motor would be radar significant and that conditions precluded them, as they did para-gliders.
The report concluded: "Members were unable to reach a conclusion as to a likely candidate for the conflicting aircraft and it was therefore felt that the board had insufficient information to determine a cause or risk".
It should be noted that most UFO observations have tended to have logical explanations, such as a planet like Venus being mistaken for a UFO or something similar, but a small percentage of them have remained unexplained. A trained airline pilot is unlikely to make such a mistake, and furthermore, he would be reluctant to report such an incident unless he was absolutely sure, since pilots have been ridiculed and even lost their licenses for such an action. Even if only one of the thousands of UFO observations should turn out to be valid, that would be enough to prove that they were in fact real, if not intelligent visitors from other worlds..
0 comments:
Post a Comment