Air incidents of 4 January 2013 and 19 March 2014 - a connection?

Hi all,

In a recent post (click here) I drew readers' attention to similarities between the 19 March 2014, Perth airport near-miss, between an aircraft and what the Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB) called an "unknown object;" and a second incident which happened on 4 January 2013, also near Perth airport.


Air Services Australia FOI:

Melbourne researcher Paul Dean and I, noted that the 4 January 2013 incident happened close to the Perth airport, but did not then know the distance and bearing of the 2013 incident. Did it happen in the same area as that from 2014?

An FOI request was submitted by Paul, to Air Services Australia . In their response, ASA advised that the 2013 incident occurred at a bearing of 072 degrees at 22 nautical miles from Perth airport. ASA then provided us with a link to a public database maintained by the ATSB.

On this ATSB database was occurrence reference number 201300221, dated 4 January 2013. It was the incident we were after. The details on the database confirmed that the 4 January 2013 incident occured at a bearing of 072 degrees magnetic, 41 kms from Perth airport.


Comparisons:

2013 incident - 072 degrees magnetic bearing and 41kms from airport. Time 0920hrs.
Object (1 metre) within 50 feet of aircraft registration VH-XKI , a DH8C Skippers Aviation aircraft on descent to Perth airport."The rocket-like object (shaft) was observed to be attached to a parachute." Altitude 6,800 feet. Event occurred at latitude 31 deg 49min south; longitude 116 deg 23mins east.

2014 incident - 022 degrees bearing and 23kms from airport. Time 0913hrs.
Green/grey, cyclindrical shaped object passed within 20m horizontal and 100 feet vertical, of aircraft registration VH-XFX, a DH8C Skippers Aviation aircraft on descent to Perth airport. Altitude 3,700 feet. Object was travelling upwards when it passed the plane. Event occurred at latitude 31 deg 45mins south, longitude 116 deg 05mins east.

So, indeed, the two events, happened in the same, very small area to the north/east of Perth airport.


Is there a connection between the two incidents?

Based on the information now available on the two incidents, in my opinion, I would argue that the two incidents are very similar, and possibly linked in some way.

At this point, as a UAP researcher, this is where I bow out and leave further investigation, if deemed warranted, to professional aviation agencies such as the ATSB.

Perth 2014 near-miss incident solved?

Hi all,

Near-miss:

Blog readers will recall that Melbourne based researcher, Paul Dean and I, recently published a full report on the near-miss between a Skippers Aviation aircraft and an "unknown object" at 9.13am local time on 19 March 2014, near Perth international airport (click here for the full technical report.)

The crew of that aircraft described the "unknown object" as a green coloured cylinder, that passed close by the aircraft, still going upwards from the aircraft's altitude of around 4,000 feet. The "unknown" had no observable wings; fins, or obvious method of propulsion.


Was it a rocket?

Paul Dean speculated that one possible explanation was that the "unknown" was a rocket fired from the ground. However, there was no way, on the available information, to substantiate this speculation.
That has now changed.


Air Services Australia incident report:

The recent Air Services Australia (ASA) response to Paul's Freedom of Information request (click here for details) contained thirteen incidents.

One of these, ATS-0118570, occurred at 1.20 zulu time, i.e. 9.20am local time on 4 January 2013. The ASA summary reads:

"XKI (DH8C) reported a foreign object of approximate size (1 metre) within close proximity (50ft) of the aircraft causing them to level out briefly as the object passed left hand side. The rocket like object (shaft) was observed to be attached to a parachute. Pilot reported observation at 6800 ft."


Where did this occur?
The ASA summary merely says Perth, TMA. TMA stands for Terminal Maneouvering Area or in other words near to Perth international airport. Who operates aircraft, registration VH-XKI? Skippers Aviation!


Similarities:

The similarities between the 2013 and 2014 incidents are obvious to me. It would be reasonable, based on the information we now have on these two incidents, to suggest that the 2013 incident was an observation at 6,800 feet, of a rocket, fired from the ground, on its way back to earth, attached to a parachute, and that the observation of 2014, at about 4,000 feet, was that of a rocket, fired from the ground, still going upwards.


2014 Australian Transport Safety Bureau report:

Why wouldn't the report released by the Australian Transport Safety Bureau ( click here to read it) on the 2014 event not have mentioned the so similar 2013 event? Perhaps it was because the 2013 event was reported only to Air Services Australia, and the 2014 event was reported by the aircrew directly to the ATSB? This seems a reasonable suggestion, to me. However, you would think that someone at Skippers Aviation would have known about both incidents?

Well, now. Is a rocket fired from the ground ,the solution to the 19 March 2014 near-miss?

Air incident - Near Kununurra, Western Australia - 2009

Hi all,

A second incident from the material obtained by Melbourne researcher Paul Dean (click here) from Air Services Australia, happened in April 2009. A Sydney research associate of mine, who wishes to remain anonymous, and myself, provide the following "English" translation for blog readers.

"Airprox":

1. At 1.53 zulu time on Friday 10 April 2009, (9.53am WAT; or 11.23 CST), an Embraer 170 aircraft belonging to the Airnorth company (a regional airline based in Darwin, Northern Territory) was flying between Darwin, Northern Territory, and Kununurra, Western Australia, a distance of 237 nautical miles.

2. Flight number 332 was on descent to Kununurra at a height of about 9,000 feet when the crew reported an encounter with an "unknown aircraft" close enough to their plane to be described as an "airprox." An "airprox" is a situation in which the safety of the aircraft is deemed to have been compromised. The "unknown" was travelling in the opposite direction to flight 332.

3. Subsequent questioning of the crew found that the "unknown" was located about 3-4 nautical miles east of flight 332. The "unknown" activated flight 332's traffic collision avoidance system (TCAS) and TCAS provided a "resolution advisory", which is a suggestion for the pilot to either climb or descend to avoid a potential collision.

4. Flight 332 crew did not visually see the "unknown." Weather conditions at the time meant the crew of flight 332 were flying under visual meteorological conditions.

5. Flight 332 used its very high frequency radio to try and contact the "unknown." However, there was no response.

6. Air traffic surveillance is not available of this part of the Australian airspace, so the "unknown" was not able to be confirmed by air traffic controllers.

7. No flights matching the "unknown" were known to the air traffic surveillance system.

8. I checked the database of the Australian Transport Safety Bureau for a possible ATSB report on this incident, but failed to find any trace of such a report.

Air incident - Adelaide - 27 January 2014

Hi all,

Introduction:

In a recent post on his blog (click here), Melbourne researcher Paul Dean, reported on 13 pilot and air traffic control observations he obtained from Air Services Australia, (ASA) using the Freedom of Information Act. As I commented in my own blog post on this release (click here), many of these were of illuminated garbage-bags, chinese lanterns, and other such mundane objects. However, there were three which were more interesting, particularly an incident documented to have happened over Adelaide, South Australia in January 2014. Paul challenged us all to provide a "plain english" version of these events, rather than the technical language used in the ASA release. Here then is such a description of the Adelaide event.


Adelaide incident:

1. At about 9.45am central standard time, on the morning of the 27 January 2014, Tiger Airline flight number 484, from Melbourne to Adelaide, an Airbus 320, was inbound on the last leg of its journey. It was to land at the 05 Adelaide runway, following the Alexi 5 Victor Standard Arrival Route. Alexi is the name of a fixed reference ("waypoint") at latitude 35deg 39mins south and longitude 139deg 04mins south.

2. At some uncited point in its final approach, flight 484 reported traffic at its 12 o'clock position, 5 nautical miles (NM) distance, i.e. in front of the aircraft.

3. Adelaide approach reported there was no observed traffic in that vicinity.

4. Flight 484 then requested a turn onto heading 210 degrees. 484 then reported the traffic was now in their right 3 o'clock position, 2.5 NM away. It was apparently seen visually. 484 then advised that it was turning back for its visual standard approach to the runway.

5. 484 then asked Adelaide approach had they any traffic on radar at their 3 o'clock position at 4NM?

6. Adelaide approach replied that they had an Airbus 320 past the 3 o'clock position at 6.8NM. Adelaide approach asked 484 if this was the traffic 484 was referring to? 484 replied that they were not sure. They had their traffic showing at 2.5NM, same level.

7. Shortly after this a Jetstar aircraft flight 774, another Airbus 320, flying Melbourne to Adelaide reported that their traffic collision avoidance system showed "something" at the waypoint named BATIP, (latitude 35deg 00.4mins south, longitude 138deg 26.9 east) "hovering" at 2000 feet, then it disappeared.


Additional information:

At 9am that morning the Bureau of Meteorology observations for Adelaide airport were:

Temperature 27.4 deg C. Relative humidity 23%. Cloud cover zero. Wind direction north. Wind speed 9 km/hr. MSLP 1014.8.


Helpful diagrams:

1. A diagram showing standard arrival route Alexi 6 victor STAR into Adelaide airport runway 05, may be viewed at, click here. Note the waypoints marked Alexi and ANVAC.

2. A diagram overlaid on a map of Adelaide (click here) shows the route aircraft take to runway 05 using the Alexi route (the Air Services Australia website does not have an Alexi 5 victor STAR route on it). Note this route goes through the waypoint ANVAC (see diagram above). This second diagram also shows the location of waypoint BATIP where "something" was said to have "hovered." This waypoint is actually out over the ocean, off the coast of Adelaide.

I hope this "plain english" material will assist readers understand what happened that morning.

Note added 5 February 2015.

Melbourne researcher Paul Dean submitted another FOI to Air Services Australia, who released further information on the incident:

The incident was reviewed on 5 February 2014 by ASA employee, Paul Hart who wrote:
"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.

Air safety issues in Australia, and UAP

Introduction:

Since the 1950's, aircraft pilots in Australia have periodically reported observations of unidentified aerial phenomena  (UAP.)  My catalogue of the more interesting UAP reports from Australia ( click here) contains dozens of such reports, including the following two from 1997.

28 September 1997 Jacobs Well, Queensland 2359hrs
Pilot Rob Hill and passenger were flying between Brisbane and Lismore in a helicopter when they sighted an unusual object, with three lights on it, spaced evenly along its side. It tilted like an aircraft banking, and disappeared. Brisbane air traffic control advised him that there was no other traffic in the area. (The Northern Star newspaper, 3 October 1997.)

1 December 1997 Kangaroo Island, South Australia 2330hrs
Mr Kym Koch, flying at 4000 feet between Adelaide and Kingscote reported seeing an object low on the horizon. He described it as a very bright, round, orange coloured object at 20 degrees elevation. He was then contacted by Adelaide approach radar who told him they had received a report from Kangaroo Island Police about the same object. A police officer had been watching it for 9 minutes as it travelled westwards. It was also reported that it was detected by radar. (Channel 7 news, and Sunday Mail newspaper 7 December 1997.)


Observations versus air safety issues:

Most of the reports from pilots, are simply observations of something they considered unusual, similar to many such visual observations from the ground. However, a number of the reports represent a potential air safety issue, where they appears to be the possibility of a near-miss or a collision. Examples of this are:

19 March 2014 Perth, Western Australia 0913hrs
A Skippers aviation aircraft with passengers onboard was about to land at Perth international airport, when the crew sighted an approaching object. A green coloured, cylindrical object passed the aircraft at close range, after the command pilot changed course to avoid what he thought would be a collision. The full report on this event may be read here.

30 August 1975 Off Townsville, Queensland 1233z
The crew of a RAAF Neptune patrol aircraft were flying at 3000 feet. A group of three white/yellow lights approached the aircraft, and the pilot made a left turn to avoid what he believed to be an imminent mid-air collision. Click here to read my full report.


Australian aviation authorities:

In Australia there are three separate agencies involved at government level. These are:

1. Civil Aviation Safety Authority. Click here for their website.
2. Australian Transport Safety Bureau. For their website click here.
3. Air Services Australia. Click here to read about them.


2010 - who receives reports of possible UAP?

In 2010 I submitted Freedom of Information requests to all three agencies asking them for any documents they held on the subject of "unidentified flying objects." I received responses from all three agencies. CASA essentially said they held no such documents. The ATSB and ASA provided an amount of documentation. I reported on their responses in a series of blog posts,  ATSB click here; ASA click here.


2015 - ask again

This year, Melbourne colleague, Paul Dean, wrote to Air Services Australia under the FOI Act and asked them for documents concerning:

“….any incidences where flight crews have reported any:

 

1) Unusual, Unknown, or Unidentifiable Aircraft or Objects;

2) Suspected Drones/Unmanned Aerial Vehicles;

3) Meteoric Events, fireballs and the like;

4) Especially unusual weather phenomenon;

 

which are held on ESIR or CIRRIS database(s)."

The ASA searched their database and retrieved 13 pilot and ATC reports, fitting Paul's request.


The documents:

Some of the ASA reports have mundane observations, for example:

ATS-0071534 26 October 2008 7:44 Canberra tower.

At approximately 0744 z, 3 large black objects were
observed rising from the vicinity of Mt Mugga,
ascending and drifting south. Probably home made
hot air ballons using black plastic and a flame
source at the base. 2 RPT acft on final RWY 35 were
advised about the objects and that tower
considered the objects to be far enough west of
final to not impinge on their approach to land. One
of the objects then caught fire and disappeared,
whilst the other 2 continued to climb and drift to
the south east across final for RWY 35. QFA805 was
vectored to the west of final for a rejoin from the
west to avoid the objects. Objects last sighted
about 6 nm to south east of Canberra around 3000 to
5000 feet

and:

ATS-0072538 4 December 2008 9:35 Cairns Tower
Unidentified lights, believed to be floating lanterns,
released from one of the beaches (assumed to be
Holloways or Machans Beaches) . 2 lots of 3
'lanterns' released 10 mins apart, and floated up
just east of final. Qld police notified. Qld police also
received public reports of same. All relevant
aircraft on final notified.

Three of the ASA observations are of more interest. These are:

 

ATS-0075593 10 April 2009 1:53 TOPS
ANO332 tracking DN‐KU on descent, reported an
'airprox' with an unknown aircraft approximately
opposite direction, at approximately A090.
Subsequent questioning of the crew elicited that
the aircraft was observed approximately 3‐4 NM
east of the flight planned track and followed on
TCAS, but there was no RA, nor was the aircraft
sighted. Weather conditions were VMC. ANO332
reported unable to raise the aircraft on VHF.ATS
surveillance is not available in this part of the
airspace so the report was unable to be
corroborated by ATC. No flights matching the aircraft 
were known to the ATS system.

ATS-0098025 26 September 2012 2:11 Sydney TMA
TGW581 reported a red cylindrical object passing
the aircraft in the opposite direction when climbing
through FL200 aproximately 20 nm miles south of
Sydney.

ATS-0126807 26 January 2014 23:19 Adelaide TMA
At 2315Z TGW484, inbound on the ALEXI 05V STAR
reported having traffic at 12 o'clock, 5NM. AAE
reported there was no observed traffic in that
vicinity. TGW484 then requested a turn onto
heading 210. TGW484 then reported the traffic in
their right, 3 o'clock 2.5 NM "visual", and were
turning back for the VSA. TGW484 then asked if
AAE had the traffic on radar, 3' o'clock at 4NM. AAE
replied they had an A320 past the 3 o'clock at
6.8NM. AAE confirmed whether that was the traffic
they had reported, which TGW reported they were
not sure, they had had traffic showing 2.5 NM
same level. Shortly after JST774 following TGW
reported TCAS showing something at BATIP,
"hovering" at A020, which then disappeared.

Paul has now submitted a further FOI request to ASA asking for any further documents they hold about three specific observations provided by them in response to Paul's initial FOI request. It will be interesting to see what emerges.

Cold case review - Moe, Victoria - My analysis

Introduction:

This is the fourth in a four part series of posts about the classic 15 February 1963 incident near Moe, Victoria. In this post I attempt an analysis of the observation.


Comments and analysis:

1. This is a very puzzling case. I have, for some reason, always had the impression that the event lasted some minutes. It is clear that it did not. At most it lasted 15 to 16 seconds (McDonald 1967). The only other estimate of duration available, is that when it hovered. Brew himself said, this phase lasted 4-5 seconds. (VFSRS 1963.) It is therefore  a short duration event.

2. The absolute size of the object is given by Brew as 25 feet by 9-10 feet. These estimates appear to have been made when the object was at its closest approach, estimated at 75 feet. An angular size of some 18 degrees is implied by these figures. This is equivalent to 36 full Moons side by side in the sky. However, these estimates of Brew's, may, or may not be accurate. Maybe it would be better to say that the more certain information is that the ratio of the object's diameter to its height (minus the top "antenna") was roughly 3 to 1.

3. The shape of the object, as shown in both the RAAF and VFSRS investigations, does not agree with the shape expected to be seen if the RAAF's tornado-like phenomenon suggestion is adopted. A tornado, in whatever form, would be expected to be taller than wider, shaped like a cone or rope shape.

4. The sound heard is another interesting aspect, variously described as  "swishing, burbling-type sound" (RAAF); "swishing" (VFSRS) and "diggerydoo" (McDonald.) Both Charles and Trevor report hearing this loud and unusual noise at the same time.

5. A further unusual aspect is the possible correlation of a headache to Brew when "gazing at the perspex canopy." (VFSRS).


Is the RAAF's explanation viable?

6. What then are we to think of the RAAF's suggested tornado-like phenomenon? At first glance, the reported structured object; the headache; the noise and the shape, all appear to disagree with this suggestion. The RAAF report states that the CSIRO meteorological people were in some agreement with such an explanation.

7. The fact that the object descended from the cloud base; was moving in the direction of the wind (as stated by Brew but different from the RAAF); and was rotating in part, anti-clockwise; and went back into the cloud base in a few seconds, at first had me thinking "funnel cloud."


Funnel cloud?

8. A "funnel cloud" is a funnel shaped cloud of condensed water dropletes associated with a rotating column of air. This funnel extends from the base of a cloud and does not reach the ground like a conventional tornado. Photographs of "funnel clouds" which I perused on the Internet reinforce the fact that the funnel is linked to the clouds and it does not detach from the cloud.

9. Brew described his object as descending from the clouds to a  height of 75-100 feet and then going back up into the clouds. His estimate of time for the stationary phase is 4-5 seconds.

10. Two hours later, the weather observer at Yallourn stated the type of clouds visible then and there were "Fracto-Stratus." "These low gray clouds are small, thin, unorganized tatters that typically condense in the moisture beneath nimbostratus or cumulonimbus clouds." (Click here). The bases of these clouds are usually found near the ground to around 6,500 feet." Funnel clouds are usually associated with cumulonimbus or cumulus clouds.

11. A check on the Internet revealed a general concensus that sounds associated with funnel clouds are "similar to buzzing bees, or a rushing waterfall-like sound, roaring sucking sound." (Click here.)


12. Points favouring a funnel cloud as an explantion for the object seen at Moe, are:

1. They form in similar weather to that reported at Moe.
2.They do rotate.
3. They do appear grey in colour.
4.They have associated sounds similar to that described by the Brews.
5. They are of short duration, seconds to minutes.
6. They move in the direction of the prevailing wind.
7. They are most likely during the summer months, e.g. February.
8. White or blue glows have been reported in association with them.


Points against a funnel cloud:

1. They do not detach themselves from their associated cloud base.
2. Their description in the literature, does not match that reported by Brew.

However, you can see why the tornado-like phenomenon appealed to both the CSIRO and the RAAF .


Another possible meteorological explanation?

13. Interestingly, my review of the meteorological information on tornados and tornado-like phenomenon revealed that there might be an even better fit for the object seen at Moe.

That is, a "gustnado", which is short for a gust front tornado. Gustnados were not know about in 1963.  The Australian Bureau of Meteorology describes them as follows:

"The gustnado has been accepted as a 'type of tornado' but is really a brief, intense vortex that forms on the leading edge of gust fronts. Scud and debris or dirt may be seen but a condensation funnel is usually absent. They will last from a few seconds to several minutes and are strong enough to cause minor damage. They are distinguished from a true tornado by their location under an advancing dark cloud bank, or shelf cloud ahead of the rain core. Although the air is rotating, this event is grouped more appropriately with straight-line winds (downbursts and microbursts)." (Click here.)  The BOM website has an interesting photograph,, which shows a gustnado, taken in Melbourne, Victoria. The gustnado, if tipped on its side would appear as a grey, rotating, discoid form. (Click here for photo.)

The column is not connected to, nor has it developed from the cloud like a tornado or a funnel cloud. A gustnado lasts for from seconds to a few minutes.Unlike a tornado the rotating column of air does not extend all the way to the cloud base. They may only extend to 10 to 100 metres  above the ground with no apparent connection to the cloud.

The Bureau of Meteorlogy's website Storm spotters Handbook says they have an anti-clockwise rotation. Like other funnels they may generate noise and light.


What did Brew see?

14. After reading all four posts in this series, which provides detailed information on the event, and the information provided on tornado-like phenomenon, you will have to make up your own mind what it was that Charles Brew saw on the morning of 15 February 1963.

Cold case review - Moe, Victoria - McDonald investigation

Introduction:

This is the third in a four part series of posts about the classic 15 February 1963 incident near Moe, Victoria. In this post I present details of the investigation conducted by the US researcher, James E McDonald.

James E McDonald.

James E McDonald interviewed Charles Brew and his son Trevor, in 1967 during a visit from America to Australia. Courtesy of Dr Michael Swords I obtained a copy of McDonald's handwritten notes. McDonald's handwriting is difficult to read , so I will simply summarise the relevant notes, in three categories. Firstly, points of information which agree with that given by either the RAAF or VFSRS investigations; then points of difference, and finally information which I did not come across in either of these investigations.

Points of agreement:

1. Object came down from the east.
2. It was raining heavily at the time.
3. It was not dark.
4. Colored tin top. Bottom flat. Top was glass, something transparent.
5. Took off to the west, uphill from shed.
6. Climbed out at 45 degrees.
7. Spun anti-clockwise from above.
8. Headache that day.

Points of difference:

1. Time was 0700.
2. Hovered 10 seconds at tree top height.
3. Dome was not completely clean. Murky. Frosty. Thinks may have seen figures. Head, shoulders - no movement, not small.

New information:

1. Trevor was at the south end of the shed, blocked view.
2. Drop in milk for a week or so.
3. For 6 months couldn't get them past the spot.
4. While hovering, revolved, but no rocking motion.
5. Saw no jets or flames.
6. More than a second per revolution.
7. Trevor - sound not like engine noise. Loud. Like a throwing stick. Magnificent sound. Pleasant.
8. Total time of sighting 15-16 seconds.
9. Came out of cloud base, perhaps half a mile away.
10. Trevor did not get a headache.

It should be noted that these notes were made nearly four years after the event, with whatever might have been the effect on Brew's memory, with the passage of that amount of time.

Although we do not have access to an investigation report by McDonald, we do have the text of a talk which McDonald gave to the Canadian Aeronautics and Space Institute Astronautics Symposium on 12 March 1968 titled "UFOs-An International Scientific Problem." This talk features a section on the Moe case.

"Case 10. Moe, Victoria, February 15, 1963.

To maintain a certain international tone, in keeping with the title of my remarks, I close with another interesting sighting made in a distant area. With the aid of the Melbourne VFSRS group, I was able to interview Australian farmer Charles Brew and his son Trevor last summer. They operate a small dairy farm east of Melbourne, near Moe, Victoria. My interview was carried out in the milking shed where Brew and his son Trevor were working at about 7am Feb 15, 1963 when an unusual object swooped down nearby.

It was already light on this summer morning, although rainclouds lay overhead. Trevor was working in a part of the milking shed where his view of the eastern sky was obscured and he did not see the object during its short duration passage nearby.

Charles Brew however, was standing in an opening, with a full view to the eastern sky when the object descended towards his shed and cattle-pens at an angle that he put at about 45 degrees. The object might be loosely described as a domed disc, estimated by Brew at 25 feet in diameter, gray in color except for a transparent dome on top. Around the circumference of the object he saw an array of scoop-like or bucket-like vanes or protruberances.

As the object swooped down, almost as if to land on the hillside nearby, the cattle and horses reacted in a violent panic which Brew described in his own words as unprecedented  It descended to an altitude that he judged to be 75-100 feet, as estimated by the height of a tree near its point of  minimal altitude. Then, after seeming to hover near the tree for a few seconds, it began a climb of roughly 45 degrees continuing on its westward course and passing into the cloud deck again.

The dome was not rotating, but the central section and  bottom section appeared to be rotating at about once a second, Brew judged. The spinning motion caused the protruberances (Brew thought) to generate the swishing noise, somewhat like a turbine noise, that was clearly audible not only to Brew but also to Trevor, located inside the shed and not far from a diesel unit powering the milking machines. The sound was even audible over the latter local noise sources, Trevor said.

 It took some time to recover the animals that had bolted, and those already inside the fenced area were strongly disturbed for some time. Brew stated to me that it was many days before any of his cattle would walk over the point of the hillside over which the object had momentarily hovered. Brew himself reported that an uncommon headache persisting for a number of hours after the incident, but whether this was fortuitous cannot be concluded.

Brew has been interviewed many times by Australian investigators without any reason being found to discount his unusual sighting. My reaction to Brew was similar.

It is unfortunate that the son was not in a position to confirm the sighting but he confirms the unusual sound ("like a diggerydoo" as Brew put it.) The object is similar in its general features and size to that seen by a witness I interviewed in New Zealand, Mrs Eileen Moreland. Her July 1959 observation, like Brew's, and like that of many other UFO witnesses is extremely difficult to explain in present-day scientific or technological terms."

In Michael Swords' digitised files, is a copy of the July 1963 APRO Bulletin report on the case. It has been annotated by McDonald in his own handwriting. In part, it reads:

"Berson regarded his story as beyond reproach, but stated in his analysis that the only (two words unable to be read) explanation was "some weather phenomenon" and this was taken up by RAAF as the explanation, and case was called 'closed.'"

Part four of this series will present my analysis of the incident.