Near collision between "unknown object" and Australian aircraft March 19 2014

Hi all,

The Australian Transport Safety Bureau has opened an inquiry (AO-2014-052) following the reported near collision between an "unknown object" and a Skippers Aviation De Havilland DHC-8 aircraft, registration VH-XFX at 0913hrs WST on March 19, 2014.

The incident occurred 23 kms NNE of Perth International Airport.

For more on the incident, including radar tracking, taken from the Perth Air Traffic Control secondary surveillance radar take a look at

ufos-scientificresearch.blogspot.com.au...

Pauline

reply to post by scullydana49

The unknown doesn't show up on radar.
What kind of damage did the plane sustain on this flight?

Could it have been a bird?

ETA.... Ooops, my bad. Misread the title.... NEAR collision... duh!

reply to post by scullydana49


With so little information on the object it's hard to say but here's the ATSB report which says they will release the investigation report of the incident in a few months.

The ATSB has commenced an investigation into a near collision with an unknown object involving a De Havilland DHC-8, VH-XFX near Perth Airport, Western Australia on 19 March 2014.

While passing 4,000 ft on descent, the crew observed an unknown object tracking directly towards the aircraft. The crew manoeuvred the aircraft to maintain separation.

As part of the investigation, the ATSB will interview the aircraft crew.
A report will be released within several months.
www.atsb.gov.au...

Was most likely migrating Wader birds of the Suborder 'Scolopaci' . Waders, called shorebirds in North America (where "wader" is used to refer to long-legged wading birds such as storks and herons), are members of the order Charadriiformes, excluding the more marine web-footed seabird groups. The latter are the skuas (Stercorariidae), gulls (Laridae), terns (Sternidae), skimmers (Rynchopidae), and auks (Alcidae). Also, the pratincoles (Glareolidae) and the Crab Plover (Dromadidae), which bear greater resemblance to waders, are closely related to the seabirds. Bird strikes are very common for that time of year in Australia and they could have easily drifted into the commercial lanes.

reply to post by ATSZOMBIE


Yeah that's it....they maneuvered the aircraft to avoid a near collision with......a.....bird. So big they could see it approaching and maneuver but couldn't recognize if the damn thing was flapping its wings. O....k.... I hope he's never my pilot than.

Look at my little wings flapping. Do I look unidentified?

Rosinitiate
reply to post by ATSZOMBIE

 

Yeah that's it....they maneuvered the aircraft to avoid a near collision with......a.....bird. So big they could see it approaching and maneuver but couldn't recognize if the damn thing was flapping its wings. O....k.... I hope he's never my pilot than.

Look at my little wings flapping. Do I look unidentified?

edit on 14-4-2014 by Rosinitiate because: (no reason given)

Excellent point made here. The pilots being residents of planet earth would probably recognize a bird when they see it. Maybe not what kind of bird but you know, a bird none the less. And seeing it from a long enough distance to be able to maneuver the plane they should have been able to discern that much.

I hope we are able to get more information out of this incident. The timing is really interesting, because just yesterday I watched episode # 7 of "Hangar1" and the subject was the supression of information regarding the very many, some very high profile, Airline Pilot sightings, as in for example, the Chicago O'Hare 2006 ufo sighting which was talked about. As I posted in comments on the Hangar 1 thread, after the United Pilots from Chicago were debriefed about the experience, they were told, the incident DID NOT HAPPEN, and further they were told DO NOT TALK ABOUT THIS AGAIN. There was another segment on a plane from China airlines which happened just last year in which it may be possible the plane had contact with a ufo, as upon landing, there was a large puncture gash in the nose cone of the plane. Birds were ruled out as the plane had been flying at about 26,000 feet, and birds do not fly that high. I do believe, as does Mufon, that Pilots are very very hesitant to come forward now and talk about their ufo experiences because of supression, threats, and possible intimidation made by someone or some group either in the U.S. or elsewhere.

This is an intriguing one, for sure! Thank you, DanaScully49, for bringing it onto the boards.

I know they say they'll release their info in a couple months (per gortex above) but I wonder...
Thanks again for the thread!

peace,
AB

reply to post by scullydana49


thanks |Scullydana49... i think the "DASH-8 " ( De Havilland DHC-8 ) can have TCAS ( traffic collision avoidance system...)

if it is installed on this plane, perhaps it recorded the incident...


seeya

reply to post by ATSZOMBIE


i just read that shorebirds were spotted by pilots flying as high as 20,000 ft. so 4000 ft isnt a stretch by any means.

Well, on the UAV front, BAE is testing its TARANIS UAV out of Woomera...

Hi,

Thanks to all who posted responses. I will keep track of the official report and post details, when the report comes out. For the moment, the cause of the near collision, remains an "unknown."

reply to post by Rosinitiate


hy

28Kms NNE of Perth... That would put it in the proximity of Pearce Airbase; which has had a lot of traffic go thru in the past month. Maybe it was a Malaysian 777 with its transponder off?? LOL

In all seriousness it was probably an aircraft from one of the nations involved in the search for MH370, a lot of forign aircraft are using Pearce.


a reply to: ATSZOMBIE

Yes it was an Egret, damn things never obey their designated flight-path

Hi all,

The official ATSB report has now been released. Researcher Keith Basterfield has posted about it, at:

ufos-scientificresearch.blogspot.com.au...

a reply to: scullydana49

Can you point out where the link to the report is because all I can see is excerpts picked out by Keith Basterfield , I'm interested to see why he thinks it was a UAP rather than a UAV.

Thanks.

Found the report
www.atsb.gov.au...

The airspace below 3,500 ft AMSL was military restricted airspace and the
Australian Defence Force was not operating UAVs and was not aware of any UAV operations in
the area at the time of the incident. The ATSB was not able to confirm the details of the object or
identify any UAV operator in the area at that time.

Given the fact they were flying over military airspace I think the possibility the object was a drone has to be considered the most likely explanation for the sighting , the denial by the military is in my opinion their standard fall back position in situations like this.

originally posted by: data5091
There was another segment on a plane from China airlines which happened just last year in which it may be possible the plane had contact with a ufo, as upon landing, there was a large puncture gash in the nose cone of the plane. Birds were ruled out as the plane had been flying at about 26,000 feet, and birds do not fly that high..

Might check on the Ruppell's griffon vulture. With a 10 foot wingspan, and already known as one of the worlds highest flying birds, there are confirmed reports of an aircraft hitting one around 36,000 feet (Engine strike, forced plane to land, bird remains found in the destroyed engine).

Helsingin Sanomat, the only major newspaper around here, wrote a short if very matter-of-factly piece about this incident. This is extremely rare. The last time they even passingly mentionted UFOs was when element 115 was confirmed. They mentioned the Bob Lazar stuff at the very end.

Anyway, they basicaly just wrote what the report said: pilot saw a light, took evasive action and as the object passed the plane the pilot saw that it was cylindrical in shape. The HS newspiece also described that the light was "pulsing", something which does not appear in the original report. I wonder if that was just some kind of an, eh, embellishment from the reporter, or if they have had acces to some secondary information?

I see that there is no estimation of the size of the object to be found in the report? Not even something vague like big or small. That's a bit unusual. If it was a small UAV I guess it's possible to see just the fuselage at 20 meters and think it's a cylinder shape.

Redundant.