UFO files from the UK government; DEFE 24/2028

8/7/2019 UFO files from the UK government; DEFE 24/2028

1/192

'C ro wn c o py r i g ' , h tw - r-


2/192

UNCLASSIFIEDRESTRICTED/UNCLASSIFIED("J;"'''.'_''~''-''-VMINJSTRYOF DEFENCE

Attenti9nis drawn'to thenoteson "the inside flap'.

PIVIl:iIONIESTABLISHMENT/uNrT/BRANCHSEQ CAs ) 2 A,~60M,3~4 '5'MAIN' &UI(..Qt,..JG-

Enter notes ofrelated files on,page20Hhis" jacket '"

-1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ' r I I 1 1 ' 1 / ' " I I ' "ile Ref: SEC (AS

Part: B

Prouuced by Mini~Lry, otDelence, CS (Prj 2_TeL01179376256I-." '-~


3/192

Registered File D isp osal F orm

Part:

M OD Form 262F(Revised 10197)Reference:(pref~ j;;:: G t S )

~

F IL E T iT lE : (M ain H ea din g - S ec on da ry H ea din g - T er tia ry H ea din g e tc )' " I .J f o II 6.(U t~ f""" '~u.=- -IS~ tJIJ f( ; ,.JO~ C -

l : J J 1 Q t A p . ~ V ; : lED~--~---'\ VV~ -._-I I Da te c l osed:D a te o f l as t e n cl os u re :FOR CS(RM) USE ONLYPART 1. DISPOSAL SCHEDULE RECOMMENDATION(T o be c om p le te d w he n t he lile is c lo se d) t/

Des tr o y a lt e r years D C__ _ _ _ . J I I 1 , - - - I _ _Dale ot tst review D ate o f 2nd review Forward Destruction Dale

b. (i) T o b e r eta in ed lo r years ( fr om d ate o f la st e nc lo su re ) f or t he f ollo w in g r ea so n( s):vDDoC 2 f

t/D EF EN CE POL IC Y + O PE RA TIO NS DO RIG IN AL C OMM IT TE E P AP ER S DM AJ OR EQU IP ME NT P RO JE CT DOTHER ( Sp ec if y) 0

ReviewersSignatu re: _ Reviewer 'sS igna ture: _

~rffU~(~~ .-t\Q . p l 2 . . o

PART2. BRANCH REVIEW(T o be c om p le te d n ot la te r Ih an 4 y ea rs a fte r th e d at e 01 t he l as t e n cl os u re )(Delete as appropriate) t/a. Of no fu rth er a dm in is tr at iv e v alu e a nd n ot w o rt hy o f p er ma ne nt p re se rv atio n . D ESTROY IMMEDI AT E LY (R em emb er t ha t T O P SECR ET 0a nd C o de wo rd m a le ria l c an no t be d es tr oy ed lo ca lly a nd m u st be f or w ar de d t o CS (RM )) .LEGALCONTRACTUALFINANCE/AUDITD IR ECTORA TE PO LI CY

PPQ = 100 {Cont inued ove rl ea f '


4/192

(ii) K ey e nc lo su re s w hic h s up po r1 th e r ec omme nd atio n a re :

(iii) A t th e e nd o f t he s pe cifie d re te ntio n p er io d th e file is to be:."Deslroyed DC on sid er ed b y C S(RM) fo r Dpe rmanen t p rese rva ti on IID. 01 no fu rth e r a dmi ni str at iv e v al ue but worthy 01 considerat ion by CS (RM ) fo r p e rmanen t p re se rv ati on .

(Bloc1


5/192

File Note - D/Sec(AS)64J3OMBUDSMAN CASE1. Files checked

DJSec(AS) /64J3 Part N for 28 JuI98-27 Aug 98 (part only) (14 end)Part 0 for 28 Aug 98-21 Dec 98 (80 enel)Part P for 21 Dec 98-14 Apr 99 (75 end)Part Q for 14 Apr 98-28 Jul99 (part only) (72 end)

D/Sec(AS)/64/2 Part H for 28 JuI 98- Feb 99 (part only) (153 end)Part I forl OFeb 99- 28 July 99 (part only) (114 end)

PQs and PEs received during the period concerned also searched.2. Total time taken to search, copy, sanitise, copy and produce a summary = 8 hours40 minutes.3. Costs incurred:

first four hours - nilnext 8 hours 40 minutes @ 15 per hour = 120+10 =l304. Estimate given to Ombudsman that it would take no more than 10 hours and costswould be no more than 75 (ie halfrate) as a gesture of goodwill.5. -=harged 65 and paid in full.

ADJSec(AS)2


6/192

. .~fai ..r 13 JOJ\. . 10~ lO 1 1 ~O'v\,Q5 lq J~, 16- gJo S-dv\.46 ~t s~( 33- f) \ 0 S.v-.

. 10 (b,- ~

\'5 . ~ t v . o . . r c . . ~.. '0'5 & \ ~d-

),.5S__,\~,OS18 '65 - v s 4-51 7 3::s- - ~- 8 .00oq,''1 - () q '0'2.

6 4 - j - z . p~Hb4-\2 ~IG\l4--(PL\oO-cv.."rb-I

~>C o 4 1 : , PG '"bYJ3 PGO1 ' \0

- l'2.c.l G ' - + / ~ P i . : : P r

b4 3 t f6~.0, \~,0 Lto

- 10 - 25 C ] 2 )- 1 \ . 00 (2..0 )

13 .os: - 1 4 - ' L W '" ' .


7/192

List of EnclosuresParliamentary Ombudsman Complaint - E 1-2First draft to OMD - E3Revised drafts with comments - E5-E5/1Re-submitted draft - E6Copy of PUS responseThanks from PUS - E8Request for PUS comments from Ombudsman - E9OMD comments - E10Our comments to OMD - EllOMD amendments to our comments - E12OMD's submission to PUS - E13PUS to Ombudsman - E14Ombudsman to MP - E15

-E7

Letter osing cheque and our response - E16Letter clarification and our response - E17-19Letter to Press office regarding case - E20Letter to enclosing two reports - E21E-mail from OMD 14 - E22Letter fromE23 uesting further information and our response -File note: telephone conversation with - E24Letter from CAA to - E25Loose Minute to ASIDDI & SEC(AS) 1 concerning letter from CAA -E26-27Response from ASIDDI - E28Our Response to - E29Copy of Parliamentary report - E30E-mail correspondence with OMD - E31/32Observer article - E33Loose Minutes to Press office - E34/35


8/192

1 "

70f7

23 APR 98 11: 30 FROMCS (RM)P.OOI'08

UAP).4 . Respec tfu lly a nd s tre nuous ly a dv oc ate 1eg ls la tlo n that would a llo w fo rthe esta blishmen t o f Independent Commiss io ns w ith axtenl ive powets ofs ea rc h and in te rv iew . 1ft.. c omm iM io n s would be made up ofp ro fess ional people from a ll wa lks anife (Barr is te rs , Po li ce Off ice r$ ,Scientists, Doc to rs ) who th ou gh I n i t i a l l y slgnakuy to The OftiGii ll l SecretsAct cou1d forcefUny recommend t t1et issues be bought out into the Pubt icDomain IfitWiI8 dee r that their elCtendad closure was no1.in the Publ icInterect.The author of this art ie le can be contaGted

041 2 21 '98 1 l~ :4 f

** T OTA L PA GE. as II


9/192


10/192

23 APR '98 11:29 FROM CS CRM) s u b m i _ stack TO~ P.0S/08w ere the draft n otes prepared for M r Geo rge Ward, T he Sec retary ofS tate fO r A ir. A P arliam entary Q uestio n w as tab led by M t SQn Awberry,a Labour M P fo r o ne o fthe B ristDI c on sU tuen cie s o n Wednesday,11Apn l, 1 957 (Han sa rd , col 206 ). T he questio n read.-To ask the Sec retary of State fo r A ir , What recent invest igat ions havebeen m ade into unidentified flying o bje cts ; w ha t p ho to gra ph s h av e beentaken; an d w hat repo rts hav e been m ade o n the s ubjec t.~et!i. from tho Ministerial noW. preparod for CQorgeWard I"$ed.-3 . The M in istry of Supp1y Bombing Trials Unit at w e s t Freugh,Wlgtownsblre r ep or te d a radar sighting m ade on 4th April o f an objectwhich was tra ck ed 36 m inute s, continually in cre as in g in s peed whilstlosing heig ht. E nq uirie s so fa r m ad e reveal that th at n o se rv ic e orcomme rc i a l a ir craf t was in th e v ic in ity a t th e time. I is poss ib le t ha t thEobject was a private airGraft, an d enquiries o n th is p oin t a re s till beingmade. The object could not have been a ~"oon einoe it~~ movingaga in st th e wind.4 , A re fe re nc e to this report was contained in the "Even ing New s" an d~Evenlng Standerer on 6 th Apr il ( cU lling attached). If S . of S . Is a sk edq ue stio ns o n this point, It Is suggested th at t he reply should be on thefollowing r m e s : -'"That report is stil l be ing invest iga tedt an d th e c ause has n ot yet. beenestablished. It may w ell have been a pr ivate aircraft "You w ill notice fr om th ese draft n ote s th at tile M in is te r w as n ot in fo rm edot-The siZ e of the objectThe apJ )rec iable heightThe fact that it wa s h o ve rin gAlso, no m ention w as m ade of objects; w as there a cover-up?Certainly If -you consider the witholding of information from aGovernment Minister and the b la tant m ls reJ' )r eSen ta tion o f facts to thep ress as a cover- lJp then clearly, thiS is in deed th e c aM.I h av e g iv en several ta lka o n the We st F re ug h case, an d tim e after tiMe,people have said to me that surely there must be a mo r e mundanedown to earth explanation fo r this Incident. As a scientist, I w ould tend toagree with Occelm 's Raz o r th at a s! th in gs being equal, th e S jmp Jeexplanations are most likely to be the be s t answers. Itis easy to explainUFOs with everyday objects such a s c lo ud s. c on ve ntio na l a ir aa ft,w eather ballo on s an d suc h like. sO,let us cons ider the a lt erna tiv es ,-Hellcopters.- I agree thal helicopters CGn hover and reach speed$ inexcess of 290 mph; how ever, in 195 7, heRcopierswere an emerg ingtechnology and I am certainly not aw are of any, even today, that couJdreach a height of 10,000 feet.CJoudStNeather bano ons.- No, these do n ot mo v e a ga in st prevail ingwinds.Powered Airship.- J think 290mph is El little excessive as is 70,000 ft .MeteorltHlbollards.- These do not fl Y in formation or change directionand are V$ry suscepable to the laws OfgraVityF lOck o f birds.-I do not knew of any birds that can fly at 70,000 ItHarrie r J ump Jet- There maywel l ha ve be en h arriers pro to types a bo utin 1957: however,l don ' t think the aen tiGe ceH ing of the harr ier exceed$40,000 ft and it c ertain ly w ould n otgive a radar return the siz e of a s hip(n ote . In a n in te cv lew with S ir Ra lph Noy es , J en ny Ran dle s w as tokf thatthe V Ve8 tFreugn returns w ere m ore akin to ba tt leships I ).U2 SpYP(ane.- A lth ough th is g av e a large radar retUM, itwould haw

Sof7 0 4 1Z Z 1 9S 1 1 : 0 2:4 0


11/192

23 RPR '98 11:29 FROM CS C R M ) TO ~ P .ef:V0Bh t t p :/ /f o i .d e m o c : t8 Q y . o r g . u l c Jb t m J l s a b m i a i C O _ S 1 a C I c _ 2 4 . 1 U m 1

sent up from Aldergrove oirfield in N orth ern Ire la nd . T his ra th ermundane explanation seems to h ave b ee n a cc ep te d, th e re po rte r h adh is s to ry and th e c as e was to an in ten ts and purposes do sed. TheEvening S tanda rd w a s not th e only n ewspaper to h ave re po rteO a UFOthat Saturday for The D aily S ke tt:h q uite s en sa tio na lly h ad obtained aphotograph of a U FO from a 2S-year.o ld cabinet maker c aned RegInaldQ ueree. He had taken the picture at his h ome a t F irs t T ow er, Jersey an dth e ta blo id 's "p ho to gra ph ic e xp ertsR were abSolutely c on vin ced a s to Itsauthen uc lly. Y ou c an imagine th e embafra.mentfelt b y th e ta blo ideditor whan told that the Jerwy photograph was not authen tic and onMon da y,8 tt1 A pn 11 95 7, T he D aily S ke tC h published. small parag raphs tat ing that the ''flying saucer" w as in fact a fake and had beenCOnstruCted O f c ard bo ard a nti ~ilverpolpee' $ usp en ded fro m a c lo th esline. M r Quaree confi rmed that h. to oj( the pbotograph so me m on thsprior to g oin g p ub lic a nd was wait ing u ntil s omeone e ls e re po rte d some1h in g s tr ange in the sky~, he also wanted to demonstrate hOWeasyitwas to " f I I 1 C e " a pho tograph o f a fIyi1g SIlUGer. Itwould seem that th eO eily S ketc h m i9 SG d o ut o n another major@llClusive, namely. theapparen t c la ir voyant skill s of th e First Tower Snapper . He w ould havehad to have given the new spaper the pho tograph an d sto ry bV abo ut a10_00 pm deadline on Fl1day the ~ 1d A prII- T he Evening Standard aidnot publisn umil Saturday $th April ! It i~~pparent from historicallyauthenticated Pub llo R ec ord d oc umen ts tha t T he O ep ur,oD ire cto ra te o fln te lllg en ce (Techn ic aQ to ok a r ath er u nu su al interest in th is par ticularfaked s to ry a lthougn Iwould not lik e to specula te upon the reaso ns fo rthis. S uffic e to so y, it wil l be interesting to 8e9 1h e full intelligence dossieron the Daily Sket ch a rt ic le and the background of wMrQueree" if, andwhen Brtta ln 's In te ll igence F il es ar e re le ase d from th is p artic ula r e ra (If Iam still aro un d, IWilt be v i s i U n g th e PubliC Rec ora OMce fo r th eseanswers in 2057 I).Returning no w to the W est Freugh incident, it would be interesting to seewha t th e D ep uty Directorate o f In te lfi gence thougn t Of tnls. tn a re po rtdated U le 30th A pril 195 7 (R ef. 001 (T ec h) JC 29 0/3 /, t he fo llo w in gobservation, were mada-It is d ed uc ed from th ese re po rts tha t a lto geth er ftV e o bjec ts w eredetected by th e three radars, A t 1~$1' one of thMc rose to an altitude of70,000 fewhile remaining appr.ei:ably stationary in azimuth and range.All of these ob jects appea red to be capable of speeds o f abo ut 240mpl'l. Nothing ca n b e s aid of physical c on stru ctIO n exc ep t th at mey we revery etteGtlve reHectors of radar Signals, and that they must have beeneithl;)r of considerable size or else construc ted to be especially goodreflectors.There w ere not k nO W f l to be any aircmft in 1 I1 ev ic in ity n o r ~ er e th er e anyme te oro lo gic al b allo on s. Even if balloons had been in th e a re a th esew ould n ot acco unt for the s udden change of dlteC1ion and them ovem en t at hgh speed aga ins t the p reva iHng w ind .A no the r po in t w hic h has be en c on sidered is that th e type of radar usedis c apa ble o f lo ckin g o nto h ea vily c harge d c louds . CJouds o f this naturecould exten d up to the heights in question an d cause abnormal ly largeechoes o n tn e radar screens. ItIs n ot th ou gh 1 h owe ve r t h . thl$ fllcidentwas due to such phenomena (author's note.- clouds. l i k e - balloons woulda ls o be u nlik ely to move aga in st p re va ilin g w in ds at hgh speed ).It is conCluded that the in cident w as due to 1 he -p re se nc e o f five ob jeGbsof un id~n:1 if ied type a nd O rig in . It is conSidered unlikely that they Wereconvent ions I aircraft, meteorologicat b allo on s o r c ha rg ed c lo ud s.It is interesting to no te tha t obsmvation 2 $1ates that th er e we re nomete or olo gio al b allo on e in t he v id r tl ly at th e time in quwtion whichcontr ad ic ts the version of e ve nt s g iv en to The Even in g s ta nda rd by anAi r Min is tt y spokesman. w a s this a blatant cover-up o f th e facts ?Certainly the Deputy Directorate O f Intelligence were unhappy that theradar inciden.t feU into the hande. of the Fess an d this. Is alluded to in asecret memO (Ref DOl (Tech)lS290/ ). However. even more damning

4of7


12/192

23 APR '98 11:28 FROMCS (PM) s u b l ! li s a i O l ' l S I a O k

P.04/08

wthout further ado, I w i ll now relate th e detailSsurrounding the Inddentat West Freugh.-Inadent atWest Freugh

Ca. your mind bilck if you willto Thu rsday, 4 tn April 1 95 7. T om F in ne yof Preston North end Fe had jU6t been voted Footballer of It\e Year andthe recent ly e lec ted MacMiltan Governmen t h ad C Om e to the bit tercondusion 1 t I a t th e sun was sett ing on the Brit ish Empire . Consequentfy,itwa$ announced on the d ay th at th ere w as going to be a radical changein t he defel1e. policy o f t he UK, more n slien ce w as going to D e ptace


13/192

23 APR '98 11:28 FROM CS (RM)ctac1

TO~ p.liIMaa

Nationalised I ndust rie s . Quangos and th e U K A to mic Energy AYthor i ty The Natio na l H ea fth Serv ic e The Pub lic Ser vic e B ro ad ca ste rsLocal Authorities Adm in is tra tiv e fu nc tio ns o f C our ts , tr ib unals , Polic e and Po lic eAuthoritiesthe Armed ForcesGood as these pro po sals are, it is a shame t hat In te ll igence Ser vic es a reexem pt fro m the A ct sin ce It is c lea r fro m the W est F re ugh article h owthe Deputy Directorate o f fn te lilg en ce p la ye d a s ig nific an t ro le in d ea lin gwith u nide ntifie d ae rial ph en om en a In m e 1950$. W e also know 88 factthat there js{ 01was a specialist military d iv is ion wh ich cast an expert eyeover UFO R epo rts, as part o f its normal duties concerned with the air d efe nc e o f th e UK. T his s pe cia list d iv is io n, k llo wn a s A ir In te llig en ce ,- Technical Branch 5 b, came into exis tence a round about 1 96 2 a cc or din gto a Memo in PRO File AIR 2116918,Whilst I a pp rec ia te a lo t o f in te llig en ce r ela te d work Is v ita l fo r o urN atio na l S ec urlty a nd a gre e in p nnCip le V v i t h the n eed fo r secrecy here, Ifee l extending this kind of secrecy to UAP.r ela te d in cid en ts isunnecessaryit certain ly undermines my confidence In GOV9mmen t , Ja lso be lieve a large n um ber o f a cad em ic an d in dustria l institutions wouldw elc om e some fo rm o f a ckn ow ledgmen t by the G overnmen t o n theelCistenC9 of unidentified creft wi th superfluous de$ lg n and perfO rmance.This would c re ate treme nd ous re se arc h o pp ortu nitie s a nd whilst there is .no e\Jidence o f ex tra te r res tr ia l invo lvement , ce rtainly the inferences to bedraWfl would,l fe el. h elp b rin g th e n aU on s of Earth ctosertogether., think we could improve on the Act by making som$ $peciflo claueeededicated to UAP.-1.Sinoe th e Act i3 go in g to G OY erth e arm ed fo rc es , I WQuld sugges t tnatwhe ne va r o ur a rm ed fo rc es e nc ou nte r an unk:lentif ied craft t ha t d isp laysdesign and per fo rman ce cha ra cte ris tic s c le arly In excess of cutti ng edgete ch no lo gy, th at th e in fo rm atio n b e fed to th e p ub lic b y means of atelev ised p ress conference . The Press Conference shoUld g iv e fuUdetafls of radar returns, siza, dlape, speed, flight oharecteristics etc;;ofth e un id en tifie d c ra ft. I n ote th at a PQ was ra ise d to th is e ffe ct-H an sa rc J(1 8.1 2.9 6, c ol 6 28 . w ritte n answef$), I th in k th e a nsw er g ive n to tillsquestion w u t > illustrative of the b re ath ta kin g a rro ga nc e o f o ur fo rm erGovernment2. I would fo rcefully express the desire that the Armed Forces whenen co un terin g suc h c raft as o uttin ed in 1. a bo ve sho uld also sha re th e fulland uncensorad dmils with relevant scientif io bodiO$ in the Ut< $ut;.h asThe Royal Astronomical Society and The Royal Soc ie ty o f Chem iS tr y.3. I also strongly bel ieve ma t certaIn SCience Orientated matte rs th at a rec le ar ly in th e pub lic in te re st. e spec ia lly !h os e r ela te d to Pub li c Heal thand awareness (though perhaps embarrass lna to certain polit icians)sho uld n ot be the subject of any fo rm of exten ded closure and that alls uc h d oc umen ta tio n c urre ntly h eld u nd er e xte nd ed c to su re s hOUld b ereleased forthwith. ThesQ to include discasea (eg BSE), chemical andr ad ioac tiv it y re la ted ilIn e$$e$ (eg Gu)f Wa r Syn drome ) , h uman guineapig t ype e xp erim en ts (e g re le asin g a ge nts o n Wate rlo o B rid ge ) a ndmiscellaneous (to ,"clude all mllltaryJintell lgenee reports on UAP ) .4. t would a ls o s tr enuous Jy advocate le gis la tio n that would allow fo r th ee sta blis hment o f In dependen t C omm is sio ns with e xte nsive p owers o fsearch a o o in terview . These commissions w ould be m ade up ofprofessional p'i)ople from a ll waU< 5of life (Barii$ters, Police Officers ISc ien tiSt s, Docto rs ) who though In itia ll y s ignato ry to The O ffic ia l Sec re tsA ct co utd fo rc efully rec omme nd that issues b e b ough t o ut in to the P ub licDomain t r Itwas clear that thei r e xte nd ed c lo su re w as n ot in the P ublicInterest

207 04112198 11:02:39


14/192

23 APR '98 11:27 FROMCS (RM) TO . 0 '

~~. ~: :. I ~. . .

NoneNone

FOI and Unidentif ied Aerial & : 1 . . . ,. , . " " ' . . .. " . , . " , .30 Jan 1997

~~~cad a9rial craft with design andown state o f the artainJJ)8ce. My enquiriesliUCcesai'ft governments In tile UKI do not make olaim lightly, further into th l soU~~~~unarticle on the Freugh Incident of 1957 which Iillustrative "U',f-'U'~. I re gre t: us in g s ue ha n old &laitmJ;l1e;' 'OO1IoVe"er,wil l the M oD does no t make ahabit o f bro'ad,.~ngobtaining in fo nna tio n o f subsequen t s lghtin gs f W 1 1 ' M i 1 1 t P . t '1pllotiS) 1 1 : 1 both tim . consum ing and expensive.

at Hansa rd Par liamen ta ry abs tr ac ts w ifl c lear lyM I'1r1ftn,l 'I tr .:rtA th at in cid en ts lik e West F re ug tl ar e still occlming (eg

001424, written answers; 17.10.95, cols 1092-1094, wntten""...,,wbr..' and that the MoD stil! will not publicly acknowledge these

aPf:)laLldthecomments in the F OI W hIte P ape r (em 3818) stating that.-Unns teSSlr y s ec re cy in gover nment leads to a rr cgan ce in

i1nt,...r..,~~nt_ and defec6vedecisionw makin g. T he pe rc ep tio n o fexo~ ~ crec y h as b ec ome a c orrOSiv e In nu en ce In tne decline ofpublic confidence in gowrJ;lment. MQr.overj the cl imate of public opinionha s c han ge d: p ec pfe expect much greater openness andaccaun tabillV f rom government than they used to .2. The purpose of the [Foq Actwill be to encourage more open an dac co un ta ble g ov ernme nt ~ establishing a general statutory right ofa cc es s to o ffic ia l re co rd s and in fo rmatio n.3. The A ct will have a far broader eoope Ihall ......oth8r opennessmeasures in government ItW i ll covtf.-

P.02/08

."


15/192

FromDirectorate of Air Staff (Lower Airspace)Operations & Policy 1NISTRY OF DEFENCE

Metropole Building, Northumberland Avenue, London,WC2N 58PTelephone (Directdial) 02072182140(Switchboard)(Fax)(GTN)

Your ReferenceOur Reference _ ./DIDAS/64/371""-Date3 September 200 I

Thank you for your letter of 26 July addressed to Secretary of State for Defence, regarding'unidentified flying objects'. This office is the focal point within the Ministry of Defence forcorrespondence relating to 'UFOs' and Ihave been asked to reply.We are aware that a press conference took place in the USA, in May, in which many peopleclaimed to have experienced various phenomena. However, as you may recall from previouscorrespondence, the Ministry of Defence only examines reports of 'UFO' sightings to establishwhether there is any evidence that the United Kingdom's airspace might have been compromisedby hostile or unauthorised air activity. Unless there is evidence of a potential threat to the UnitedKingdom from an external military source we do not conduct further investigations or attempt toidentify what might have been seen. To date no UFO sighting reported to us has revealed anythreat and we therefore have no plans to change our current policy or practices with regard tothese reports.You also mention your ideas for the release of brief summaries of the reports received by theMOD. With the start of the introduction of the Freedom ofInformation Act next year, thisdepartment, in common with other Government departments, wi l l be examining what material wehold and what information may be released to the public. Thank you for your suggestion, we will,of course, bare this in mind.Finally, the MOD does not have any expertise or role in respect of'UFOlflying saucer' matters, orthe question of the existence or otherwise of extraterrestrial lifeforms. We remain totally open-minded, but to date the MOD knows of no evidence which substantiates the existence of thesealleged phenomena.

Yours sincerely,


16/192

.'.

TREAT OFFICIAL CORRESPONDENCERef No . 5 " ' - f : 9 : 12001( , E" ' : ) :1.~ ,

T he Secretary of S tate / has received theattached letter from a m em b er of the pub lic . T h is office has notacknowledged it.

To bItS 4:Date

P lease send a rep ly on b ehalf of the M inis ter . A ll M inis ters attachimpor tance to such letter s b eing answ ered p rom p tly ; you r rep ly shou ldtherefore b e sent within 20 working days of receip t in th is b ranch . Itexcep tionally , th is shou ld p rove im p oss ib le an interim rep ly shou ld b esent w ith in the sam e tim e scale.A new O pen G overnm ent C ode of P ractice on A ccess to

G overnm ent Inform ation cam e into force in January 1997. A ll rep lies tom em b ers of the pub lic m u s t b e in accordance w ith the p rocedu res set outin th e C ode. A fu ll exp lanation of the C ode of P ractice is contained inDCI(G 223/99 fu rth er inform ation is availab le from DO Info on

U nder the C itizens ' C harter , D ep ar tm e nts are now requ ired to keeprecord s of th eir p er form ance. All b ranches and A gencies are requ ired tokeep informationon th e num b er of reques ts for information whichrefer to the Code of Practice includ ing details of the cor resp ondent andthe natu re and date of the rep ly . In add ition,the D epar tm ent is requiredto p rovid e a record of th e total num b er of letters from m em b ers of thepub lic and p rovide s tatis tics (w hich m ay b e used on a valid sam p le) ofits p e rfo rm anc e in p rovid ing rep lies w ith in their p ub Jished targets .

As part of our monitoring procedure, random spot checks onthe aceu racy of you r branch records on correspondence will beperformed t h roughout the year.

M IN IST ER IA L C O RRESPO ND ENC E UNIT


17/192


18/192

L oo se M i nu teD /S ec (A S)/6 4/3 ,/5 J une 2 000DNews(RAF)C op y to :OMD - AD(E&MG) - w it ho ut a tt ac hm e n ts'DAILY MAIL' REQUEST FOR INFORMATION ABOUT UFOsReference: D/Sec (AS )1 D/Sec(AS)/64/3/1 dated 2 June 20001. Y o u said that the Daily Mail h ad now asked for cop ies of the material s up p lied toMrN. I attach a s ta tement (it s ho uld b e r ele as ed in en tirety and not b e altered in anyw ay ) and cop ies of the alleged s ig h ting rep or ts fo r you to send on to them .2 . Follow ing th e O b server ar ticle , th e N ew s B rief to u se w hen respond ing to anyqu es tion h as b een up dated . P lease le t m e know if th ere is any oth er m ed ia in teres t inthis i s sue .3. Please ensure that the Duty Press Officer knows that it is not for MOD torelease or confirm the identity of the individual who took the case to theOmbudsman.

'. . . . ,_


19/192

MOD STATEMENT PLUS TWO ATTACHMENTSYou asked for information as supplied to 'Mr N' about 'UFOs'. We have assumedyour request tobe identical to that reported as Case No: A.7/00 of the peA 4th Report, .Session 1999-2000 published on 24 May 2000: .

"He [Mr N] asked/or abstracts from all U FO reports w itnessed bycom mercial pilo ts, m ilitary pilo ts and radar person nel be tw een 0 10 0 H rs 28; ,o .: ' ; , ,:.fu1yJ998 and 0 10 0 hrs on 28 July 1999. H e asked/or de tails o f the . types' of =:craf t w hic h had been observed ( the ir shape , size , spee d an d u nu su al flightpatte rn s) an d the co nclu sio ns reache d by M OD on UFOs."There is no requirement for anyone reporting an alleged sighting to MOD to providedetails of any category of information including occupation. Where reports are madethey are often very sketchy and vague. However, all the reports received over the 12months inquestion by the MODfocal point (Secretariat (Air Staff)2) were revie'Y~:{~:'"Two sightings were received during the period specified with sufficient information tosubstantiate the occupation of the witness as one of those requested. Although onlyabstracts were sought, it was felt that it would be more helpful to provide photocopiesof the actual reports as they were received. Personal details were deleted in order to '..protect the confidentiality of the witnesses concerned. 'MOD has only a very limited interest in alleged sightings of 'unidentified flyingobjects' which is to establish from sighting reports whether what was seen might havesome defence significance. We look to see whether there is any evidence that theintegrity of the UK Air Defence region has been breached by any hostile orunauthorised foreign military activity. With this requirement in mind, the conclusionsreached in respect of each report were as follows:

Report No.1 was received on 20 November 1998 and concerned a sighting on19 November 1998 by a commercial pilot, reported to be of an objecttravelling fast and showing a very bright strobe light. MOD concluded thatthere was no unusual activity to substantiate an incident of any defenceconcern.Report No.2 was received on 15 February 1999 (page 2 is incorrectly dated)and concerned an apparent radar contact that day by an air traffic controller inScotland. MOD found that there was no Air Defence activity (routine orQuick Reaction Alert) or exercises involving RAF Air Defence units duringthe period. Radar investigations were made but recorded radar data displaysdid not support the contact reported. In the circumstances MOD foundnothing to substantiate an incident of any defence concern.

No other reported sightings were found during the search to match the threecategories specified in the request.Because of the time needed to examine a number of files and check the details ofhundreds of enclosures, Mr N was asked to pay for the cost of the search. The sameinformation can be provided now at no cost because MOD has already recouped thecost of collating and preparing it for release.


20/192

.'W ~QI'S IQoII . , . . . .. ., < . o " ' . : . ~ . . ; . . ~ . ; ; . ~ :

T E X T

~.

RIGINAL 0


22/192

~T"~\b,~_

.._. _

- - j

etc):- - - -


23/192

I.

D6te.time Dura.eion of Sighting. oct';~ 4.. , . , 1 1 . . (~i. N.Q(b1.:l "'' ' ' ' ' 'S.. V 4 . . . . . . ~ ( [ G T ..i~ NPfb v. \ 0" '1


24/192

NEWS BRIEFDTG: 5 JUNE 2000SUBJECT: 'DAIL MAIL' REQUEST FOR INFORMA nON ON 'UFOs'SOURCE:PRESSBACKGROUNDPCA 4th Report, Session 1999-2000 published 24 May 2000, Case No: A.7/00-Refusal to Release Information About Incidents Involving Unidentified FlyingObjects.KEY:MESSAGEMOD has only a very limited interest in alleged sightings of 'unidentified flyingobjects' which is to establish from reports provided whether what was seen mighthave some defence significance.KEY POINTS* The Ombudsman commended MOD's handling ofMr N's correspondence sayingthat they had done so in full accordance with the Code of Practice on the Release ofInformat ion ,* The Ombudsman supported MOD's judgement that the request for sighting reports(from commercial pilots, military pilots and radar personnel) from 28 July 98-28 July99 could reasonably have been withheld under Exemption 9 of the Code (voluminousor vexatious requests). The Ombudsman very much welcomed MOD's decisionnonetheless to make this information available.* The search for reports meeting the criteria required scrutiny of proformae, lettersetc, held on six manual files (over 500 enclosures). Only two reports were found tomeet the criteria; one from a commercial pilot and one from an air traffic controller.* MOD's conclusion in respect of each report was that there was nothing tosubstantiate an incident of defence concern.*MOD wrote to Mr N last month to say that alleged sighting reports he understood tohave been sent to MOD by the eAA had not been received; the CAA has beenreminded of the correct address for their despatch.


25/192

SUBSIDIARY POINTS...Mr N requested:

(a) that MOD agree wi th his interpretation of information held at the PublicRecord Office for 1950s-1960s in respect of alleged 'UFO' incidents andMOD policy at that time.(b) that MOD confum whether it was policy now to play down thesignificance of 'UFOs'.(c) that MOD provide abstracts from all 'UFO' reports from commercialpilots, military pilots and radar personnel between 01.00 hrs 28 Jul 98 and01.00 hrs 28 Jul99 giving details of estimated sizes, shapes, speeds andunusual flight patterns of the craft, and the conclusions reached by MOD ineach case .

... As a gesture of goodwill MOD agreed to (c), estimating a charge of 150 but, as afurther gesture of goodwill, agreed to abate the cost to a maximum of 75 .. . .Mr N was provided with the information in a letter of 23 March 2000 .... The Ombudsman supported MOD's decision not to provide an opinion now onpolicy statements made 40-50 years ago about MOD's interest then in 'UFOs',particularly as all the available information relating to the statements is in the publicdomain .... The Ombudsman rejected MrN's complaint that MOD had not provided anadequate response to his request for a statement on MO~'s present policy on 'UFOs'.


26/192

Loose MinuteD/Sec(AS)/64/3 tt'2 June 2000DNews(RAF)Copy to:OMD - AD(E&MG)'OBSERVER' REQUEST FOR INFORMATION ABOUT UFOsReference: D/Sec(AS)/ D/Sec(AS)/64/3/1 dated 23 March 20001. I understand the 'Observer' has asked whether information provided to 'Mr N'might be made available to them on payment of the same fee.2. The 'Observer' has picked up the story from the Parliamentary Ombudsman'sReport published on 24 May (PCA 4th Report, Session 1999-2000, case No: A.7/00).Background details and a News Brief were provided to DNews (RAF) at Reference.3. DOMD are the MOD focal point for dealings with the Ombudsman. They advisethat the information can be released at no cost, and the MOD spokesperson shouldstress that the only reason the Department is not levying a charge is because we havealready recouped the cost of collating and preparing it for release.4. A written statement with attachments is provided for you to pass on to the'Observer'. It is important that it is released inentirety. It should not be altered inany way. You must also ensure that the identity of the individual who took thecase to the Ombudsman is not revealed under any circumstances. With this inmind, I attach an amended version of the News Briefprovided at Reference.


27/192

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ----- ..._---- .. . _ _ . . . . . . . . . _ . . . . . . . . . _------------------------------- . . . . . . _ .. . _ - - . . . . . _------ ... _ - _ .. - - - _ .. _ .. ._--------- ... _------------ . . . . . . . . . _ _ .. - - _ . . . .NEWSBRlEF- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -DTG: 2 JUNE 2000SUBJECT: 'OBSERVER' REQUEST FOR INFORMATION ON 'UFOs'SOURCE:PRESSBACKGROUNDPCA 4th Report, Session 1999-2000 published 24 May 2000, Case No: A.7/00-Refusal to Release Information About Incidents Involving Unidentified FlyingObjects.KEY MESSAGEMOD has only a very limited interest in alleged sightings of 'unidentified flyingobjects' which is to establish from reports provided whether what was seen mighthave some defence significance.KEY POINTS* The Ombudsman commended MOD's handling of Mr N's correspondence sayingthat they had done so in full accordance with the Code of Practice on the Release ofInformation.* The Ombudsman supported MOD's decision not to provide an opinion now onpolicy statements made 40-50 years ago about MOD's interest then in 'UFOs',particularly as all the available information relating to the statements is in the publicdomain.> I< The Ombudsman rejected MrN's complaint that MOD had not provided anadequate response to his request for a statement on MOD's present policy on 'UFOs'.* The Ombudsman supported MOD's judgement that the request for sighting reports(from commercial pilots, military pilots and radar personnel) from 28 July 98-28 July99 could reasonably have been withheld under Exemption 9 of the Code (voluminousor vexatious requests). The Ombudsman very much welcomed MOD's decisionnonetheless to make this information available.* The search for reports meeting the criteria required scrutiny of proformae, lettersetc, held on six manual files (over 500 enclosures). Only two reports were found tomeet the criteria; one from a commercial pilot and one from an air traffic controller.* MOD's conclusion in respect of each report was that there was nothing tosubstantiate an incident of defence concern.


28/192


29/192

MOD STATEMENT PLUS TWO ATTACHMENTSYou asked for information as supplied to 'Mr N' about 'UFOs'. We have assumedyour request to be identical to that reported as Case No: A.7/00 of the PCA4th Report,Session 1999-2000 published on 24 May 2000:

' . - ' . o , _ .

"He [MrN] asked for abstracts from all UFO reports witnessed bycommercial pilots, military pilots and radar personnel between0100 Hrs 28July 1998 and 0100 hrs on 28 July 1999. He askedfor details.of'the types ofcraft which had been observed (their shape, size, speed and unusual flightpatterns) and the conclusions reached by MOD on UFOs."

There is no requirement for anyone reporting an alleged sighting to MOD to providedetails of any category of information including occupation. Where reports are madethey are often very sketchy and vague. However, all the reports received over the 12

.. months in question by the MOD focal point (Secretariat (Air Staff)2) were reviewed .. Two sightingswere received during the period specified with sufficient information tosubstantiate the occupation of the witness as one of those requested. Although onlyabstracts were sought, it was felt that it would be more helpful to provide photocopiesof the actual reports as they were received. Personal details were deleted in order toprotect the confidentiality of the witnesses concerned.MOD has only a very limited interest in alleged sightings of 'unidentified flyingobjects' which is to establish from sighting reports whether what was seen might havesome defence significance. We look to see whether there is any evidence that theintegrity of the UK A ir Defence region has been breached by any hostile orunauthorised foreign military activity. With this requirement in mind, the conclusionsreached in respect of each report were as follows:

Report No.1 was received on 20 November 1998 and concerned a sighting on19 November 1998 by a commercial pilot, reported to be of an objecttravelling fast and showing a very bright strobe light. MOD concluded thatthere was no unusual activity to substantiate an incident of any defenceconcern.Report No.2 was received on 15 February 1999 (page 2 is incorrectly dated)and concerned an apparent radar contact that day by an air traffic controller inScotland. MOD found that there was no Air Defence activity (routine orQuick Reaction Alert) or exercises involving RAP Air Defence units duringthe period. Radar investigations were made but recorded radar data displaysdid not support the contact reported. In the circumstances MOD foundnothing to substantiate an incident of any defence concern.

No other reported sightings were found during the search to match the threecategories specified in the request.Because of the time needed to examine a number of files and check the details ofhundreds of enclosures, Mr N was asked to pay for the cost of the search. The sameinformation can be provided now at no cost because MOD has already recouped thecost of collating and preparing it for release.


30/192

MOD STATEl\.fENT PLUS TWO ATTACHMENTSYou asked for information as supplied to~ut 'UFOs'. We have assumedyour request to be identical to that reported as Case No: A.7/00 of the peA 4thReport.Session 1999-2000 published on 24 May 2000:

"He~d for abstracts from all UFO reports witnessed bycommercial pilots, military pilots and radar personnel between 0100 Hrs 28July 1998 and 0100 hrs on 281uly1999. He asked for details of the types ofcraft which had been observed (their shape, size, speed and unusual flightpatterns) and the conclusions reached by MOD on UFOs."

There is no requirement for anyone reporting an alleged sighting to MOD to providedetails of any category of information including occupation. Where reports are madethey are often very sketchy and vague. However, all the reports received over the 12months in question by the MOD focal poin,!(Secretariat (Air Staff)2) were reviewed.Two sightings were received during the period specified with sufficient information tosubstantiate the occupation of the witness as one of those requested. Although onlyabstracts were sought, it was felt that it would be more helpful to provide photocopiesof the actual reports as they were received .. Personal details were deleted in order toprotect the confidentiality of the witnesses concerned.MOD has only a very limited interest in alleged sightings of 'unidentified flyingobjects' which is to establish from sighting reports whether what was seen might havesome defence significance. We look to see whether there is any evidence that theintegrity of the UK Air Defence region has been breached by any hostile orunauthorised foreign military activity. With this requirement in mind, the conclusionsreached in respect of each report were as follows:

Report No.1 was received on 20 November 1998 and concerned a sighting on19 November 1998 by a commercial pilot, reported to be of an objecttravelling fast and showing a very bright strobe light MOD concluded thatthere was no unusual activity to substantiate an incident of any defenceconcern.Report No.2 was received on 15 February 1999 (page 2 is incorrectly dated)and concerned an apparent radar contact that day by an air traffic controller inScotland. MOD found that there was no Air Defence activity (routine orQuick Reaction Alert) or exercises involving RAF Air Defence units duringthe period. Radar investigations were made but recorded radar data displaysdid not support the contact reported. In the circumstances MOD foundnothing to substantiate an incident of any defence concern.

No other reported sightings were found during the search to match the threecategories specified in the request.Because of the time needed to examine a number of files and check the details ofhundreds of enclosur~asked to pay for the cost of the search. The sameinformation can be pro~t no cost because MOD has already recouped thecost of collating and preparing it for release.


31/192

-- .-~-'ear" ---------- - - -

'... _ _ =Not fII,Trl",miuroft

OffJc:tofO A J N 1TeI.p!lofl4 " 0 -f.Il~No.REDAC_UMENT


32/192

N.. '_CMlU .. O.U~eTG . . ,,- - - -.--- . _ . . . . . . . . . .-~AcUft .

lnf~I n c k I t W ""dr.SI

.-r ,L

0_ Il'IdMI.","'IIi Ot'lS:"'.' ';'- ..

"~ . . . . . =. '.T~

, . - ~"- _-- - . . . . . . . . . . - -~ - ~ -- -NGt for T'lnMlb.loft


33/192

.._. _

. - - - -"" ........ 1"'{r

- - - -

iREDACTIONONORIG"-"MENT!


34/192


35/192

_105 JUN t00 12:48 FROM M-B~-Jur+-c:::~ J.~'-" PAGE.001/002# .,.... ----'-----, .......

Scient is t' s p ressure for information' ..oo p e . O S~p h i d d e n government f i l e s ~ . . ' ,on strange s ightings in the sky ,~..,~'.

" -._"':'.,,.,..;,::,v-::o... _:. "

.. '':bj-iI)''~ ==~~~~~:bli1: A f f a ir s ' E o i \ O o ' ta1i:&t (Air sum 2a. nDsisthe .._ .ONoUEtbr'tWyl999 an air s~sectiODinWhttMall:tJdlco:mtfol1erinScotlabd. which collates reporti o r .n otic ed s or a'8 th 1.n gs t:r a.n p o n 'I Ulid m tifie d tlyinr oW.'bis raw ~aeen.A btight thatCf05SBritiShairspaot..,'bUp em his screm su~ttd Whitehall bas t r a < t i t i 0 D l l l 1thft't "3$a ~."..Iarp object t r e : a . t e d . r epo rt s o fUFO$llbt--r e- : . " 'tr a'e~ : ..,;a.ooomph ~ .illl5 as higblr elasSif ie4 'mltth e S C O ttis h cO:l$tUae head onl .. released m r o :m . a ti O l l totng SQut l '! -V t"t ' sl to Belfast. ~ 'pu bU c: a!t~ r 3O }-ears .

1b~ $j~f of Uu r blip sUI' the parliammtary Om'buds-tI:~S\e


36/192

05 JU~ '00 12:45es-JljN-~l1dt! lc:!: ~ F R O M M-8 P RESS O F FICEV~.l'- l 'I~ .... " L .,w ,_ , . .. ..- " '. .." '"---,-:.__----------------- _} secrets revealedermnent dotUlDeDU In tbeJ l'u bU c lte eor 4s O D lce ftc!Il.June 1965rnul that 'tt w a s .o D l c : 1 a l MoD poUcy to playdown the subject ofunJdtntl-fled fbinr object: and toavoid 311a~UDduepQb: l lea t: tm t i on o r p u 't nt cl t? to :t h e-sub jec t ... as a res \llt w e}U vti ,~hl!\'er laadacypolitic:al pressur! to m ou nt a lH & 'M caleiD~\ptioEl. O tb er doc:u l Il en ts ft 'om that t1me state:"the press are Ct"lltJ' to 'beliven informaUon aboutunusu.al radar sigbttngs ..Blld {unusual VisQ3lJ slS 'b t .1ng!:are inno elreums~to b e d1scl~ t o t b ep r e ') s :'. But R1g.yard S l I . t d . : 'This isnot about little green XJ1tn.but ab out fl'?rdom of infotl,UaUen. It ts etear then aremany s tr an g e incide:n ts thathaJlpen in the BrttiSh skiesthat &tl!' kept $~rt. The~l E U l f b e iss~t'j; of airtnll~ ornat'lU '81 pbenDmena.~e North S e a npcned a n l rot by keepbig t l l 1 s : informaunidmdfted mOita?looJd.tI: Uon secret these IDci4eDt$aircraft passing do" b,: in e8I\Dot b ee sauti.n1s~ by tbe~he oppos it e dlrectiOl'L. Nctb ,ubUc o r t he S c: if D t1 tI ~ c om . inI was $Hn oillhe plane'$ m\lD.l tY:radar or by air a'2 % !1 eClCC- O D e oCt he mo st 1 nI 'a m ou stroUm. The MoD told the ine1dents rtiatlng 10 a UYCAUtbom_"tbat ther&'tIIfl'e n o sigbtl:ngiIlBritainonlyaml

:==::::;;;~:;;;;;;;;;=;;;:::;:;;===::;;;;;;;:::=====::::::;, mi l lt al y a ir c ra ft known tobe to ltgll.t throU,f'.h US f r e e d Q ' D lin that 8ft8 at tM time. of iDfonuti.on lertslatlonAJthGueh :m . MoD $ J! Ok es - ntis ren81td that m I > e e e m. . . .o m an w o ul4 BOt dbeu s& bel 1980 tl:lree sec:wity J l a t r o lindiYido21s:~ .sheS3id Dlea.blvKtlp_ap:i1:eUtiaall these ewenU had ~v air O"8.sh near the 'O S A 1:lIormalexpla:naUCInS. 'Some- Force 'base tD SUffolk saW';times radars bave ~us s t rUre c l O ' W b : ll triaD~l ' ItadiJ:l,p c:aused bymUitar1 objec t h~iD th e (oresai1'CJ'aft i.tl the ' f1c tn J ty nd nea.r the b a s e wbieb . ha4 ,tadar-jammiQg lacUiUec cd. "pul$io.r red 1 1 e h t em to p aD !briftbt u.,bu 01 1 t beuzalWslde blue l1!b t s1lDdemeath ' .of ain:raft CIll be Quste! b,. AA ofnelall '1!Port b : l r L i e \ ;IM!Il ts on the ! rOU l' ld . 1mant-Colontl C h a r m Hal tIn a lett!1"to O!l. tI or IUd thedeplltybasecommQ4ti~ard'S loeal M P s . . D4!fecoe lneludtih c2escr1ptio.D ort!!Minister John SpeUu.!laid: e""el1ts l I l 4 d Jtated that tb' M . v dep ar tlD m t has no lDter nv.. ' t da y th ree d.fP~$.IO%lI est or reI@ ' f 9 1 t h . rtsPect to wezy fcuild 1D the fon!TJFOl lh ing s auoe rma t tot s o r w here the ob ject w as d i s C O 'I to thl'! qu'!..~ o r th e e.-ds ered w l l l c : h s b ow e 4 r ad la1 10t l !Dceorotberw1seof~ l'ea4ings. Later l)lat n i B trestrial lite forms - about thr'l!t stlr-likt objects Weiwhleh w e rem .t.tll open- seen in th e sky l D . 0 ' Y 1 tm in de d. . 'raPidly in sh3! ) ' aD l ! \ I 1 IH ow ever . d edasrr ltled ~ .. ~ em eats .

lit Mo!). De1t.ber t(..ied ..,he. hiS aircran ~ecmze~M ' & I : I J s t ' r 1 ~osea. tUu.m.inated by an 'lDcande~\1nJ to omc1al CAA teat' light. Three other' airD lhe same m.onth cr'3!tin. tlwuearepotted S89-tdar p 1ckltd ~ &h iJlg a ball of light moving at~obfectf l" 'u .r lC"MS h"h !P"d.Air 1' t81Iie eca- a pilor tlying oYer i.ronm reported_ thm wetet a Sn. became s t a J ' : ' no strance airCraft in the

Duwant ,V O D get.

06 JUN '99 11:39

It

TOTAL P.ta2F ' Q G E . 0 2** TOTAl PAGE.002 **


37/192

SEC(AS)20 :c:Subject:Importance:

OMD/AD(E+MG)DOMD; SEC(AS)2A 1Ombudsman CaseHigh

Thank you for the extract from the Parliamentary Ombudsman's Report about Mr N. i t . ' ' ' I . j ~As you are aware, the Guardian has asked one of the Dee staff whether they can be provided with 'the sameinformation as Mr N if they pay 75'.What do we say?Can we release the information to a third party, and do we need to safeguard the identity of Mr N? What grounds arethere for refusing the request? The Guardian can ask exactly the same questions because the Ombudsman's Reportdetails them in full and is published on the Internet. Do we make the Guardian and any others who ask the samequestions pay and, if so, how much (we charged Mr N 60)? What is the Government's policy on this? Is it just thefirst person to ask who pays (because the search is done for them)? Do all those who follow after get the informationfor nothing because the search has already been done (and we do not incur any extra costs because all we do isdraft a reply)?Grateful for your advice please.

IJI!III1 June 2000

1


38/192

SEC(AS)2.rom:Sent:To:Cc:Subject:

Importance:

OMO/AO(E+MG)01 June 200018:30SEC(AS)2DOMO; SEC(AS)2A1RE: Ombudsman CaseHigh

Without having seen the actual information we passed to Mr N, I have the following comments:- it remains MOD information, to do with as we please. Mr N's payment was to reimburse us the cost ofproviding him with information; he does not own the information or have any say in what we do with it.- equally, giving the information to Mr N is the same as had we given it to a journalist, newspaper, whoever.It puts it into the public domain, with all that entails.- the only reason we originally withheld the information was the disproportionate cost of collating andpreparing the information for release. That no longer applies as I assume the same information could bereleased in the same format at very little cost.

We should not refuse to supply this information simply because we have already supplied it to someone else, thatwould imply that it was no longer our information.It seems to me that our only option is to supply the information to whoever asks for it. Further, we should do so ATNO COST (but stress that the only reason we are not charging is because we have already recouped the cost).Acces to Govt info is enabled by the Code which only allows us to charge to cover our costs, not to make a proit.Sadly!Hope this helps.

----Original Message----From: SEC(AS)2Sent: 01 June 2000 18:03To: OMD/AD(E+MG)Cc: DOMD;SEC(AS)2A1Subject: Ombudsman CaseImportance: High

~Thank you for the extract from the Parliamentary Ombudsman's Report about Mr NAs you are aware, the Guardian has asked one of the DCC staff whether they can be provided with 'the sameinformation as Mr N if they pay 75'.What do we say?Can we release the information to a third party, and do we need to safeguard the identity of Mr N? What groundsare there for refusing the request? The Guardian can ask exactly the same questions because theOmbudsman's Report details them in full and is published on the Internet. D o we make the Guardian and anyothers who ask the same questions pay and, if so, how much (we charged Mr N 60)? What is the Government'spolicy on this? Is it just the first person to ask who pays (because the search is done for them)? 00 all thosewho follow after get the information for nothing because the search has already been done (and we do not incurany extra costs because all we do is draft a reply)?Grateful for your advice please ....June 2000

1


39/192

TO1 J U N ' 0 0 1 6 = 5 9 F R O M D G M O , D M C S , D O M D L O N D O N

Fax

P . 0 1

OMDlAD(Eff ic iency & Machinery o f Gover nm ent )~fence~ndHouseNOrthumDerlana AvenueLONDONWe2N SSP

P le as e fin d attached extract from the Om b udsm an's R ep ort.


40/192

1211ruN 0 13 16: 5 9 FROM DGt'I). DMCS. OOMD LONOONPeA - F irst Repo rt S es si on 1998-99TO

MINI STRY OF DEFENCEC ase N o; A .7!f10Refu sal to r ele as e informa tion abou t inc id ents in volvin gunidentified flying objects

~ained that the Mini6lry 0 / D e fe n ce . (MOD ) refosed to provide him mth a~respol'Z3ll ' 10 lhre reqllests/or bi fonlUll ion ",Ia t ing to unidentlji.dflyingobJec ll l (U f I'Os ;, Ile asked MOD: (I) ",helhel'rhey agHed with tItne statements tegtJl 'dingUFOs COIItQimui in N N J O I " d J r tlatiJtg bar,;k to the JP SOs and 1 961 18 ; (ii)wlrt:tMr itWQ8 tMirpresent policy to play down the IiUhject 0/UF03: an d (ii;) to provide specijJ t : ;n/l l17I fIZI ionregarding UFO r ig ha ng s mad e b etwe en 28 July 1998 and 2 8 July J999. The Permanen tSecretary o[.WD 3Qid llral it was not within flIeir remit to pro -v lde an o jJ ic ia l coIIIIMnt Q 1Ialleged IngrN"ls amipolio/from the 1950s and lMOs rmd noted thot theJIles mtainlngIhl! Ml1tl!nIIi!I2tg 'WIIil'1'e' in thll Public Record OffiCiI tmd open to oayone to m . m . . lImir ov.nCQnclw ; iq r tS . He said t h Q / their p;went pqlicy 01 J U FO s ha d b um ex pla ined to~ 4 0 1tJeVe1' t11CCQaiona rmd went on lr) outlintl th e lim it ed in te re st M OD ha d in ~Mreg41'ds the speCIfiC tn jOrmaf lon relanng to UFO Sigh" lbe P emranent &c:rrtarylM8satisfied that Ilteil' initial dM:i&iOh nOt to Nle_ t h e . ifl./imMlion unde,. Eentpt ion 9WtUjustified. HO 'I IPWU , b tl a s a one- oj J e xe rc is e. 10provitk IhBin /ormation requested a charge 0 / no more than 75, The Ombudsmanc on st de rt ld MOD 's r es po ns e and 'WQI sawjitld t/Itlt(MyhCldprovided an RdeqHate t " e6 jJOn6 t ! r tr q Jl4 l. He found that MODC U I I / J 1' tlaaOf tQhJyhave withheld th e _derExempljon 9 bllt welcomed the ir dec is ion to provide itS. ~t is that MOD b ad refusd to provide hilll \lith iDfomJation that shouldhaVe il\uble to him under th e ew e ofPraWcc on Aoocss to GovernmentInformadon (tileCode) .Backgrou.d(1S.2~ MOD on 2 4 May 1998 askiq fo r informadon about incidatts in the1 9 5 0 5 T n v ; ; i V i n i ' i1O I dentiticd flying obp:tS (UFOs). MOD replieO on 24 JWle. In their~ !My apbrined their poIiey towards the stota8$ an d destructiOD olDIes on this subject.They said that all s u r v i v i n J coD1empomly pape rwo rk bad been folwarded to t he P u b licRecord Office and, as s u c h , w a s a matter ofpublic J e C O n I . InRply (in an und at ed lQ tt et ),

~ to c o n f t r m thef0110wJng s w e m e m s a s a m a u e r otpublic mmd;-'1. An Incidlmt (JCCW',.d ~" "AprU 1951ant1 waN wihfUld by I ' D _o ge ra lo rs a t th e MifJistry ofSapp/y Bomb Trials Unit . Wes t Freugh . ' I ' h t !1Wsulling Techn icallnt elhgence inves tiga tion concluded that the inclrkmwos du e to the p n,wnc ;e a /f iv e uncOJWent ionai [ ae rial ) obJeet 8 ojunidentified type an d origin ( Ref D Dl( I'e chj/C 2!JU 131 . re po rt tlo fed 3 0 AprilJ!}S7, PRO Fih AIR 2019321).

1 2 . It was o ff ic ia l MOD policy toplay down 1M sitprj ji canc:e oj un iden li fredflying object~( ALR 2 /1 7 $2 7 ).'3.Nr:m-lt~/(J unidentifi~daerial craft ~ilh dealgn and perforrn&lllCfllparameters/w in I!XLY!SZ of cullins .dr' l ChJwIogy hove on O CC Q& ionbeenwitntssed by 1 1MAn ne d Fo rce s in UK A irtpac e ( pRO Files A IR 2 01 93 20 .A IR :J 0/9 32 J. A IR 2 0/9 9 !J .1 an d A IR 1 61 11 99 ).'

http://www.parliamentc;wubndsmanOtg.ukl~dooomentJ1ac494/494-a7.htm

P . 0 2Page I Q f4

01106'00


41/192

0 1 J U N ' 0 8 1 7 : 0 0 F R O M D G M O , D M C S . D O M D L O N D O N\PC A - First Report Session 1998-99

:; '. 3 MOD WIOIe baCk on 6 July. to s a y tbIt tbey COUld atd nothiDg to their leuer vr 14 June.~er written sepmately to MOD 01125 June 1998. a s t i D s 1b r infbIlWltiOIl about~iHw.'ifwar observations of aerial phenomena by Royal Air Force pilots and groundc r e w . H e a s k e d fo r details. of t ile t ypes of craft which b ad b ee n o bs etv ed (their shape, sizean d perl'ormanc:e), t he ir l ocat ion a l I d . Ute dates of tbe inc.I.dents. H e cited tile Code and~ucstcd that MOD quote 0K0mpt i0Da ifthey WQ'C: tDiaded. to n.fuso tho information; he.111madced M OD to conduet an inrmmJ rev iew. On 10 Ju ly 19~ M ODabout th e three s tatements (paragraph '.2 above) an d a s k e d ~liii~ thatthey c :o n firm the statements as a mattEr of publi c r eco rd .5.4 On 30 luly 1~98,MOD wrote ~ outc;ow: of their teview ofboth hisrequests. hl tetped o r details of'aen~. tItty told him dUll tfIe iDf'olUUdioncould be ju st ifiab ly w i th he ld u nd er Exemption 9 ofthc C o d e ( s ee pa I3gRpb S.12 be low)because providing it would require an unreasonab le d iver s ion of ~ A s to th e t h r e estatementI they tokl bbn E h a t . ro the best of d l e . U " Jwowled.gc, d lo tiles held. 81lhePubUcR.coord O f t lo c c cm t a in ed t l l G full details m a n y alleged incidents and 4eoisioas m a d e at th et ime inmpect of t hem: al l contemPOral ' J : pape rwork w as tberefole a v a i l a b l e fu r p u bl icscrutiny. They also t o l d . him about h is av eBu e of appeal to the ParliatnenIary Ombudsman.5 .5 or . 281tlly )999~ MOO widl a m o r e narrowly focussed Iequest tbr. informat ion. He:aakeCI~fromall UFO ~ wi~ by commemal p J 1 o t B .mUicary pilots an d radar p e l ' S ( I 1 U W belweenOlOO Hrs 28 July 1998 a I ' 1 d 0100 H rs OR 28 July1 999. H e asked fO r details of the typeS of craft whlcb h ad b e e n obsened ( the iI s hap e, ..s p e e d an d u nu su al B ig ht pa t t . ems ) an d the conclusions ICIChed by MOD o r a UFOs . He alsoasktd. ifM OD now ~ in 1999, with th e \htQo sratcmcnts g i ' C D plC'r iomly ( J ! ! I D 5 ! 1 ! R hS.2 above) and expaMtd on the ~ ofthMe Ita.tements by asking wIIethet it w a s . DOW.in 1999, official MOD policy 10 p lay d ow n the SUbje


42/192

01 JUN '0121 17:00 FR OM DG MO ,DM CS,DO MD Lc tID JNPCA - Pif$t Report Session 1998~~9

TO P.04Page 3 of4

off exercise, an d no te4 t ha t there would be signUicant resource problems inrepeatiq it.5_10 Given th e extent otthe wor lc: itrvolved, thePennanont Secmnmyalsotook 1he Yicw thatit would be reasonable to levy a charge fw the information r e q u e s t e d . Th e Departmentspolicy under !be C O O e is to ch ar ge a r ate of 15 pe r hour ~ every h O U f worked in excess offour hours to produce noo-essentiaI infOtmation. Th iS would equate to a proposed cbatge of150 bu t as a _ tur e of goodwill. he said ~ chargot a maximum of 7Son this occuion.

Tlae Code of PracticeS.12 ExeDlptiott 9 ofthc: C od e, w h ic h w a s cited by MOD , reads a s fol low s :

' Request s f or in /ormat ion w h i c h are vexaliOlis 01' manifoltfy u r z T e Q S O l l a b l e orN'8 fo rm ulated in 100 gen ra/ a m an lier, Qr which (be~ oj tire tl1fIfJIlntofInjbrmatlon to be proce88Bd or Ihe need to retrtev, Inj'OnnQtlon fromjiluIf()t in C IO " rf ln t u se) W( )wd require unreasonable diwysWh 0/ rf1!SOIlTCeS- ,

5.13 In a s s e s s i n 8 this com p laint th ere are two aspectS I b ave to oons ider : the ~_ o f - . . .IOt--be7s~. handling 40coanpbiIlt. Itum tiDt to the release or iDformati was that- . . alllllllerofpub J icE- _in"_""records, In asking (his questiala to b e s eeki ng a cu rr en t \Iiew fl'om MOD inrespect Ofbotb tactual mat ters aud their in the: 1950, and 1960s RgUding U F O s _MOD ' s view is that all th e ava it ab J e i nf' tm u a ti ou r eg ar di ng t h e s e s t a t e m e J U s is iD th e Public:Reootd Office an d that it is th er efo re o pe n to anyone to draw tbei.r own coocI.usions.Parag rap h 3 (v) of tb e C o d e CQInmits Depar tments 't o release. ia r e s p o n s e to SpeCificJequests, infonnation relating to their POl i c i e s . . actions awl decis.ions an d olher matlet$mlatcd 10dJCi r aJCal of respomibi l l ty". Howeve r . th e Guidance on InteqJretadOD of th e C od estates that Departments ar e D O l obliged 't o an op inion on a p a n : i c u J a r matter unlessdlefe would b e a reasonable sbould do 80 in th e normal cou rs e ofbusiness ' . M OD have oftheir preseDt policy on UFOs b u t I donot believe tb ey can to provide an op inion on policy orstatement& made 40 to SO y e a : r . s ago, particularly when aU th e available i1ltbtmation~to t h o s e swemen t s is already in th e public: domain. I do not therefoR consider that ~request can b e d ealt with un4et the tenns of th e Code and Ido J I O t se e the PmnaneitSecmazy 's response as unreasonable.5_14 I am alISO_$lied tbm M OD have provided an adequate RIapOIlSC fora statement of their present policy on th e s u b j e < : t of UFOs . Th ethai. MOD's policy w the subjellt ofUFOs h ad been explainedto th e effect t ba t MOD had a very l imited interest inUFO establlsbfrom sighting r ep olU w h eth er th eI e had been any breach of the UK A il Defence Region.5.1 5 I very much welcome Ihe Permanent Secretaty's decision to provide~specific iD fomutt ion rega rding UFO sightings that he b as r eq ue ste d. ~t ha t t he re ate liMits to the resources that J body can reasonably d e v o t e t Q I U 1 SW e r in greqnests fo r i D f o n n a t i o n . Exempt ion 9 of th e Code allows rcquau for information to be. ~ a fie I' proper considerat ion if-~use of th e amount of infunnation 10 be processedor the need to ~ i of oun at io n f rom archived files meet ing a request would r e q u ir e a nunreasonable diversion of r es ou rc es . C le ar ly it is a matter ofju dg em e.et as to whether or no tin fo nn at iO l 'l r cq aC8 te d i n an y g iv en case is suftldently extensive to jusdfy lite application of

http://wwW.parliamentombudsmaJLorg.uklpalfdocumentlhc494/494-a7.htm 0 1 1 0 6 1 0 0
http://www.parliamentombudsmajlorg.uklpalfdocumentlhc494/494-a7.htmhttp://www.parliamentombudsmajlorg.uklpalfdocumentlhc494/494-a7.htm


43/192

0 1 J U N ' 0 8 1 7 : 8 1 F R O M D G M O . D M C S . D O M D L O N O O NPCA - First Repor t Session 1999..99 TO~ P . 1 Z I 5Pap4of4

Exemption 9. O n. this occasion" theMOD have agreed. inapito oftbdr Ti~ thatEBmption9 could be held to apply? to carry oat.that work. an d mleue the ~-eleome thisdecision and consider the p r os p ec tiv e ma ximum elmge of CIS ~ inthe liptof the demauds placed on the Depar tmen t ' s 1'C$(IUt'CC$.'.16 N JCga.n:b. (be general handliog I am p lcmad to l lOtG that.apart ftom th e delay inreplyiq to his wlUchWM abowWged asa n ett'Ot by tile Pe rma .nW. Secre taIy . a U answeRd p romp t l y . Hew asalso advised of his r igbt. if he r ema ined 1 t ! P l Y . to submit a compla in t ,th rough a MemOer of P a r U a m . c n t . (0 t ll I s O f f I ce . ItIs clear to m o tbat M OD lwKIled th ematter io fbD. aooorda~ with t I K I n:qllinmumtG vf the Code, a J 3 C J for thie I ~ a h e m . Iam als o pleased by the Permanen t Sec re ta ry 's c ommen ts that Wi Depar tmen t is commuiDgto promote fidl a w a r e n e s s oltbe Code.

bup: l fWM V.parUament .ombudsm an .o rg .uklpcaldccom enVhQ4W494-a7.b1m 01l06l00** TOTAL P AGE .a 5 **


44/192

From:MINI Secretariat (Air Staff)2OF DEFENCETelephone (Directdial)(Switchboard)(Fax)

Room 8247, Main Building, Whitehall, London, SW1A 2HB

Your Re fe r en ceOur ReferenceD lSe e( AS ) 164 /1Date24 May 2000

T hank you for you r le tte r of 1 M ay enclos ing one from the Safety Regu lation G roup of theC ivil A v iation A u th ority ab ou t M a nd ator y O c cu rrence Reports . Y ou say that the SafetyR egu lation G roup is the 'other official sources' m e ntioned in y ou r ear lier corresp ond ence an d askthat the M O D D ep artm ent hold ing the R ep or ts m e ntioned in th eir letter conduct a fu ll search oftheir record s and p rovides y ou w ith any inform a tion m eeting the cr ite r ia as defined in theP ar liam entary O m b udsm an's letter to leuan W yn Jones M P (A.7/00 of2 9 F eb ruary 2 000).

As you know . Sec(A S)2 is the MOD focal p oint for receip t o f all 'UFO' - re la te d s ig h tin grep or ts and cor resp ondence. A thorough search h as b een m ade of the files du r ing the ag reedp eriod (2 8 Ju ly 1998 to 2 8 July 1999) . T here is no record that M andatory O ccu rrence ~199900648 dated 03/02/99 and 1 9990 34 89 d ated 05/06/99 w e re r ec eiv ed . Icontacted~ C orporate A ffairs . Safety R egu lation G roup for fur ther inform ation. She said that theyw ere cop ied to:(AS ) 2M ain B u ild in gWhi tehal l

Iqueried the b revity of the add ress . . th at it w as th e address th ey u sed to forw ardReports . T he om iss ion of " and a pos tcode in th e ad dress cou ldhave accounted for the R ep orts not b eing received b y Sec(A S)2 . Ali cou ld the fact that the B ranchtitle u sed does not exis t and there is no su pp orting R oom num b er to help w ith identification.N ever th eless . ch ecks h ave b een m a de wi th Branches inM OD H ead O ffice w h ose titles ar e s im i larto (AS)2 and those w ith an interes t in aircraft safety . N o trace of the R ep orts has b een found .I t is som e w h ile s ince the tw o R ep orts w ere filed w ith the Safety R egu lation G roup . T herehas b e en not hin g in th e mean t ime to sugges t that the in teg r ity of th e UK Air D efence R eg ion w asb reached b y w hat w as repor ted to them . I am su re you w ill under s tand therefore that M O D has no


45/192

plans to carry out an investigation now of what might have occurred.

I can appreciate that you will be disappointed with the result of our enquiries. I can assureyou that efforts were made to try and trace what happened to the Reports. The Safety RegulationGroup has now been provided with full details of our address,


46/192

From:Sent:To:

DAS-DD115 May 2000 13:59SEC(AS)2

Plain Stationery Page 1 of 1

SEC(AS)2

Subject: UNCLAS:Mandatory Occurrence Reports

Your D/Sec(AS)64/1 asked about 2 Mandatory Occurrence Reports forwarded bythe SRGto MoD. We have no record of the Reports having arrived with us.

18/05/00


47/192

Loose Minute 2 - - rD/Sec(AS)6411 flf"12 May 2000AS.DDICopy to:ADGEISec(AS)lCAA - MANDATORY OCCURRENCE REPORTS1. I am currently dealing with an Ombudsman Case, prompted by a keen 'ufologist'who is anxious to obtain data from 'UFO' sighting reports he believes have beenprovided to us by the CAA Safety Regulation Group (SRG).2. I will not bore you with the details of the case! My aim in writing is to try andtrace two Mandatory Occurrence Reports the SRG has advised him were forwarded toMOD. From my discussions with the SRG it seems they were sent to 'AS2 MODMain Building Whitehall'. With an address as vague as that it is hardly surprising wedid not receive them. From the description of the reports (SRG extract attached) it isclear their interpretation of a 'UFO' is rather different than that of most of our'ufologists'. I wonder, did either or both reports find their way to your Registry or theRegistries of copy addressees?


48/192

uq.CA.-~kc-- i s . '"1~ f & -

9{ I 0 bt. A ~ . , . : . J .?~~4. fv-J ~ ~ O ; .C . . J ~ ~r-~h.~.

p . , . . _ . _ Yo~ ~ 0 c . . ( ~ 'S$v.. .r lJL.Il ~ (j.....~ 9 - % p . : 5 k ~r : 1 ~ ~ ~t:-t-~ e : 1 bLJ t 2 .0 , ~ Mo-v-~.~ tr!>e-l...l b . q _ c o ~ t e . . _ f - . . . . Q 'I~ ~ 1 ' 1 0D

D.eRI- k.:>~6 ~ ~ l I V \ . p ~ . J - ~ ~~ld~ 0 ~ eo. ~.__..t.z s~ e 1 - ~N-~~ ev$V.r ~ e...~~ F"~.J. ~~() . ,,' LJ ..t.. ~""'~. ~ l ..."'\AIJ"V\~~\;... ~ -~ ~n. ""', OoC'","",---~t-U.LA.-~d t:.1.-.JL a.~~cJ. ~ ..... ~ .9 ~ c :e J ' - o .k - ~ ~ ~ - - e ~ eo-...~ ~\ALJ

Go-Of> Q..o.r~~ ~ ~ l'-'\.~

{ M i N I S ~ ~ ~~ ~ ) c ~ E N c r , .\ - ~ M { l . ' i Ll,;uU; F i l E i

SQ..c..v-J~_'_ A . s ) 2nQD~ q j _ c : .. .R J


49/192

Aviation HouseGatwlck Airport SouthWest SussexRH60YR

Direct DialDIrect Fax

SAFETY REGULATION GROUP

Our ref lOMG/03/0ll0l - 155

29 March 2000

Following your telephone call on Monday, I asked the Safety Data Department for details of anyMandatory Occurrence Reports regarding UFOs for the period 28 July 1998 to 28 July 1999 which havebeen passed to the Ministry of Defence.They have only two occurrences, the details of which are attached.Yours sincerely


50/192

Pub ReI Report Page 1 of 1 27 March 2000

. ,;u.bRel ReportDate:03.02.1999

AlCType:Not Applicable

Location:RAMME58W Fit Phase:Cruise Occ Num:199900648

Other Occurrence: Unidentified bright light below BAe 146 at FL280.Area below ale illuminated for 10 seconds by incandescent light which was not considered by reporter to be an alelanding light. Reporter stated three other ale reported seeing it moving at high speed or static. ATe informed but theyreported no other aie in vicinity. Five minutes later a radar return was present at 75miles on weather radar. Atmospherereported as stable and no other aie were in vicinity.

Date:05.06.1999

AlCType:B757 Location:SHAPP Fit Phase:Cruise Occ Num:1 9 9 9 0 3 4 8 9ATe Occurrence: Pilot ofB757 reported unidentified military ale which passed close below & in opposite direction.Traffic was not seen on radar by any of the relevant ATC units & no military ale were known to be in the area.


51/192

L aL o os e M i nu teD/Sec(AS)64/112 M ay 2 000

AS.DDtC op y to:ADGE 1 I(""Sec (AS)1

1 IeAA - MANDATORY OCCURRENCE REPORTS1 . I am cu r rently dealing with an O m b udsm an C ase, p rom p ted b y a keen 'u folog is t 'w ho is anxiou s to ob tain data from 'U FO ' s igh ting repor ts he b elieves have b eenp rovided to u s b y the C A A Safety Regu lation G roup (SRG ).2 . I w ill not b ore you w ith the details of the case! M y aim in w riting is to try andtrace tw o M andatory O ccu r rence R ep or ts the SR G has advised him w ere forw arded toM O D. F rom m y d iscu s s ions w ith the SRG it seem s they w ere sent to 'AS2 MODMa in B u ild in g W h it eh all'. W ith an add res s as vague as that it is h ard ly s urp ris ing w ed id not receive them . F rom the descrip tion of the repor ts (SR G extrac t attached ) it isc lear their interp retation of a 'U FO ' is rather d ifferent than that of m os t of ou r

\) 'ufologists', I w onder , d id either or b oth repor ts find their w ay to you r R eg is try or the~ R eg is tr ies of cop y ad dressees ?


52/192

PubRel Report Page 1 of 1 27 March 2000

.~'ubRel ReportDate:03.02.1999 AlCType:Not Applicable

Location:RAMME58W

Fit Phase:Cruise OccNum:199900648

Other Occurrence: Unidentified bright light below B A e 1 46 at F L2 80 .Area below a le illuminated for 10 seconds by incandescent light which was not considered by reporter to be an alelanding light. Reporter stated three other ale reported seeing it moving at high speed or static. ATC informed but theyreported no other ale in vicinity. Five minutes later a radar return was present at 75miles on weather radar. Atmospherereported as stable and no other ale were in vicinity.

Date:05.06.1999

A/CType:8757

Location:S HAPP Fit Phase:Cruise OccNum:199903489

ATe Occurrence: Pilot of8757 reported unidentified military alc which passed close below & in opposite direction.Traffic was not seen on radar b y any of the relevant ATC units & no military alc were known to be in the area.


53/192

S AFE TY R EG UL AT IO N G RO U PCivil Aviation Authority, Aviation House, Gatwick Airport South, West Sussex RH6 QYRTelephone: (01293) 567171 . Fax: (01293) 573999 . Telex: 878753

W IT H C O M PL IM E NT S


54/192


55/192

\ F l , L se, OccNum:199501024

PubRel ReportDate:09.03.1995

Ale Type:Unknown

Location:KHARTOUM

Foreign Occurrence: Whilst B757 was cruising at FL330 two passengers repo ed seeing flying objectslbright lights.The alc was flying southbound on airway DAI0 when a passenger repo d seeing something that looked like afirework rocket in an upward trajectory. The object reached the same level as the ale and then burnt out with a showerof bright sparks. Occ will be "opened" for CAA investigation if supplementar info so warrants.***********************************************************Date: Ale Type: Location: Fit ~hase:17.06.1996 Unknown WARWICK Not rpPlicableATC Occurrence : Crew saw bright dayglo 0bject pass in close proximity to a I ! whilst passing FL80.Object passed down alc's RH side. Possible large kite or partially deflated balloon. Incident reported to ATC butnothing showing on radar. I

OccNum:199602532

I

* ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ~Date: AlC Type: Location: Fit hase: Occ Num:11.03.1997 Unknown WAL-L YNAS Not lA.pplicable 199701145ATC Occurrence: Alc reported being passed close in proximity by an ale, diS~laYing nay lights, whilst at FL290.No ale indicated on LATCC radars.

***********************************************************

OccNum:199702022Date:18.04.1997 Ale Type:B737 Location:GOLES FIt hase:Crui eATC Occurrence: Pilot reported sighting an unidentified ale at FL370. The unidentified ale was not showing on radar.

***********************************************************OccNum:199702943

Date:13.06.1997

AlCType:Cessna 421 Golden Eagle

Location:ROLAMPONTVOR

Fit

Other Occurrence: LH windscreen struck by unidentified object in crui e at FL180. Outer layer of windshieldshattered, obscuring PI vision.Differential pressure reduced to minimum & flight continued to destination.

***********************************************************Date:27.07.1997

Ale Type:B747

Location:IKTAV

Fit hase:C se

OccNum:199704356

Other Occurrence: Ale in close proximity to debris from space (meteorite ?).

PubRel Report Page 10f3 03 May 2000


56/192

!PubRel ReportBright flash close to alc illuminated the flight deck. Large glowing object th n observed, falling rapidly on a relativebearing of 030degs, range indeterminate with shallow trajectory. Object disi tegrated at approximately alc's cruisinglevel

***********************************************************Date:06.11.1997

Location:TLA 30N OccNum:1 9 9 7 0 5 9 6 0

AlC Type:BAEATP

Fit

Other Occurrence: Unknown object passed down RHS of al e at 17000ft.ATC confrrrned nothing seen on radar & no weather balloons released in vicini

***********************************************************Date:09.06.1998

AlC Type:MD-80 Srs

Location:LONDONLHR OccNum:1 9 9 8 0 3 2 8 3

Fit hase:Clim

UK Airprox(P) : MD81 and unidentified flying object. Subject of JAS investig tion.Described by reporter as an illuminated metallic grey object, in & out of cloud passing slightly above and 30-5Ometresaway. No known traffic in area and no radar returns.

***********************************************************Date:03.02.1999

AlCType:Not Applicable

Location:RAMME58W

OccNum:1 9 9 9 0 0 6 4 8

Other Occurrence: Unidentified bright light below BAe146 at FL280.

Fit ~hase:C Y u i e

Area below alc illuminated for 10 seconds by incandescent light which was not considered by reporter to be an alclanding light. Reporter stated three other alc reported seeing it moving at hi speed or static. ATC informed but theyreported no other alc in vicinity. Five minutes later a radar return was present t 75miles on weather radar. Atmospherereported as stable and no other alc were in vicinity.

*********************************************************** p.Date: Ale Type: Location: FIt base:05.06.1999 B757 SHAFP Cruise

OccNum:1 9 9 9 0 3 4 8 9

ATC Occurrence: Pilot ofB757 reported unidentified military alc which pass close below & in opposite direction.Traffic was not seen on radar by any of the relevant ATC units & no military c were known to be in the area.

***********************************************************OccNum:2 0 0 0 0 0 2 9 4

Date:18.01.2000

A1CType:A320

Location: FitLondon-Heathrow - LHR Des

Pilot of A320 reported taken avoiding action on unidentified ale - no contacts bserved on radar.Two bright white wing lights and a dark shadow in between them (like an airli er/transport aircraft shape) were spottedthrough the captain's LH sliding window, flying straight towards except for ~e last one or two seconds as the lightsappeared to descend and the A320 pilot banked to the right to avoid it. Bo the unidentified aircraft and the A320

Pubkel Report Page 2 of3 03 May 2000


57/192

Date:10.02.2000

AJCType:MD-80 Srs

Location:GORLO

Fit hase:Cru se OccNum:2 0 0 0 0 0 7 6 6

," 'PubRel Reportentered a cloud layer shortly afterwards and contact was lost. - despite a call 0ATe, no contacts observed on radar atthe time or found subsequently on the recordings.

***********************************************************

Pilot reported seeing a "small, red object going fast down his right hand side". Reporter's alc was cruising at FL270.Pilot also stated that this was his third recent occurrence of this type. Nothing observed on radar. He also later statedthat it may have been a balloon I

PubRel Report Page 3 of3 03 May 2000


58/192

File NoteD/Sec (AS) /64/1~ r . . \14~2000

1 ._rang this afternoon (14 March) about 16.00hJurs to offer details of the'official' information he has been given about UFO sighting reports not included inthe our response to him following his appeal to the Ombudsman, I declined to takeany information over the 'phone requesting instead that he PV t the details inwriting,copying it to all those he included in his previous letters. This he agreed to do.

I

Sec(AS)2


59/192

..)2~.",.. if).... c

From: Secretariat (Air Staff)2MINI OF DEFENCE :Room 8247r Main Building,Whitehall, LQndon,SW1A 2HB '.' r ~ .~Telephone

I1

(Direct dial) -(Switchboard) ~(Fax) _

IiY d u r Referenceo~r Reference VD$ec(AS)16413J1Date1q Apr i l 2000

IT hank you for you r letter of 2 9 M arch enclos ing a chequel for 60 .As y ou know , S ecre tar iat(A ir S taff)2 is th e D e par tm e ntal! focal p oint for any rep or ts ofIalleg ed s ig htin gs o f 'UFOs'. I shou ld w ish to assu re you that the I search of th e files w as verythorough and the inform ation p rovided w ith m y letter of 2 3 M arch w as all that w e had that m et

t he ag re ed c rit er iaY ou say that you have inform ation from o ther o f fic ia l sou rces' th at th e m a ter ial s up p lie d

w as 'by no means comple te '. If you cou ld le t m e have th is inform ation I shou ld , of cou rse, b eh ap py to m a ke fu rth er enqu ir ies .


60/192

Hidden Copy:APS/uSofSAPS/PUSDOMDDCCRAFAO/ADI-ADGEIDNewsRAF

)) !) Connect with my D/Sec (ASY64/3VI of 23 March 2000)))

The Office of the Ombudsman


61/192

29 March, 2000Sec. (Air Staff) 2aMinistry of DefenceMain BuildingWhitehallLONDONSW1A2HB

st 'Thank you for your Departmental letters of 21 March from yourown letter of the 23rdMarch. I am truly grateful for the information around the twoincidents mentioned especially bearing in mind the number of files that had to beshifted through. I

!,co-operation that has comeI remainder of the agreedIII!

Once again, I am most grateful for the assistance andso far from the MoD. I look forward to receivingabstracts.

, . " - ~ ':::::. '" t ";,1 1 ~ . ' ' \

1 \,-,,J~xI ~:j


62/192

1

SEc(AS)21'ent:Cc:SubJect: SEC(AS)210 April 2000 12:51USofS/Mailbox; 1\u,-,ruOmbudsman Case !ApGE1; D News RAFPlease see attached (original signed).

has written to say that he understands Ifro", other official sources andumen d evidence that the Jist of incidents reported; to him in my letter of 23March is incomplete. He goes on to say 'a Whitehall source a/so reliably informedme that some of the agreed information was processed at Abbey Wood in Bristol.There is nothing on file to substantiate his claims. 'For DOMO - Do I forward ue to you f~r processing?


63/192

TALE~~Dyddiadt\.-.Date '10

221298


64/192

. . .SEC(AS)2

Aom:_nt:To:Subject:OMD/AD(E+MG)10 April 2000 14:10SEC(AS)2RE: Ombudsman Case

Just pass the cheque to your own finance people to do the ne sary.Best wishes,

Please see attached (original signed).has written to say that he understands' m other official sources andd evidence that the list of incidents repo ad to him in my letter of 23March is incomplete. He goes on to say 'a Whiteha 1source also reliablyinformed me that some of the agreed information w s processed at Abbey Woodin Bristol. There is nothing on file to substantiate hi claims.

Message-OMD1410 Apri l 2000 14:05OMD/AD(E+MG)FW:OmbudsmanCaseFrom:Sent:To:Subject:

Have you seen this?

-Original Message-From: PSiOOMDSent: 10 Apri l 2000 12:51To: OMD14Subject: FW:OmbudsmanCase

From: DOMOSent: Monday, April 10, 2000 12:51:00 PMTo: PS/OOMDSubject: FW: Ombudsman Case -Auto fOlWarded by a Rule

From: SEC{AS)2Sent: Monday, April 10, 2000 12:50:59PMCc: USofS/Mailbox; AP~OCC(RAF); ADGE1: D NewsSubject: Ombudsman Case ._....Auto fOlWarded by a Rule

For DOMD - Do I forward File:

F

cheque to y u for processing?


65/192

From:Sent:To:Subject:OMD1424 March 2000 13:55SE~RE_

(IC(AS)2

Quite right, I just meant the reply toHope you have a niceweekend.-----Original Message-----From: SEC(AS)2Sent: 24 March 2000 13:52To: OMD14Su~ect:RE"""""Importance:~

.;-,"".

~We sent the Ombudsman's office a copy of what went t~ie the I er and reports attached to it.We have not sent them a copy of the Newsbrief - they do not need to know hat we briefed our Press Officers to say.

----Original Message-----From: OMD14Sent: 24 March 2000 11:14To: SEC(AS)2cC:OMIiiiiISubject

I've just seen your news brief and reply to_nd I just wanted to ch ck, has a copy of your reply beensentto the Ombudsman?~-

1


66/192

2/. .

From Secretariat(Air Staff)MINISTRY OF DEFENCERoom 8247, Main Building, Whitehall, Lo don, SW1A 2HB(Direct dial)(Switchboard)(Fax)

Ou Reference01 eC(AS) I64J3J1 . .. .. ..Cae23 March 2000

I am resp ond ing to y ou r request for ab stracts from s igh ting rep o from com m e rcial p ilots ,m ilitary p ilots and radar p ersonnel for the p er iod 01 .00 hou rs 2 8 u ly 1998 to 01 .00 hou rs 2 8 Ju ly1999 as se t ou t in th e le tter from the O m budsm an to Ieuan Wyn J nes M P (reference A .7/00 of2 9Feb ruary)I shou ld say at th e ou tse t that th ere is no requ irem ent for any one ep or ting an alleged s igh ting toM O D to p rovide details of any category of inform a tion includ ing occup ation. W here rep or ts arem ade they are often very sketchy and vague . H ow ever , w e have ow review ed all the repor tsreceived over the 12 m onth s in ques tion in th is office. T w o s igh gs w ere received du r ing th ep er iod sp ecified ab ove w ith su ffic ient inform a tion to su bstan tiate th e occu pation of th e w itness asone of those reques ted . A lthough y ou asked only for ab strac ts w felt th at it w ou ld b e m orehelp fu l to g ive you photocop ies of the ac tual rep or ts as w e receiv them . A$ y ou w ill s ee, d etailsh ave b een d eleted in ord er to p rotec t th e confid entiality of th e wi e ss e s c once rn ed .As y ou know , the M O D has only a very lim ited interes t in a11eg s igh ting s of 'unidentified flyingob jects ' w h ich is to es tab lish from s igh ting repor ts w heth er w hat as seen m igh t have som edefence s ignificance . W e look to see w h ether there is any eviden e that th e integ r ity e th e UKAir D efence reg ion has b een b reached b y any h os tile or unau tho zed fore ign m ilitary ac tivity .W ith th is requ irem e nt in mind, th e conclu s ions reached in resp ec of each rep or t w e re as follow s :

Report No.1 w as received on 2 0 Novem b er 1998 and co cerned a sigh ting on 19Novem ber 1998 b y a com m ercial p ilot, rep or ted to b e of ob ject travelling fas t andshow ing a very b r igh t s trob e lig h t. M O D conclu ded that e re w as no unusual activity tos ub s tan tiate an incid ent of an y d efen ce concern .Repor t No.2 w as received on 15 Feb ruary 1999 (p age 2 s incorrec tly dated ) andconcerned an ap parent radar contac t that day b y an air t ra fie contro ller in Scotland . M O Dfound that there w as no Air D efence activity ( rou tine or .ck R eaction A ler t) orexer c is e s i nvo lv ing RAP Air Defence units du r ing the p .od Radar inves tigations w erem a de b ut record ed rad ar d ata d isp lay s d id not su pp or t th e contac t rep or ted In th ecircum s tances M O D found noth ing to sub stantiate an inci ent of any defence concern.


67/192

I c an c on fir m that n o o th er r ep or te d sightings were fo un d d u rin gca tego ri es s p ec if ied in y o ur r eq ue st.s earch to m a tch th e th ree

B ecau se of the tim e needed to exam ine a num b er of files andenclosu res the cos t of the search am ounted to 60 . I shou ld b echeque for th is am ount p ay ab le to: The Account ing O f fic er,add res s .

th e details of hund red s ofif y ou w ou ld now send ao f D e fe nc e to th e ab ove


68/192

'. "--_ _ .

Not far TrlNmissrCl"


69/192

i .):ESSAGEfORM

Add,css

T E X T

,-

I -

Nat fo, Tr.nfnlbslaftCOI)Y distnllUlio l 'l

~EDACTION ON 0


70/192


71/192

A . Date. time Duration of Sighting.Vn"i( \ 0,,_

IS. . w ~ h . . . '-\w~c . Exact Position of

n. How Observed ( ) J .~ . . .E. Direction in which Object was first seen

F. Angular Elev&tion of Object

G. Distance of Object from Obse:ver ~/~.

J. Meteorologic al Conditions Dur ing Observati ons.Moving Clouds,Ha:e. mist etc NL- ....ne0;) I scTfiD..9 K. Nearby Objects ~ I~,L. '1'0 WhomReported. r"I~M. Name and Address of

N . Any Background Information on the Informant that be Volunteered._

o. O th er W it ne ss es OCUMENT. -- - , ... - - - - - - - - _ . . . . ~ , .~ -P . Dace' Time of Receipt of R

Documents

UFO files from the UK government; DEFE 24/2028