AIRPROX Birmingham, Police v UFO

[coldair]

From the 'Telegraph' newspaper;

Police helicopter avoids colliding with UFO, report claims - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/3497602/Police-helicopter-avoids-colliding-with-UFO-report-claims.html)

Police helicopter avoids colliding with UFO, report claims

A police helicopter narrowly avoided colliding with a UFO over Birmingham, a report has claimed.


Police helicopter pilot says he had to avoid UFO in skies above Birmingham

The pilot managed to swerve out of the mystery aircraft's way while he was on a routine police surveillance task over the city centre earlier this year.
The helicopter was also carrying two police observers during the journey in May.
All three reported seeing a strange aircraft with two continuous blue/green lights.
The incident is detailed in a document compiled by experts from the Airprox Board, which records near misses and reports them to the military and air traffic control units.
The report stated: "The front observer saw unidentified lights flying around their aircraft. The pilot established visual contact, as he manoeuvred the aircraft to avoid a collision and to identify the light source."
The object was less than 100m away and flew around them.
The pilot told the Airprox Board he thought the intent may either have been sinister or just someone messing around.
It was initially believed that the object was a radio controlled aircraft and that it was purposefully flown around the helicopter.
The report stated: "He (the pilot) believes the lights may have come from a radio controlled fixed wing aircraft, the lights being to assist with night flying."
Despite searching the area with a thermal camera, the pilot was unable to find any signs of radio-controlled model activity.
And the British Model Flying Association ruled out the possibility, saying the mystery object was flying too high to be a miniature craft.
Nick Pope, who previously worked for the Ministry of Defence's UFO desk, said: "A helicopter was nearly blown out of the sky.
"This is a very disturbing incident which needs to be thoroughly investigated by the MoD and the Civil Aviation Authority as well as other near misses.
"The conclusion on the report is unsatisfactory especially when this aircraft came within seconds of a collision.
"It is a very interesting case especially when you look at the eyewitnesses. They are credible and reliable sources who have experience in night time flying."
"This sighting clearly illustrates that whatever one believes about UFOs, this incident raises important air safety issues and should be taken seriously."

Airprox report number 055/08
http://www.airproxboard.org.uk/docs/423/UKAB0708Assessed%20Airprox.pdf

[Non-PC Plod]

Quote: "helicopter was nearly blown out of the sky"

Does this Mr Pope now work for a tabloid newspaper? It is just something about his calm rational analysis that says "journalist" to me!!:}

[joemcg]

The Airprox summary report is available from:

http://tinyurl.com/5pmx7w (.pdf file, 668 Kb)

One aspect that I think was missing from the Airprox investigation is that it might have been something (Chinese lantern?) caught in the rotor wash - the lights were reported to have been orbiting the EC135.

Does anyone know the direction in which the blades on the EC135 rotate? if the orbital direction follows the sense of the blades, then this possible explanation becomes more likely.

Joe

Apologies, I just noticed the URL for the airprox was already included in the original post!

[Brilliant Stuff]

Anticlockwise.

[ShyTorque]

Does anyone know the direction in which the blades on the EC135 rotate? if the orbital direction follows the sense of the blades, then this possible explanation becomes more likely.


So a helicopter sits in its own rotorwash, which swirls round it like water going down the plughole? And this rotorwash extends to almost 100m from the aircraft? Phew!

[joemcg]

..Laser rangefinder built-in to the pilot's head? ...Phew!

From the Airprox report with my emphasis added:

"The pilot established visual contact, he estimated 100m away but it was very difficult to tell, as he manoeuvred the ac to avoid a collision and to identify the light source."

Have you never felt the wash from a helicopter taking off or landing? I have, and it extends a considerable distance.

Joe

[joemcg]

Thanks, Brilliant stuff. All we need now is to find out the orbital direction observed to see whether or not the 'object caught in wash' explanation is still viable. Anyone on here know any of the crew involved?

Cheers,

Joe

[huntnhound]

slysoe syd....never let rumour get in the way of truth...
Out with it boy...what really happened?:rolleyes:

[ShyTorque]

Have you never felt the wash from a helicopter taking off or landing? I have, and it extends a considerable distance.

Yes, I have, quite a few times. Thanks for the info but some of us here do that sort of thing for a living.

(This is a test, isn't it)? :bored:

[joemcg]

Yes, I have, quite a few times. Thanks for the info but some of us here do that sort of thing for a living.

That's why I was somewhat surprised by your previous response. Am I misreading it, or do you regard the 'captured in the wash' explanation as untenable? If so I would welcome any indication as to why.

(This is a test, isn't it)?

No, but I do regard it as a puzzle. I get the feeling that I am oblivious to something glaringly obvious to everyone else, if so, would someone please put me out of my misery!

The Airprox board rejected a rogue microlight and an r/c model aircraft as the explanation (for perfectly valid reasons), I don't understand why they didn't consider the 'captured in the wash' scenario. Am I missing something, or does anyone have any other suggestions for a solution (other than little green men in tiny spaceships chasing police helicopters)?

Cheers,

Joe

[ShyTorque]

Joe,

I've spent many hours hovering by day and by night over various places, some of them not too far from where this "Airprox" occurred, some of it doing the same job.

Helicopter rotorwash doesn't go laterally round and round the aircraft like you appear to think it might. Downwash from a hovering helicopter in free air goes down and away. When hovering near the ground, where recirculation can occur, something light such as a paper bag might go down through the rotors, get blown up again and through a second or even a third time. However, in thirty years of flying helicopters and being around them on the ground, I've never seen something go round and round the aircraft, clockwise or anticlockwise.

I think it's most likely to have been someone messing about with a R/C model, despite what the modelling experts said in the report. Not too long ago I reported a R/C model aeroplane inside the London Heathrow control zone as it went past me at 1500 feet. I understand that R/C models should not officially be flown above 400 feet above ground but models are easily capable of flying much higher; the model flyer has no means of gauging height.

[joemcg]

Thanks for that ShyTorque (fantastic handle by the way!).

I am inclined to agree with you in regard to the ceiling for r/c a/c, but think it is a stretch to account for the delicate control which would be required from the ground. To be able to match the helicopter height would in itself be difficult.

I appreciate what you say about the 'wake pattern' (for want of a better expression) caused by the turning rotors. The way that I picture it is like a hollow doughnut or toroid which itself rotates in the same direction of the blades. This may be completely wrong, but it does make sense to me.

Incidentally, there was a report in June from South Wales of a police helicopter encountering a UFO, and it later turned out that there was a wedding in the general area at which Chinese lanterns were released. This was not reported as an Airprox for some reason but it did reach the media (with the same hype from the same person cited in the article which started this thread). If anyone wants more information about that incident, details are at:

South Wales Police helicopter UFO incident 8th June 2008: Invasion of the bobby snatchers (http://www.uk-ufo.org/condign/swphelo.html)

cheers,

Joe

[ShyTorque]

The way that I picture it is like a hollow doughnut or toroid which itself rotates in the same direction of the blades. This may be completely wrong, but it does make sense to me.

Joe, In which case I see your misunderstanding. But no, that's not what happens in a free air hover or in forward flight.

In response on another thread, "SeniorPilot" recently posted this link. It shows the downwash pattern very clearly. I think you will agree that anything caught in this type of airflow would not circulate around the helicopter in the manner reported in the Airprox, but be blown down and away.

205FuelHaul2004-40C.flv (http://s97.photobucket.com/albums/l240/flyboygms/?action=view&current=205FuelHaul2004-40C.flv)

[joemcg]

Thanks again ShyTorque (I love writing that name!)

That's about as conclusive as anyone could get that my hypothesis doesn't fit!

Cheers,

Joe

[volrider]

Well I am waiting patiently for Scully to pop in and examine my evidence....:E

However nothing is to be taken as the expected..
NASA recently released pictures of water found on Mars

http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/image/0504/WaterOnMars2_gcc.jpg

"The Truth Is Out There"

[Nige321]

I understand that R/C models should not officially be flown above 400 feet above ground but models are easily capable of flying much higher; the model flyer has no means of gauging height

ShyTorque

Exactly - how on earth could an R/C flyer gauge the height of the EC from the ground, and then fly with it...? In the dark...?

As an R/C flyer, I can imagine have a bash at a single flypast, guessing the height, but to circle and follow a helicopter doing 80knots in the dark... Err no!

I would have thought it would be almost impossible in daylight, never mind at 10pm

Nige

[ShyTorque]

Exactly - how on earth could an R/C flyer gauge the height of the EC from the ground, and then fly with it...? In the dark...?

Nige321, please re-read the last sentence of my post #11.

[Nige321]

Shy

I think it's most likely to have been someone messing about with a R/C model, despite what the modelling experts said in the report. Not too long ago I reported a R/C model aeroplane inside the London Heathrow control zone as it went past me at 1500 feet. I understand that R/C models should not officially be flown above 400 feet above ground but models are easily capable of flying much higher; the model flyer has no means of gauging height.

I have read it - I'm not saying a model could be not flown at that height, just that it couldn't be done with any degree of accuracy in the dark.

Nige

[ShyTorque]

the model flyer has no means of gauging height.

Is what I meant.

You are arguing the same point that I'm agreeing with...

[Nige321]

So do you still think it was someone 'messing around' with an R/C model?

Flying one that accurately in the dark, not just a pass, but circling around at an accurate height?

As an aside, would there have been any FLIR footage of this??

Nige

[ShyTorque]

Nige321,

I'm keeping an open mind. Despite it seeming very difficult to fly a R/C aircraft in such a way at night, the best evidence is the word of the crew.

I certainly think it's the most likely scenario, because of the reported size of the other aircraft. I don't think for one moment that there are little green men chasing police helicopters over the UK skies.

The only other possibility I can imagine is that it was a group of helium filled party foil balloons reflecting lights in the darkness. I have seen this myself a few times. They appear to be moving faster than the windspeed blowing them along and even appear to manoeuvre as the aircraft flies past them. I'm not in a position to say if this could have been the case here.

[Non-PC Plod]

Whilst it must be difficult for a R/C enthusiast to try to match the height of another aircraft at altitude, especially at night, this is not unprecedented. I am sure there will be some on this forum who remember attempts to use R/C aircraft as a weapon against helicopters in NI a decade or two ago.

[ShyTorque]

Correct! :ok:

[Non-PC Plod]

Shy T -just noticed your occupation in public profile, and I reckon it could catch on. - Any vacancies? PS: They've landed you know!

[Non-PC Plod]

Elementary, my dear Sid. I think we can call that another mystery wrapped up. At this stage someone in a gorilla suit ought to say " If it wasnt for you meddling kids.....!"

[Cron]

Well, it's obvious what was going on here, the lights were stationary and the helicopter was inadvertently doing one of those manoeuvres where the nose describes a circle and the tail describes a bigger circle (my instructor demonstrated it to me a secret training place nr Wellesbourne and I concluded with my massive 60hrs that it was impossible for a normal mortal), now this helicopter had probably just passed low over Mar Pardoe's brewery in Quarry Bonk (Quarry Bank, Bonk is Black Country for Bank) and the fumes from the brewing vessels had entered the machine (through faulty ventilation ports) temporarily affecting the pilot. Whilst not suggesting alcohol played any part in this whatsoever I had a similar experince riding my push bike back from Mar Pardoe's last year when a lampost suddenly started swinging round in circles ..

[Nige321]

Oi Kron

Ow am yer...

Day yer reeliize its Ma Pardows...

Ai it...:=

N

[Nige321]

Silsoe


Firebird Commander 2 Electric RTF [HBZ2600] - Mikes Models

It only weighs 0.5Kg - It'd take a week to get to 90' never mind 900

and

++Anti-Crash Technology (ACT)++
(Two sensors on the fuselage, one on the top and one on the bottom, monitor the position of the plane in relation to the ground.)

Only works in sunlight I'm afraid...

Back to the drawing board...

N:8

[Coconutty]

900' isn't that far really - 300 Yards, or to put in perspective - It's the distance from the first countdown marker board on a motorway to the start of the exit slip road ...

http://i34.photobucket.com/albums/d129/coconut11/Countdown.jpg

... Night flying of remote controlled aircraft at night ?

YouTube - RC Night Flying at Point Fermin (http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=ol5wBf76Y-0)

http://i34.photobucket.com/albums/d129/coconut11/Coconutty.jpg

[whyisitsohard]

A model transmitter has "line of sight" range. The limiting factor is what the pilot can see. So after a few hundred yards it becomes v difficult. early drone systems used binoculars on stands so that the pilot controlled them whilst viewing through the binos. Now we have "first person view" systems where there is a small camera mounted on the model sending a video pic back to the pilot who wears a set of VR goggles: he sees what we see and flies accordingly.

Those Anti crash systems work poorly at best, at night I doubt they'd do anything: but it matters not, a good RC pilot wouldnt need the system even at night.

A model would easily chase a helo, but probably more by accident than design.

I suspect that the police chopper would outrun the model in seconds - it would be pretty hard for a model pilot to circle it and keep up, especially at night. The helo wake would seriously affect the model IMHO. Big bals models fl;y quickly but those lightweight foamies, whilst they have very high power:weight ratios, fly slowly.

David
BMFA Instructor

[whyisitsohard]

whyisitsohard Quote:
A model transmitter has "line of sight" range.
Thanks whyisitsohard, so the 'advice' to the Airprox board from the MFA, " saying the mystery object was flying too high to be a miniature craft," isn't correct then http://static.pprune.org/images/smilies/confused.gif

Nope. The ONLY limit on vertical flight is what the pilot can see. I've had model gliders well up beyond a thousand feet. I mean WELL up beyond. Allegedly, m'lud.
Everynow and then the magazines run articles on how to calculate height using the apparent wingspan. But nowadays you go and spend 200 quid for a telemetry box and it sends all sorts of stuff down to you. With FPV flight and telemetry there is no limit, viz the UAVs being flown from the US in Afghanistan.

Last summer I shared a thermal with a fullsize glider for a while before I bottled out and left him to it - whether he saw me I shall never know. Whenever I see model planes flying I always keep a good lookout as the model pilot simply cant judge that third dimension and a face full of fourstroke engine would spoil my paintwork.

Have a look here if you want to see high flight! YouTube - Flying Model RC Aircraft Very High Into Clouds (http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=j48Inile18E&feature=related) This is the US, but only because it's the first one I found.

This is FPV FirstPersonView.co.uk, Radio Control First Person View (RC FPV) equipment for Video Piloting (http://www.firstpersonview.co.uk/?gclid=CICzzJj2k5cCFQoi3godQ1uwDA)

Night flying is a big area of the hobby, though moreso overseas where it'sm actually warm! The heli boys do it a lot over here though by putting coloured LED ropes on the models...
Cleveland Model Helicopter Club Night Flying (http://www.clevelandheli.co.uk/Night%20Flying.htm)

David

[Nige321]

Sid

Close but no cigar...

I certainly don't believe it was little green men, nor do I believe for a minute it was a model - the performance required of the model and it's pilot simply don't make any sense.

Was there any FLIR footage recorded??

N:zzz:

[Nige321]

Sid

I'm plumping for plasma balls... (http://blog.wired.com/defense/2007/05/plasma_laser_uf.html)

Especially talking ones...:8

'Thems clever them Black Coontry types'...:8

N

[volrider]

The only other possibility I can imagine is that it was a group of helium filled party foil balloons reflecting lights in the darkness. I have seen this myself a few times. They appear to be moving faster than the windspeed blowing them along and even appear to manoeuvre as the aircraft flies past them.
Would they be able to circle the aircraft?? would they not get blown away in the rotor wash??
Sid nice picture of remote plane, however it has different coloured lights..which you would need at night to work out the direction of travel at night... I am led to believe the "UFO" had the same coloured lights?? UAV's yes flown from the ground with a camera linked to a monitor so you can see where they are going etc, somehow such a plane in Sandwell Valley a short range from Handsworth does not seem the ideal location for such an expensive and complex "toy"
I guess we should check the crews watches for the lost 9 minutes and a medical exam for any anal probing is required...time for Scully to intervene I think

http://www.cheatcc.com/imagesxboxc/destroyallhumans2_000.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v481/Pennville_Bill/Other%20Stuff/INSULTS/ANALPROBES.jpg

[ShyTorque]

Would they be able to circle the aircraft?? would they not get blown away in the rotor wash??

They may have appeared to be circling, but motion of slow moving balloons is relative. Any movement of the aircraft itself would be in the equation too. How much circling of the aircraft did the lights actually do? Once round, twice round, or only a partial circle? :)

The pilot's actual report wasn't included in the Airprox document; sometimes we need to read between the lines or at least read in a broad sense. I'm only using personal experience to try to understand this incident. I have seen balloons myself in similar circumstances and they looked quite weird until I realised what was there.

Was the object close enough to be affected by the downwash? Difficult to say, because the reporter didn't seem to know. If it was, as I tried to make clear in a previous reply - it would NOT have caused the object to circle the aircraft.

[FH1100 Pilot]

Some people need to quantify everything in finite, concrete terms that we understand. We think we know everything there is to know about our universe - that it's all been satisfactorily explained by science and Scientists. Thus, it *had* to be an RC model or some such. Anything else is just too incredible to comprehend. It is dismissed out of hand without further consideration. Can't be!

We humans believe in three dimensions: height; length; and width. The speed of light is absolute. Concrete. Measurable. Finite. And here on earth, those things apply (well, at least until you get down to the sub-atomic level, then all bets are off).

We know that inter-galactic space travel...at least with the means of propulsion currently at our disposal...is impossible. We can't even escape our own solar system at this point.

But what if there are dimensions of which we're not yet aware - dimensions that we cannot even imagine? (Like, how a dog has the ability to sense things that we cannot.) What if there are methods of propulsion and travel that we have not discovered?

Me, I don't rule anything out. *Must* the explanation of what the police pilots saw be of earthly origin? Certainly not! Could it have been..."something"...of which we have no knowlege, do not understand and cannot explain? Of course.

Does this bother me? Will I go out of my way to "conclude" that it must have been party balloons or RC models or just some sort of mistake on the part of the crew just so my brain won't short-circuit? Nope. Some things in life just have no explanation. Yet. In the meantime, I won't ridicule or deride any theory.

[ShyTorque]

I agree but as professional fliers we really ought to try to rule out earthly explanations first!

My point is that we have a report based on another report, sometimes it pays to think laterally or not take it as verbatim or the gospel.

Who is in the Airprox board? Folks just like us. :)

[FH1100 Pilot]

If a pilot told me something with respect to aviation that happened to him in flight, I would first be inclined to believe him rather than assuming that he must have been mistaken.

[ShyTorque]

If a pilot told me something with respect to aviation that happened to him in flight, I would first be inclined to believe him rather than assuming that he must have been mistaken.

He did tell me, and I do believe him. He saw airborne lights that couldn't be explained and which concerned him about the safety of his aircraft. I'm not assuming he's mistaken because there's nothing to be mistaken about in that respect.

I've had a similar occurrence doing the same job, at night, at a neighbouring police unit. I'm merely offering my own experience of seeing metallised plastic foil balloons at night as one possible explanation. They reflect ground lights and look very unusual.

I would rather explain it than let it cause further concern as it's a flight safety issue. If it doesn't fit his experience on the night, so be it. He hasn't rejected the theory as yet.

[QTG]

Last night I saw a large sleigh piloted by a guy dressed all in red, apparently practising single reindeer failures over Worcestershire, if that's any help.

[RINKER]

How about a free flight model or an RC model out of range flying on it's own. I fly RC planks and rotaries and It's possible someone flying an RC plank had a radio problem or lost sight of the model and off it went. A well trimmed model could fly on it's own and if it had a tiny bit of rudder it could orbit and with a small amount of elevator and the C of G moving aft as the fuel got used up it could easily climb, with enough fuel a flight time of up to 30mins could easily be achieved.I've seen this happen and the model never found.
R

[whyisitsohard]

Rinker, I'd argue strongly with the word "easily" in "could esasily climb".

A model in anthing other than perfect s and l flight would crash quickly. I agree, it could haappen aand I too have seen moddels fly away quite happliy - but ive seen them crash far more often as a result of comms loss. I think your argument for the UFO is weak old bean.

D

[ShyTorque]

Very likely. Last night it did look a bit like rain, dear. :ok:

But are you sure it wasn't man in a green flying suit?

Hey Sid, got that paperwork?

[MightyGem]

Last night I saw a large sleigh piloted by a guy dressed all in red, apparently practising single reindeer failures over Worcestershire

From another PPrune forum:

Santa's Pre-Christmas Flight Check

Santa Claus, like all pilots, gets regular visits from the CASA Flight Operations Inspectors, and the CASA FOI arrived last week for the pre-Christmas flight check.

In preparation, Santa had the elves wash the sled and bathe all the reindeer. Santa got his logbook out and made sure all his paperwork was in order. He knew they would examine all his equipment and truly put Santa's flying skills to the test...

The examiner walked slowly around the sled. He checked the reindeer harnesses, the landing gear, and Rudolf's nose. He painstakingly reviewed Santa's weight and balance calculations for the sled's enormous payload.

Finally, they were ready for the check ride. Santa got in and fastened his seatbelt and shoulder harness and checked the compass. Then the examiner hopped in carrying, to Santa's surprise, a shotgun.

"What's that for?!?" asked Santa incredulously.

The examiner winked and said, "I'm not supposed to tell you this ahead of time," as he leaned over to whisper in Santa's ear, "but you're gonna lose an engine on takeoff.

[Nige321]

More of 'em...!

Last night...!

Just down the road in Halesowen...!

Must be true, it's on Sky...! (http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/Strange-News/Mystery-UFO-Lights-Over-Halesowen-In-the-Midlands/Article/200812315187546?lpos=Strange_News_Carousel_Region_3&lid=ARTICLE_15187546_Mystery_UFO_Lights_Over_Halesowen_In_th e_Midlands)

N:p

[whyisitsohard]

Shy torque: I agree but as professional fliers we really ought to try to rule out earthly explanations first!


Why? That's a biased view. As professional fliers we should be interested in the TRUTH first, regardless of whether it is terrestrial or extra. That's how I was taught science anyway.

David

[R44-pilot]

Lol, this thread is so entertaining! :ok:

[mickjoebill]

A similar image could be made by shooting the reflection of christmas tree lights in a window.
Echo of voices indicates it was recorded indoors.

One angle/background and they don't appear to move relative to each other is not conclusive!


Mickjoebill

[ShyTorque]

Why? That's a biased view. As professional fliers we should be interested in the TRUTH first, regardless of whether it is terrestrial or extra. That's how I was taught science anyway.


Each to his/her own ideas of logical. Who taught you science?

Most things can be explained by what is already known and although I keep an open mind, we have relatively very little evidence of extra-terrestrial goings on. As I said, I have seen a similar thing, doing the same job in similar circumstances and discovered what it actually was. Metallised foil balloons.

As an aside, on another occasion, in my capacity as chief pilot of a neighbouring police ASU, I was approached by two very excited chaps from a local UFO group and asked for comments on a video of strange airborne lights they had in their possession (a steady red, a flashing red,a steady green and a moving blue beam). I was able to explain that it was our police helicopter and showed them our tech log sheets proving that we were operating over the same spot at the exact time of the video, using the nightsun (it was me flying). The person with the video camera was four miles away and had the lens on max zoom, causing amplification of camera shake which explained the "erratic movement" of the UFO.

I could sense their intense disappointment.....

On the other hand, I saw something in the sky in the 1970s in broad daylight which is still unexplained.

[joemcg]

Back to the incident which prompted this thread...

I have been in touch with the pilot concerned (thank you if you are reading this) and obtained the following information:

Position of Airprox - 8Nm NW of BHX
Aircraft heading - Orbit
True airspeed - 80 kts
FL/Alt/Ht - 1500ft QNH 1022
Aircraft attitude - Turning right
Phase of flight - Cruise
Weather conditions - Visibility 30km + CAVOK Night
Date and time - 02 May 2008 2250 BST

Description of other aircraft;

Type - Unidentified/Radio controlled aircraft
Markings, colour, lighting - 2 blue/green lights
Aircraft attitude - Controlled flight level orbit
First sighting distance - Est. 100m
Minimum horizontal and vertical separation - Possibly as close as 50m

Form of avoiding action taken - Orbit tightened to maintain
visual contact. Once established tried to ID + then I flew away.
Tried to re-establish visual contact, but not able to.

Other relevant factors - Vision good

ACAS (eg TCAS)- Fitted, TA indicated - No, RA indicated - No
How did you report the airprox - By radio, to Radar, Freq 118.050
Classification of flight - Public Transport, Police Operations,
Non scheduled passenger, Commercial.
Description of Airprox - Front observer saw strange lights flying
around a/c. Visual contact established by pilot and a/c
manoeuvred to avoid collision + identify lights. Lights circled
a/c at same height, flew away North then returned. Contact broken
by flying East to Birmingham city and from a lower height, to
enable lights to be seen against a dark sky, a/c returned to
area. No sighting. Open land in area searched with thermal camera
for radio controlled a/c landing site, but nothing obvious found.
I believe it was a radio controlled fixed wing a/c with lights to
assist with night flying. It was purposely flown around us.
The intent could be sinister or just someone "messing about."
However, in Northern Ireland a threat to aircraft was believed to
be radio controlled planes. Which could be flown to "cause damage".
Birmingham Radar was informed at the time, and as would be
expected, nothing was seen on radar possibly due to size.

- Ground speed of aircraft at particular stages of the event. - 92mph/69mph

- Direction of orbit of lights - Anticlockwise

- did the crew attempt to capture the lights on camera? If so,
what was the outcome? - Yes. Nothing captured on video.

- Event duration: Approximately 10 minutes

[Nige321]

...there must be an alien base just to the North of Halesowen.

Called Dudley...:E

N:p

[traumajunkie]

Let me see if I've got this straight -- the pilot concerned was flying a R orbit, and saw lights moving anticlockwise, i.e. L relative to him...

Definitely aliens.