UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2007 > Nov > Nov 23

Re: Pilots & UAP

From: Don Ledger <dledger.nul>
Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2007 12:27:08 -0400
Archived: Fri, 23 Nov 2007 18:55:05 -0500
Subject: Re: Pilots & UAP

>From: Joe McGonagle <joe.mcgonagle.nul>
>Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2007 17:21:11 +0000
>To: ufoupdates.nul
>Subject: Re: Pilots & UAP

>>From: Don Ledger <dledger.nul>
>>To: ufoupdates.nul
>>Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2007 17:22:20 -0400
>>Subject: Re: Pilots & UAP

>>>From: Joe McGonagle <joe.mcgonagle.nul>
>>>To: ufoupdates.nul
>>>Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2007 14:34:11 +0000
>>>Subject: Re: Pilots & UAP


>>To butt in, right off the top of my head, the Ken Arnold
>>sighting. There are plenty more as you work your way forward 59

>Sorry Don, but to my knowledge, there is nothing in the Arnold
>case to compare the witness estimates with in order to establish
>how accurate or otherwise they were?

Not true my friend. Check Bruce Maccabee's report on the case at:
It's very comprehensive. A fastener in Arnold's aircraft or on
the cowling was used as was the engine spacing of a DC-4 at a
given distance was used. But there are other details thrown into
the mix which help nail down the size and distance. Note that
station pressures for altimeter settings are not known and that
Arnold had a stopwatch on board as well. In those days and even
during the early days of my flying history a stopwatch in
conjuction with navigation charts was essential for figuring out
your actual speed over the ground [between fixed and known
points] which extended to knowing how you were doing for
fuel-very important when flying over chaotic terrain like the
Cascades-or anywhere else for that matter. I've flown over the
Cascade ranges 4 times in airliners and must say I was very
impressed with Arnold's ability to navigate through there with
little more than a magnetic compass, a stop watch and a 1:500,000
air nav chart. He had no electrics in his plane - no radio despite
what the movie UFO says.

He was a very experienced pilot.

>>Singular moving lights at night are not fair game, Joe. There is
>>a big difference between a re-entering satellite and a daylight
>>UFO. I suppose you would have the pilot take the hit rather than
>>act on instinct in that case though. If he thought it was threat
>>what would you have him do? No on is claiming lights in the sky
>>at night without reference points can be readily identified,
>>particularly ones that are moving.

>Okay, where does one draw the line?

More in the way of parameters. In the Neatherlands case the
lights were actually moving and they would have been much
brighter at altitude than on the ground. Depending on the
duration of the sighting - short duration - there would be more
likelyhood of a snap judgement - get the heck out of the way.
Overall though if there appears to be some length and some other
marker to denote range and altitude and a descent time interval
you at least have something to work with.

>>As for Bowyers, it was disturbing enough for him to remark that
>>he was glad to get his airplane back on the ground. The numbers
>>still work out at about 600 feet in length, possibly longer.

>I'm not sure what the final report will say, but there was
>certainly a significant margin of error in the initial report. I
>don't think anyone would like sharing airspace with something
>large and unknown, no matter what it was.

Yeah, it's the unknown that's the problem. It introduces other
uknowns chief of which is that objects's intentions. Does it know
I'm here. Will it turn into me suddenly. What effect will it's
sudden passage across my course [wake turbulance and wing
vorticies] have on my aircraft which is magnified many times over
when you are piloting an airliner because a sudden maneuver to
avoid collision can and has severly injure passengers not
strapped down or in the aisles or result in death.

>>You should make a effort to check into more pilot sightings
>>before you make the same leap as Ian Ridpath re that case. he
>>tried to apply that to the Manchester encounter.A British
>>Airways passenger jet had a close encounter with an unidentified
>>flying object while landing at Manchester Airport in January
>>1995. "The Boeing 737, flight BA5061, with 60 people on board,
>>was overtaken at high speed by a wedge-shaped craft as the plane
>>descended through 4,000ft on the final stages of a journey from
>>Milan." His contention was it was a meteor 60 or 80 miles up and
>>away when in fact the visibility was 6 miles in cloud-another
>>aviation fact he couldn't understand.

>You should take that up with Ian.

Already have.

>>Anyway, never mind lights in the sky, stick with the tough ones.
>>Start with the 3,500 odd cases Dick Haines has at NARCAP.

>I don't have the time to sift through 3,500 cases to find any
>which contain detail which can be compared to the pilot's
>estimates, not that I wouldn't like to.

Well for the most part that's what I do.

Don Ledger

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



[ 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