UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2007 > May > May 24

Re: More MoD UFO Information - Ledger

From: Don Ledger <dledger.nul>
Date: Wed, 23 May 2007 13:25:25 -0300
Fwd Date: Thu, 24 May 2007 10:27:32 -0400
Subject: Re: More MoD UFO Information - Ledger


>From: Nick Pope <nick.nul>
>To: <ufoupdates.nul>
>Date: Tue, 22 May 2007 15:55:41 +0100
>Subject: Re: More MoD UFO Information

>>From: Don Ledger <dledger.nul>
>>To: ufoupdates.nul
>>Date: Mon, 21 May 2007 14:39:53 -0300
>>Subject: Re: More MoD UFO Information

>>>From: Nick Pope <nick.nul>
>>>To: UFO UpDates <ufoupdates.nul>
>>>Date: Mon, 21 May 2007 10:56:25 +0100
>>>Subject: More MoD UFO Information

>>>The MoD recently placed more responses to UFO-related FOI
>>>requests on its website. They can be viewed in the Disclosure
>>>Log:

>>>http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/FreedomOfInformation/DisclosureLog

>>>Most responses do little more than state the MoD's official
>>>position on the subject, but there are one or two more
>>>interesting snippets.

>>>There are some interesting papers in relation to last month's
>>>incident where a pilot reported a UFO near the Channel Islands.
>>>The MoD undertook an "investigation" - a word the Department is
>>>normally reluctant to use in relation to UFOs. The outcome was a
>>>conclusion that the incident occurred in French airspace and
>>>that it is therefore a matter for the French authorities.

>>>In response to a question about aircraft being scrambled to
>>>intercept UFOs, the MoD state "We have no record of the UK ever
>>>trying to bring down a UFO".

>>Just finished looking at the PDF report on the Channel Islands
>>case. As you say the MOD sloughed it off on France. Did anyone
>>request an FOI re communications with the French civil Aviation
>>Authority or their military defence authority about this
>>possibilty of an airspace violation. Who submitted this most
>>recent request?

>I'm not sure. People like Steve Johnson at UFO DATA Magazine and
>Chris Rolfe from UFO Monitors East Kent have been doing a lot of
>work on the recent F-15 encounter and I think they may be
>researching this one too.

>>Despite the names being deleted there's much more to chew on
>>than previously.

>>I've always thought that it was more beneficial to the
>>government than to the witnesses to have these names deleted. Of
>>no military interest or significance is absurd. FYI this
>>altitude of 2,000 to 2,500 feet seems to be popular with these
>>huge craft. That might be significant.

>Here are two quotes from the MoD's April 30 email that I find
>disappointing:

>"We had no reports from the French that the object was seen or
>detected on radar". But did they _ask_?

>"We believe the ATC radar at Jersey is secondary only and
>therefore unable to achieve a primary radar contact". We
>_believe_? Didn't they check?


Hi Nick,

This apathy on the part of the government - We _believe_? Didn't
they check? - the MoD, DND [Canada] DoD {U.S.] and that of the
commercial/government controlled agencies responsible for
airspace security and safety is frankly astounding.

On my end as a pilot and researcher of pilot sightings,
principally in these three countries, it's is criminal how
reports of near misses and interference by these things are
sloughed off by the aforementioned. A report is made, some
comments are passed about nearly hitting one of these things for
example-regular routine is suspended-then its back to
enforcement of the regulations.

Example; There was a report a couple of years back of a Commuter
Jet flying from Montreal to Calgary, Canada. The Commuter was at
23K and was in Toronto's airspace. It reported [daylight] that a
brilliantly lit object was coming right at it [opposite
direction] which then went under the commuter about 500-1,000
feet below it. That's a clear violation of the air regs. Toronto
Center didn't have the thing on radar [no surprise there] and
asked what the aircraft type was. The pilot reported back that
it wasn't an "aircraft". It was left at that.

This was controlled airspace. The whole report took up three
lines in the daily occurrence report. That same day two American
Airliners were flying the air routes from JFK and Boston to
Prestwick and Heathrow which at the time of their occurrence was
in Oceanic Control [Canada's sector-west] having just been
handed off from Moncton Center. Since both airliners were
assigned the same flight level and Victor Airway they had to be
at 125 nautical miles separation. The leading airliner a United
767 out of Logan-Boston, climbed to and slotted himself in at
123 NM rather than the 125 NM as prescribed in the air
regulations. Oceanic Control was immediately on him like a
hungry coyote on a day old carcass. Exchanges were made and the
offending airliner had to increase speed until it was at the
regulated 125 NM. The report went on for three paragraphs and
under course of action it was noted that further action would be
required, meaning the pilot of that United 767 was going to hear
about it later. No action was suggested or required during the
near miss in the Toronto Sector. Just a big yawn. But it's a
hell of a lot more congested in the Toronto sector than it is in
Western Oceanic

If you compare these two you see how unbalanced the system is.
They don't seem to care though I suspect that they do and have
SOPs that restrain them from acting upon the reports. I think a
point was reached back in the 1970s where it became obvious to
the various Air Forces of the world just what they were dealing
with and the apathy seen so frequently reflects that. I now work
from that position.


Best,

Don Ledger



Listen to 'Strange Days... Indeed' - The PodCast

See:

http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/sdi/program/


[ Next Message | Previous Message | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |

UFO UpDates Main Index

UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp


Archive programming by Glenn Campbell at Glenn-Campbell.com