Commercial Aviation UAP Database
Overview
This specialized database documents UAP encounters reported by commercial aviation personnel worldwide. Commercial pilots represent some of the most credible witnesses due to their extensive training in aircraft identification, navigation systems expertise, and professional standards requiring accurate reporting of flight safety hazards.
MAJOR COMMERCIAL AVIATION UAP CASES
JAL Flight 1628 - November 17, 1986
Incident Details
Date/Time: November 17, 1986, 5:00 PM Alaska Time Aircraft: Japan Airlines Boeing 747-246F (Cargo) Route: Paris to Tokyo via Anchorage fuel stop Location: Alaska airspace, approximately 150 miles northeast of Fairbanks Crew: Captain Kenju Terauchi, First Officer Takanori Tamefuji, Flight Engineer Yoshio Tsukuba
Captain Terauchi Professional Background
- Experience: 29 years flying experience, 10,000+ flight hours
- Qualifications: Boeing 747 captain, former military pilot
- Record: Exemplary safety record, no previous unusual incident reports
- Reputation: Senior captain with Japan Airlines, highly respected
Encounter Timeline
5:00 PM: Routine cargo flight proceeding normally at 35,000 feet 5:10 PM: Captain Terauchi observes unusual lights ahead of aircraft 5:11 PM: Two rectangular objects with multiple lights approach from front left 5:15 PM: Objects pace aircraft for several minutes, maintaining formation 5:20 PM: Objects suddenly accelerate and position themselves directly in front of 747 5:25 PM: Massive “mothership” appears behind aircraft, twice size of aircraft carrier 5:30 PM: Anchorage Air Traffic Control confirms radar contact with unknown object 5:35 PM: Captain requests vector change to avoid objects 5:40 PM: Objects follow 747 through evasive maneuvers 5:50 PM: Captain requests emergency landing clearance at Anchorage 6:00 PM: Objects disappear from radar and visual contact 6:20 PM: Aircraft lands safely at Anchorage International Airport
Technical Evidence
Onboard Weather Radar: 747 weather radar detected large object Ground Radar Confirmation: Anchorage ATC tracked object on radar Visual Observation: All three crew members observed objects Size Estimation: Captain estimated mothership at twice aircraft carrier size Performance: Objects demonstrated capability to pace 747 at 35,000 feet
Official Investigation
FAA Investigation: Federal Aviation Administration conducted formal investigation John Callahan Documentation: FAA Division Chief documented CIA involvement Crew Interviews: Extensive debriefing of all crew members Radar Data Analysis: Ground and airborne radar data preserved CIA Interest: Intelligence agency involvement confirmed by FAA official
Captain Terauchi Testimony
Object Description:
“It was a very big one, two times bigger than an aircraft carrier. The lights were extremely bright. The thing was flying with us side by side.”
Performance Assessment:
“The object was not just one thing, but three things. Two small ships in front of us and one huge mothership behind us. The small ones looked like spacecraft.”
Professional Opinion:
“I am confident that what we saw was not an aircraft, and it was much bigger than anything I have ever seen. It was truly amazing.”
Investigation Outcome
FAA Conclusion: No conventional explanation identified Radar Confirmation: Multiple radar systems tracked object Crew Credibility: All crew members maintained consistent accounts Career Impact: Captain Terauchi faced scrutiny but maintained story International Attention: Case gained worldwide media coverage
Phoenix Lights - March 13, 1997
Commercial Aviation Witnesses
Multiple Airline Crews: Several commercial flights observed V-formation Phoenix Sky Harbor: Air traffic controllers received multiple reports Pilot Reports: Commercial pilots reported massive V-shaped object
American Airlines Crew Report
Flight AA2269: Phoenix to Las Vegas route Captain Statement: “We observed a formation of lights that covered an enormous area” Professional Assessment: “Nothing in my 20 years of flying experience compares to this”
Southwest Airlines Crew
Flight SWA553: Oakland to Phoenix route
First Officer Report: “Large V-shaped formation moving silently across our flight path”
Size Estimation: “At least a mile wide, possibly larger”
United Airlines Crew
Flight UA448: Denver to Phoenix route Captain Testimony: “Observed structured craft with multiple lights in V-formation” Duration: “Object visible for approximately 10 minutes during approach”
O’Hare International Airport - November 7, 2006
Incident Overview
Date/Time: November 7, 2006, approximately 4:30 PM Location: O’Hare International Airport, Chicago, Illinois Weather: Overcast, 1,900-foot cloud ceiling Witnesses: United Airlines ground crew, pilots, controllers
United Airlines Personnel
Ground Crew: Multiple mechanics and ground personnel observed object Pilots: Several United Airlines pilots confirmed sighting Duration: Object visible for approximately 5 minutes Departure: Object accelerated vertically through cloud layer
Technical Characteristics
Shape: Metallic grey disc, approximately 6-24 feet diameter Position: Hovering stationary at 1,500 feet above Gate C17 Performance: Remained motionless then shot vertically through clouds Cloud Effect: Left circular hole in cloud layer during departure
Official Response
FAA Statement: Initially denied any knowledge of incident FOIA Request: Chicago Tribune filed Freedom of Information Act request Documentation: FAA eventually confirmed reports received Investigation: No official investigation conducted
Witness Testimony
United Airlines Pilot: “The object was clearly visible, metallic, and unlike any aircraft I know” Ground Crew Supervisor: “It hovered silently for several minutes, then shot straight up through the clouds” Air Traffic Controller: “We received multiple reports but had no radar contact”
Continental Flight 3407 - January 8, 2008
Stephenville Correlation
Date/Time: January 8, 2008, evening Location: Stephenville, Texas area Aircraft: Continental Express Flight 3407 Route: Houston to Dallas
Crew Report
Captain Statement: “We observed extremely bright lights ahead of our aircraft” Performance: “The lights moved in formation then accelerated beyond anything I’ve seen” Radar Confirmation: Regional radar detected high-speed object
Ground Correlation
Stephenville Witnesses: Hundreds of ground witnesses observed same objects Radar Analysis: MUFON analysis confirmed high-speed radar return Military Response: F-16s scrambled from Naval Air Station Fort Worth
British Airways Flight - April 23, 2007
North Atlantic Encounter
Flight: British Airways BA Flight Route: London to New York Location: North Atlantic, approximately 500 miles from Ireland Altitude: 37,000 feet
Crew Observation
Captain Report: “Observed bright object pacing aircraft for extended period” Performance: “Object maintained exact speed and altitude with our aircraft” Communication: “No response to radio calls on emergency frequency”
Investigation
UK CAA: Civil Aviation Authority documented incident Radar Tracking: No radar confirmation due to oceanic airspace International Coordination: Report shared with FAA and Transport Canada
Lufthansa Flight 441 - February 18, 1995
European Encounter
Aircraft: Lufthansa Boeing 747 Route: Frankfurt to New York Location: North Atlantic, west of Ireland Crew: German commercial aviation crew
Incident Description
Visual Contact: Crew observed large cylindrical object Duration: Object visible for approximately 15 minutes Performance: Object paced aircraft then accelerated away Size: Estimated as larger than Boeing 747
Official Documentation
German Aviation Authority: Incident officially documented Crew Interview: Detailed debriefing conducted International Reporting: Shared with ICAO (International Civil Aviation Organization)
Air France Flight 3532 - January 28, 1994
French Commercial Encounter
Aircraft: Air France Airbus A320 Route: Nice to London Location: French airspace near Lyon Altitude: 39,000 feet
Crew Report
Captain Statement: “Large disc-shaped object crossed our flight path” Size Estimation: “Approximately 1,000 feet diameter” Performance: “Object moved at impossible speed across our route”
French Investigation
SEPRA Investigation: French official UFO investigation agency Technical Analysis: Radar data and crew testimony analyzed Classification: Case classified as “Category D” (unexplained)
China Eastern Airlines - October 11, 2010
Chinese Commercial Aviation
Flight: China Eastern Flight Route: Domestic Chinese route Location: Chinese airspace, specific location classified Crew: Chinese commercial pilot and crew
Incident Report
Visual Sighting: Crew observed formation of unknown objects Radar Contact: Air traffic control confirmed multiple targets Performance: Objects demonstrated advanced maneuvering capability
Chinese Government Response
CAAC Investigation: Civil Aviation Administration of China investigation Classification: Incident classified by Chinese government Limited Disclosure: Minimal information released publicly
COMMERCIAL PILOT CREDIBILITY FACTORS
Professional Training Standards
Aircraft Identification Training
Comprehensive Education: Extensive training in identifying aircraft types Visual Recognition: Ability to identify aircraft at distance and various angles Performance Characteristics: Knowledge of aircraft speed, altitude, and maneuvering capabilities Night Flying: Specialized training for night operations and light identification
Navigation and Systems Training
Radar Operation: Training in airborne weather radar systems Radio Communication: Expertise in aviation communication procedures Air Traffic Control: Understanding of ATC procedures and capabilities Emergency Procedures: Training in emergency situation recognition and response
Safety Culture
Mandatory Reporting: Legal requirement to report aviation safety hazards Career Stakes: Professional reputation and career dependent on accuracy Regulatory Oversight: Strict regulatory oversight of commercial aviation Insurance Implications: Safety incidents affect insurance and employment
Physical and Mental Standards
Medical Requirements
Regular Medical Exams: Frequent medical examinations required Vision Standards: Excellent vision required for commercial pilot license Mental Health: Psychological evaluation and ongoing assessment Drug Testing: Regular substance abuse testing
Experience Requirements
Flight Hours: Thousands of hours of flight experience required Aircraft Type Rating: Specific training for each aircraft type Recurrent Training: Ongoing training and competency checks Weather Training: Extensive meteorological training
Reporting Protocols
Official Channels
Company Reporting: Internal airline safety reporting systems FAA Reporting: Federal aviation safety reporting to government ICAO Standards: International civil aviation safety standards Crew Resource Management: Team-based safety reporting protocols
Career Protection
Whistleblower Protection: Legal protection for safety reporting Anonymous Reporting: Systems for anonymous safety reports No-Fault Reporting: Protection from disciplinary action for safety reports Professional Support: Union and professional organization support
PATTERNS IN COMMERCIAL AVIATION UAP ENCOUNTERS
Geographic Distribution
High-Activity Areas
North Atlantic: Multiple encounters over oceanic routes Pacific Routes: Japan Airlines and other Pacific carrier encounters Continental United States: Domestic flight encounters European Airspace: Multiple European carrier encounters
Airport Proximity
Major Hub Airports: Encounters near international airports Approach/Departure: Incidents during critical flight phases Terminal Area: Objects observed in high-traffic airspace Ground Operations: Encounters during ground operations
Object Characteristics
Size Ranges
Small Objects: 6-50 feet diameter
Medium Objects: 100-500 feet diameter
Large Objects: 1,000+ feet diameter, aircraft carrier size
Variable Size: Wide range suggests different object types
Performance Characteristics
High-Speed Capability: Objects exceed commercial aircraft speed Formation Flight: Multiple objects in coordinated formations Hovering Ability: Stationary flight capability Rapid Acceleration: Instantaneous acceleration beyond aircraft capability
Interaction Patterns
Pacing Behavior: Objects maintain speed and course with aircraft Approach Patterns: Objects approach from various directions Evasive Maneuvers: Objects avoid collision with aircraft Observation Behavior: Apparent observation of aircraft operations
Crew Response Patterns
Initial Reaction
Professional Assessment: Pilots attempt aircraft identification System Check: Verification of aircraft systems and instruments Communication: Contact with air traffic control Documentation: Recording of incident details
Reporting Decisions
Safety Priority: Reports made when safety implications exist Career Considerations: Reluctance due to potential career impact Company Policy: Varied airline policies on UAP reporting Official Channels: Use of established safety reporting systems
Air Traffic Control Correlation
Radar Confirmation
Ground Radar: ATC radar confirmation in multiple cases Traffic Separation: Controllers maintain aircraft separation Unknown Targets: Radar contacts without transponder signals Communication Attempts: Controllers attempt radio contact
Safety Procedures
Traffic Advisories: Warnings issued to other aircraft Vector Changes: Course changes to avoid unknown objects Emergency Procedures: Emergency protocols when appropriate Documentation: Official logging of unusual radar contacts
INTERNATIONAL CIVIL AVIATION RESPONSES
United States - FAA
Reporting Procedures
Aviation Safety Reporting System (ASRS): Anonymous reporting system Air Traffic Control: Controllers required to document unusual contacts Pilot Reports (PIREPs): Standardized pilot reporting format Investigation Protocols: Procedures for investigating unusual incidents
Policy Evolution
Historical Approach: Initial skepticism and limited investigation Safety Focus: Emphasis on aviation safety implications Coordination: Cooperation with military and intelligence agencies Modern Transparency: Increased openness to UAP reporting
European Union - EASA
European Aviation Safety Agency
Standardized Reporting: EU-wide aviation safety reporting standards Information Sharing: Coordination between member states Safety Assessment: Evaluation of UAP encounters for safety implications Research Coordination: Scientific study coordination
National Responses
United Kingdom CAA: British aviation authority UAP procedures France DGAC: French aviation authority cooperation with GEIPAN Germany LBA: German aviation authority incident documentation Nordic Countries: Scandinavian aviation safety coordination
Asia-Pacific Region
Japan Civil Aviation Bureau
JAL 1628 Response: Official investigation of major UAP encounter Reporting Protocols: Systematic UAP incident reporting International Cooperation: Coordination with FAA and other agencies Safety Focus: Aviation safety priority in UAP incidents
China CAAC
Limited Disclosure: Restricted information sharing Official Investigation: Government investigation of incidents Airport Security: Enhanced security at major airports Classification Policies: Most UAP incidents classified
Australia CASA
Civil Aviation Safety Authority: Australian aviation safety oversight Pilot Reporting: Encouragement of pilot UAP reporting Safety Assessment: Evaluation of aviation safety implications International Coordination: Cooperation with allied nations
AVIATION SAFETY IMPLICATIONS
Flight Safety Considerations
Collision Avoidance
See and Avoid: Pilot responsibility for collision avoidance Unknown Objects: UAP present collision hazard Performance Unpredictability: Unknown object flight characteristics Right of Way: Unclear right-of-way rules for unknown objects
Air Traffic Management
Separation Standards: ATC responsibility for aircraft separation Unknown Targets: Radar contacts without identification Traffic Flow: Impact on efficient air traffic flow Emergency Procedures: Response to unknown objects in airspace
Crew Training
Recognition Training: Training to recognize unusual aerial phenomena Reporting Procedures: Standardized UAP reporting protocols Emergency Response: Procedures for UAP encounters Communication: Coordination with ATC during encounters
Regulatory Challenges
Classification Issues
Aircraft Definition: UAP don’t fit standard aircraft classifications Airspace Regulations: Unknown objects operating outside regulations International Standards: Need for global UAP encounter standards Legal Framework: Unclear legal status of unknown objects
Investigation Protocols
Standardized Procedures: Need for uniform investigation protocols Evidence Preservation: Procedures for preserving UAP evidence International Coordination: Cross-border incident coordination Scientific Analysis: Integration of scientific analysis capability
Technology Integration
Detection Systems
Radar Enhancement: Improved radar for UAP detection Automatic Dependent Surveillance: ADS-B coverage gaps Collision Avoidance: TCAS limitations with unknown objects Weather Radar: Commercial weather radar UAP detection
Communication Systems
Emergency Frequencies: Communication attempts with unknown objects Data Link: Digital communication with unknown objects Transponder Technology: Lack of transponder signals from UAP Identification Systems: Friend-or-foe identification limitations
RESEARCH AND ANALYSIS RECOMMENDATIONS
Data Collection Enhancement
Standardized Reporting
Global Standards: International UAP reporting standards Database Integration: Coordination between aviation authorities Real-time Reporting: Immediate UAP incident notification Evidence Preservation: Standardized evidence collection procedures
Technology Integration
Enhanced Radar: Next-generation radar for UAP detection Video Documentation: Standardized video recording procedures Data Analysis: Automated UAP detection and analysis Communication Protocol: Standardized communication with unknown objects
Scientific Investigation
Academic Cooperation
University Research: Academic study of commercial aviation UAP encounters Peer Review: Scientific peer review of UAP incident analysis International Collaboration: Global scientific cooperation Technology Assessment: Scientific evaluation of UAP technology
Safety Research
Risk Assessment: Comprehensive safety risk analysis Collision Modeling: Mathematical modeling of UAP collision risk Avoidance Procedures: Development of UAP avoidance procedures Training Enhancement: Improved pilot training for UAP encounters
Policy Development
International Coordination
ICAO Standards: International Civil Aviation Organization UAP standards Bilateral Agreements: Country-to-country UAP information sharing Safety Protocols: Global aviation safety protocols for UAP Emergency Procedures: International emergency response coordination
Regulatory Framework
Airspace Management: Integration of UAP considerations in airspace design Certification Standards: Safety certification considering UAP encounters Operational Procedures: Standard operating procedures for UAP encounters Legal Framework: Legal framework for UAP in commercial airspace
This commercial aviation UAP database demonstrates that trained aviation professionals worldwide continue to encounter unidentified aerial phenomena that present aviation safety challenges and require systematic investigation, reporting, and analysis by civil aviation authorities globally.