tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7040353126484409527.post6970303760730640193..comments2024-03-21T08:16:46.130+10:30Comments on Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena - scientific research: Air incident - Adelaide - 27 January 2014Keith Basterfieldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05367372091711887711noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7040353126484409527.post-14046924546833181632015-02-07T02:25:37.143+10:302015-02-07T02:25:37.143+10:30That's an interesting comment from the ASA, wh...That's an interesting comment from the ASA, which seems to imply they view the two reports as relating to the same location / effect. Don't think it is clear that the two reports are precisely correlated from the data we currently have but it is a possibility. If more precise data on the location(s) involved for the first plane can be found that could prove interesting.<br />Good luck and tanks to those investigating this caseAnthony Muganhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09500170864254300321noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7040353126484409527.post-19644815215957831202015-02-05T14:48:12.299+10:302015-02-05T14:48:12.299+10:30Note added 5 February 2015.
Melbourne researcher...Note added 5 February 2015.<br /><br /> Melbourne researcher Paul Dean submitted another FOI to Air Services Australia, who released further information on the incident:<br /><br /> The incident was reviewed on 5 February 2014 by ASA employee, Paul Hart who wrote:<br /> "Requested radar replay to ascertain location of traffic. PH 5/2 review of replay suggests this was not a spurious return as following aircraft experienced similar, there was no breakdown of separation. Not ATS attributable." Then there are some radio buttons which indicate close occurrence (No Inv or LL). This stands for no investigation and no lessons learned. Keith Basterfieldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05367372091711887711noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7040353126484409527.post-12595688104412398682015-02-04T01:49:47.006+10:302015-02-04T01:49:47.006+10:30Thanks...I asked because the information seems to ...Thanks...I asked because the information seems to imply a line of site broadly towards BATIP, but probably not that far north. The ambiguity in the location of the first sightings leave the question of if these were correlated reports open, but doubtful ( although the different distances quoted imply some movement on the part of the phenomena but I'm not clear on exactly what basis those distances were arrived.<br />Thanks for all the good work in investigating these reportsAnthony Muganhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09500170864254300321noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7040353126484409527.post-86295538995197048642015-02-03T09:29:12.386+10:302015-02-03T09:29:12.386+10:30Response to Anthony,
Hi Anthony, Regretfully, the ...Response to Anthony,<br />Hi Anthony, Regretfully, the Air Services Summary we received does not state the exact position of the first aircraft. As you will note from my reply to Dick Haines, we will submit a further FOI request to ASA to see if we can find answers to these questions. Keith Basterfieldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05367372091711887711noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7040353126484409527.post-6248257455534933282015-02-03T09:27:00.944+10:302015-02-03T09:27:00.944+10:30Response to Dick Haines
Hi Dick, Unfortunately the...Response to Dick Haines<br />Hi Dick, Unfortunately the information I posted is all we have. We are now in the process of submitting another FOI to Air Services Australia to see if we can obtain additional information on this incident. Keith Basterfieldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05367372091711887711noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7040353126484409527.post-19558557721489974392015-02-01T21:00:25.660+10:302015-02-01T21:00:25.660+10:30Hi
Is it clear that the BATIP location is not in t...Hi<br />Is it clear that the BATIP location is not in the same location as the object or phenomena reported by the first aircraft? The exact location of the first aircraft doesn't seem to be specified...?Anthony Muganhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09500170864254300321noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7040353126484409527.post-41180976416060346132015-02-01T09:46:39.265+10:302015-02-01T09:46:39.265+10:30Hello Paul and Keith,
I've read this v...Hello Paul and Keith, <br /> I've read this visual sighting report of 27 January 2014 with interest and need to ask a few clarifying questions: (1) Was the aircraft's requested heading change to "210 deg" approved by ATC and if so was it done to avoid a perceived mid-air collision with the UAP? This point is not clear. (2) The stated distance to the UAP at the 3 o'clock relative position was given as 2.5 NM (apparently seen visually) and then at 4 NM (also at the 3 o'clock position). Care this be clarified? Did the airplane turn to the right during this period of time such that the UAP appeared to stay in the 3 o'clock relative position, or did the UAP somehow pace the airplane during this period of time while the airplane remained on a straight heading? <br /> I was not particularly surprised at the absence of radar contact with this visual UAP. It is quite usual as we all know and points to stealth capability. <br />Regards, <br />Dick Haines<br />Chief Scientist<br />NARCAP<br />+++++++++++++++++ Dick Haineshttp://www.narcap.orgnoreply@blogger.com