AIRPROX Birmingham, Police v UFO
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Midlands, England
Posts: 252
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AIRPROX Birmingham, UK, Police v UFO
From the 'Telegraph' newspaper;
Police helicopter avoids colliding with UFO, report claims - Telegraph
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/...%20Airprox.pdf
Police helicopter avoids colliding with UFO, report claims - Telegraph
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/...%20Airprox.pdf
Last edited by coldair; 22nd Nov 2008 at 06:23. Reason: Added 'UK' to avoid confusion with the one in USA.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: On the green bit near the blue wobbly stuff
Posts: 674
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
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!!
Does this Mr Pope now work for a tabloid newspaper? It is just something about his calm rational analysis that says "journalist" to me!!
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Stoke on Trent
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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!
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!
Last edited by joemcg; 22nd Nov 2008 at 12:57. Reason: Noticed URL for airprox report included in original post
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,573
Received 422 Likes
on
222 Posts
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.
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Stoke on Trent
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
..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
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
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Stoke on Trent
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
Cheers,
Joe
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,573
Received 422 Likes
on
222 Posts
Have you never felt the wash from a helicopter taking off or landing? I have, and it extends a considerable distance.
(This is a test, isn't it)?
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Stoke on Trent
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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)?
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
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,573
Received 422 Likes
on
222 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Stoke on Trent
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
cheers,
Joe
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
cheers,
Joe
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,573
Received 422 Likes
on
222 Posts
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.
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
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 391
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well I am waiting patiently for Scully to pop in and examine my evidence....
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...nMars2_gcc.jpg
"The Truth Is Out There"
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...nMars2_gcc.jpg
"The Truth Is Out There"
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
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
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,573
Received 422 Likes
on
222 Posts
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...?
Shy
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
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.
Nige
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,573
Received 422 Likes
on
222 Posts
the model flyer has no means of gauging height.
You are arguing the same point that I'm agreeing with...
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
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