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 - Pope

From: Nick Pope <nick.nul>
Date: Thu, 24 May 2007 15:46:35 +0100
Fwd Date: Thu, 24 May 2007 11:14:25 -0400
Subject: Re: More MoD UFO Information - Pope


>From: Martin Shough <parcellular.nul>
>To: <ufoupdates.nul>
>Date: Wed, 23 May 2007 15:37:10 +0100
>Subject: Re: More MoD UFO Information

>>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

>>>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?

<snip>

>I think a number of people submitted MoD requests. I did myself,
>asking for the original pilot report referenced in the CAA
>Mandatory Occurrence Report together with documents and
>materials relating to any other aircrew, ATC or radar facility
>involvement. I have received no personal response. Instead the
>documents were uploaded, so perhaps my request is considered as
>part of a "class action" and now redundant in practice (although
>I doubt the strict legality of doing this).

I think it's OK legally, though my understanding is that you
should have had a response before the upload, alerting you to
it, or very shortly thereafter, sending you a hyperlink.

>>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_?

>I seriously doubt it.

>>"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?

>Clearly not. Capt Bowyer's report expliciitly states that he was
>informed by Jersey ATC of a primary radar contact. And if you
>read the Jersey Air Traffic Controller's report this is
>expliciutly confirmed. The controller also describes this
>contact as possible "anaprop" - secondary radar obviously
>doesn't "see" anomalous propagation echoes, only transponders.
>So not only did they not check with Jersey they didn't read
>their own file.

Disappointing. But unless more resources are made available,
dealing with UFO-related FOI requests can only be done at the
expense of meaningful investigations, as the same staff are
involved. And in relation to FOI, MoD has a legal duty to
comply, so this is clearly taking the priority.

Best wishes,

Nick Pope

http://www.nickpope.net




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