Free UK UFO National Archives Documents
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

Free UK UFO National Archives Documents

on

  • 226 views

Free documents from the UK UFO National Archives. You have to pay for these now, but we have them! You can get all of them at no cost here: http://alien-ufo-research.com/documents/uk

Free documents from the UK UFO National Archives. You have to pay for these now, but we have them! You can get all of them at no cost here: http://alien-ufo-research.com/documents/uk

Statistics

Views

Total Views
226
Views on SlideShare
226
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

CC Attribution-ShareAlike LicenseCC Attribution-ShareAlike License

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

Free UK UFO National Archives Documents Free UK UFO National Archives Documents Document Transcript

  • Learn More about aliens here
  • MOD Form 262F (Revised 1/00) Registered File Disposal Form t;f:;:;;;/t~r I (~r 13 W rVA2- c::>O’I FILE TITLE: (Main Heading - Secondary Heading - Tertiary Heading etc) e e MANr4GtE..MeNT Miq CE.. INFOtZ:MAnOr--J FI<E.E.D()(’vIf’-JFOt’ZNA1l0N l~ I rorZ(.,AT O DEFE O ~ N.AK. PROTECTIVE MARKING (including caveats & descriptors): Date of last enclosure: PART 1. DISPOSAL SCHEDULE RECOMMENDATION (To be completed when the file is closed) years Forward to DR after years No recommendation CLA-8:::::’ ..::LOO] II Destroy after e e U A&E.-ME Reference: d Date closed: ~ Part: SD FOR DEFENCE RECORDS (DR)USE ONLY v D D D Date of 1 st review II Date of 2nd review Reviewer’s Signature: II Forward Destruction Date Reviewer’s Signature: PART 2. BRANCH REVIEW (To be fully completed at time of file closure) (Delete as appropriate) a. Of no further administrative value and not worthy of permanent preservation. DESTROY IMMEDIATELY (Rememberthat TOP SECRET and Codeword material cannot be destroyed locally and must be forwarded to b. (i) DR. years (from date of last enclosure) for the following reason(s): To be retained for v LEGAL CONTRACTUAL FINANCE/AUDIT DIRECTORATE POLICY PPQ = 100 D D D D V DEFENCE POLICY + OPERATIONS ORIGINAL COMMITTEE PAPERS MAJOR EQUIPMENT PROJECT OTHER (Specify) D D D D v D PEr2.MA N E::NT lZE-15r01l0N (Continued overleaf)
  • Page 2 of2 Information Commissioner under the provisions of .nformationthat the Information Commissioner willSection 50 ofthe Freedom ofthe internal Act. not investigate the case until Please note review process has been completed. Further details ofthe role and powers ofthe Information Commissioner can be found on the Commissioner’s website, uk." http://www.informationcommissioner.gov. Please let me know how you wish to proceed. Yours sincerely, 15/03/2007
  • . .. II .2IWA1(SEC) From: To: Sent: ASST PARLIAMENTARY CLK2 on behalf of PARLIAMENTARY ENQUIRIES DAS4A1 (SEC) 17 May 2001 12:41 Read: PEDP2391/2001 Subject: Your message To: Subject: PARliAMENTARY ENQUIRIES PE DP2391/2001 Sent: 17/05/0112:21 was read on 17/05/01 12:41. ~
  • . ’" ’. LOOSE MINUTE D/DAS(Sec)64/4 17 May 2001 PE Unit. . (through D AS . ’)~ ~. AJ..W) . 1715 . . PARLIAMENTARY ENOUIRY - DP2391/2001 - ADMIRAL OF THE FLEET THE LORD HILL-NORTON GCB 1. Lord Hill-Norton has a long standing interest in ’unidentified flying objects’ and in January 2001 he tabled ten PQs on the subject of a well known ’UFO’sighting in Rendlesham Forest, Suffolk in December 1980. In February 2001 the Department received aPE ITom Lord Hill-Norton in which he expressed his dissatisfaction with the answer to PQ0392L. In his letter of 17 April, the Peer disagrees with the Minister’s reply to his previous PE, particularly as he claims a wealth ofnew evidence has been uncovered in the intervening 20 years by ’UFO’investigators. It is true that several books have been written about these events and a number ofpeople have claimed to have been involved. However, the only documentary evidence the Ministry holds is that which is contained in our files and written around the time ofthe event. These documents show a clear chain of events which have already been explained to Lord Hill-Norton and many others. 2. Also in his letter of 17 April, the Peer asks the Minister a number of direct questions about "very recent disclosures by a former prison officer at Hollesley about the apparently unauthorised removal of certain pages ofrecords covering the time ofthe incident". Rather than attempt to answer questions about something ofwhich we were not aware, the draft reply asks Lord Hill-Norton to forward what information he has on these disclosures. 3. In his letter of22 April, the Peer says that Ms Bruni has given him a recording which she claims was made at the time ofthe incident and contains the voice ofLieutenant Colonel Halt, the Deputy Base Commander at RAF Woodbridge. He asks the Minister to agree to listen to the recording. It is likely that if the Minister did not agree to his request, Lord Hill-Norton would probably say that the Department was not being open-minded and, 4. accordingly, we suggest that the Minister should agree to listen to the recording.
  • ;, . DP 2391/2001 May 2001 DRAFT REPLY TO ADMIRAL OF THE FLEET THE LORD HILL-NORTON GCB Thank you for your letters of 17 and 22 May concerning the events at Rendlesham Forest and the recording you have received from Ms Georgina Bruni. I note your comments in.your letter of 17 April. These events occurred over 20 years ago, and my earlier respqmses to you have necessarily been based on the surviving official records held by the Ministry ofDefence. These records show that on receipt, Lieutenant Colonel Halt’s memorandum was examined by those responsible for air defence matters and they concluded that there was nothing of defence interest in the report. No further investigation was made and to date we have seen no official documentation which gives us reason to believe that the original assessment made by the Ministry ofDefence was incorrect. Nevertheless, if you would like to send me the compact disc I shall, of course, be happy to listen to it with a completely open mind. Moreover, I would be grateful if at the same time you would provide what information you have on the "very recent disclosures by a former prison officer at Hollesley". In the meantime, I enclose for your information a number of papers on the Rendlesham Forest incident that have recently been released to a member ofthe public under the Code ofPractice on Access to Government Information. Some have been.sanitised to protect the privacy ofthose who have corresponded with the Ministry ofDefence. I will write to you again after I have listened to the recording.
  • , . . ’. DP 1197/2001 February 2001 DRAFT REPLY TO ADMIRAL OF THE FLEET THE LORD lllLL-NORTON GCB Thank you for your letters of2 and 12 February about the events at Rendlesham Forest on the nights of27-29 December 1980. I note what you say in your first letter about the use ofthe word "alleged" in regard to these events and would like to reassure you that it was most certainly not my intention to mislead the reader over this issue. You have suggested that there are only two possible explanations to the events reported by Lieutenant Colonel Halt in his memorandum dated 13 January 1981. I do not agree that this is the case and it follows that I am unable to give you the simple yes or no answers to your questions which you are seeking. While there is no suggestion that Lieutenant Colonel Halt, or any others serving at RAF Woodbridge at the time, were either hallucinating or lying, neither can we explain exactly what these people did see. These events happened over 20 years ago and from the surviving Departmental records it is clear that when Lieutenant Colonel Halt’s memorandum was received in my Department it was passed to the military authorities with responsibility for air defence matters. Their conclusion was that there was nothing of defence interest in the report. Once this was established no further investigation was made. Nothing has
  • , . , . ,~ emerged over the intervening years which has given us reason to believe that the original assessment mp.de by the Ministry ofDefence was incorrect. I am sorry if you feel that this is a disappointing reply but I hope you understand that, after all these years, I cannot be more helpful. THEBARONESSSYMONSOFVERNHAMDEAN Admiral ofthe Fleet The Lord Hill-Norton GCB
  • . .. . , ~ ,,~ ,4?J’ ,. .’-~"~ ...i/~" - .,,~J’ HEADQUARTERS 8151 COM Ar SUPPORT GROUP (USAFE) APO N W VORi; 09155 t. ". ." - -- -ii ( -TOATTN OF: S1WJECT: TO: -~ ,. .t-~:’. ~;’~’".;. ’. .. .:<,~ ~:~(1’ ~"4fr.J:.’ ~~~~~!7 --,---~==~-~’~t__,_=’ DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE ’_: 1" --- . .. n _ .." __ _ _ ___ __ ___ Unexp 1 a i ned L i gh ". i";.’ ~ .. _ _ h _ ;~ "~~. {’.I.’.’,:,d!,://:_~ ;.:>I...~~~ :, ," ’-.,’ r~i~~,’1<1:;T.J’>j’. . . ; _ _ ___ __ _ _ ---.--.--- ---’---"--’-- -"’ ---, 13 Jan--81-- , . - ,""" . . I . -~ fS RAFICC 1. Early in theimorning of 27 Dee 80 (approximately 0300L), two USAF security police patrolmen saw nusual lights outside the back gate at RAF Woodbridge. iThinking an ail’craft might have or been. fOt’ced down, they for permission to go outside the gate to investigate. The on-duty fl igM chief responded and allowed tht’ee patrc]me~ to p;’o- cras-fted calle~ T~e ~ ,’-, ceed on foot. individuals reported seeing a strange glowing object in thefOI~est. the object was described as beil’)g metalic in appeal~ance and triangular in shape, approximately two to three across base and approximately two meters high. It illuminated the entire the forest with a light. The object itself had a pulsing red light on top and a bank(s) of blue lights underneath. The object was As the patrolmen approached the object, it maneuvered hovering or on legs. through the trees and disappeared. At this time the animals on a nearby. farm went into a frenzy. The object ’Ias briefly sighted approximately "an hour later !"leat’ the back gate. met~~s ~hite 2. The next day, three depressions 1 1/2" deep and 7" in diametel’ ’Jei-e found where. the object had been sighted on the ground. The f0110wing night (29 Dec 80) the area ’Jas checked for radiation. eta/ganulla read’ings of 0.1 millit~oentgens ’Jere recorded with peak r,eadings in the three depressions and near the center of the triangle formed by the A nearby tree had moderate (.05-.07) readings on the side ofdepressions. the tree toward the depressions. 3. Later in the night a red sun-like light was seen through the trees. It n~ved about and pulsed. At one point it appeared to throw off glowing particles and then broke into five separate white objects and then disappeared. Immediately thereafter, three star-l ike objects were- noticed in the sky,- two objects to the north and one to the south, all of which were about 100 off the horizon. The obJects moved rapidly in sharp angulal’ movements and displayed red, green and bJu~-lights. The objects to the north appeared .to be ~1tiptical through’ an 8-12 power lens. They then turned to full circles. The objects_ remained in sky. fOl~ an hour or more. The obje’ct ’to the south visible for t’IO or three hours and beamed dm’/:1 a stream of light from time to time. Numerous individuals, including the und rsigned, witnessed the aEtivities in paragraphs 2 I~ tothe---north ~as th.e i;jjZ;;1fJ1. C~S I. Lt Col, USAF Deputy ase Conmander . ,.. ;. - - ’’-<...-.~. , . ." I,’,
  • ’-’’’’~.,.- -r Page 1 of 1 ., ,fa DAS4A1(SEC) From: DAS4A1(SEC) Sent: 13 June 2001 08:41 PARLIAMENTARY ENQUIRIES To: Subject: PE DP2632/2001 i I Please see attached our reply ~ro I I the above mentioned PE which is due today. Colo~el Halt’s memorandum mentioned in para 3 ofthe covering letter The copy of Lieutenant will be walked over to you. ou may wish to advise APS to Lord Bach that DAS have thelCD and photographs when required. Lord Bach will need to listen APS thought it likely that as he is new to the post he would to the CD in due course and probably want DAS to briefhiitn personally about these matters. t~e 13/06/01
  • . (e LOOSE MINUTE D/DAS(Sec)64/4 12th June 2001 I PE ^>’’2.ff Unitn~"I (through DAS PARLIAMENTARY ENOUIRY - DP2632/2001 - ADMIRAL OF THE FLEET THE LORD HILL-NORTON GCB 1. Lord Hill-Norton, Chief ofDefence Staff trom 1973 to 1976, has a long standing interest in ’unidentified flying objects’ and this year he has tabled ten PQs and written two PEs on the subject of a well kn wn ’UFO’sighting in Rendlesham Forest, Suffolk in December 1980. In a previous letter, dated 22 April, the Peer said he had been given a recording which, it is claimed, was made at the time ofthe Rendlesham Forest incident and contains the voice ofLieutenant Colonel Halt, the Deputy Base Commander at RAF Woodbridge. He asked that the Minister listen to the recording. We concluded that should the Minister not agree to his request, Lord Hill-Norton would accuse the Department of not being open-minded and in her reply, Baroness Symons agreed to listen to the recording. 2. In his letter of24 May, the Peer enclosed the compact disc and some photographs 3. which he said are part of an "enormous mass ofnew evidence". He asked for an investigation to be opened in to these events. DAS staff have listened to the recording several times and while it provides a more graphic account of events described in a memorandum written by Lieutenant Colonel Halt on 13 January 1981 (copy attached), we do not believe that it constitutes clear evidence that the UK Air Defence Region was compromised. It is now over twenty years since these events are reported to have taken place and we believe it would not be appropriate to commit MOD resources to further enquiries which are unlikely to produce any other conclusion than that which was made at the time; namely that nothing occurred which was of defence concern. Suffolk. 4. Lord Hill-Norton has also referred to records for Hollesley Prison in This prison is located in the vicinity ofRendIesham Forest and some ofthose who have written about these events have claimed that the prison was evacuated. A previous PQ answer from the Home Office stated that "records [forthe period in question] were no longer available". The Peer is clearly suspicious about this, claiming that a former Prison Officer has been able to determine that the logs for Hollesley Prison "were available but the records covering December 1980 through to January 1981 are missing, although everything either side ofthese dates is intact". So far as we are aware, there is no mention ofthe prison in any papers held by the MOD. This is, therefore, clearly a matter for the Home Office and we would not wish to comment on their record keeping.
  • .. () DP 2632/2001 June 2001 DRAFT REPLY TO AD1WIRAL OF THE FLEET THE LORD HILL-NORTON GCB I I Thank you for your letter of24 May 2001 addressed to my predecessor and enclosing a compact disc and some photographs ofthe events in Rendlesham Forest in 1980. I have only recently bee1j1 appointed to this post and have yet to have the opportunity to listen to the recording. However, I intend to do so and to reply more fully as soon as possible. THE LORD BACH Admiral ofthe Fleet The Lord Hill-Norton GCB
  • (. y,.W’ ... FORWARDED AT THE REQUEST OF APS TO LORD BACH.BUT NOT TO BE RELEASED WITHOUT HIS AUTHORITY (See paragraph 5 of covering minute) DP 2632/2201 June 2001 DRAFT REPLY TO AD IRAL OF THE FLEET THE LORD HILL-NORTON GCB I Further to my letter of[ I 24th May I] June 2001,I am now in a position to reply to your letter of concerning the events in Rendlesham Forest in 1980. I have listened to the compact disc and it does indeed provide a graphic account of the comments contained in Lieutenant Colonel Halt’s letter dated 13 January 1981. But notwithstanding the fact that the recording will no doubt be ofgreat interest to those who have made a study ofthese matters, I do not believe it offers any clear evidence that the UK’s Air Defence Region was compromised by whatever occurred all those years ago. As has been said before, the conclusion at the time was that this was not the case and that is the key issue for us in any investigation ofreported UFO sightings. Given this, and the length oftime that has elapsed, I do not believe it would now be appropriate to commit MOD resources to any further enquiries that would be unlikely to be productive. Nonetheless, in light oftQe passing ofthe Freedom ofInformation Act, my officials are undertaking a review fUFO files in anticipation of an increase in enquiries on these matters. In the course ofthis review they will consult the Home Office, although it seems unlikely that they are holding any papers of defence interest.. Please be assured that should anything new on the Rendlesham Forest incident be revealed, I will let you know.
  • (.. In the meantime, I am returning the compact disc and the photographs you sent with your letter of24 May. THE LORD BACH Admiral ofthe Fleet The Lord Hill-Norton GCB
  • (~ ). ~ e DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FO~CE HEAOQUARIERS 81$1 Cor..:SAI SUPPORT GRCUP (USMC) APO NEW YORK 09155 ~ AEPI Y TO ATTN OF: CO &1.WJECT: ,.; Unexplained Lights TO: - 13 Jan 81 RAF/CC 1. Early 1n the morning of 27 Dee 80 (approximately 0300L), h/o USflF security police patrolmen nusual lights outside the back gate at RAF .Joodbt’idge. Thinking an aircraft might have or been fCr’ced . ., down, they called for pennission to g~o outside the gate to invest~9ate. The on-duty flight chief responded and allo’led tlH’ee patro1m::~ to P;’’)_ sa~. . cra~d " ceed on foot. The individuals reported seeing a strange glowing object in the-forest. The object was described as being metal ic in appearance and triangular in shape, approximately two to three base and approximately two meters high. It illuminated fheacross the entire forest with a ,IJhite 1 The object itsel f had a pulsing red 1 ight on top and a bank(s) of blue lights underneath. The As the patrolmen’approached the object, itobject vas hovering or on legs. maneuvered and disappeared. At this time the animals on a nearby through the trees frenzy. The object was briefly sighted approximately nfarm went into a hou.r later rlear the back gate. met~rs ight. 2. The next day, three depressions 1 1/2" deep and 7" in diamet21’ ’Iei’e found where the object had been sighted on the ground. The foll o,’/i ng night (29 Dec 80) the t’ea ’/aS checked for radiation. of 0.1 milliroentgens were recorded with peak readings Beta/gamflla read-ings pressions and near the center of the triangle formed by in the three dethe A nearby tree had moderate (.05-.07) readings on the side ofdepressions. the tree toward the depressions. 3. Later in the night a red sun-like light vias seen through the tl^ees. about and pulsed. At one point it appeared to throw particles and then broke into five separate white objects and off glowing then disappeared. Immediately thereafter, three star-like objects were’noticed in the sky,- two objects to the north and one to the south, all ’/ere about 100 off the horizon. Theobjects moved rapidly in of which sharp angular movements and displayed red, green and ~lue’lights. The objects to the north appeared .to beeltiptical through an 8-12 power lens. They then turned to full circles. The objects to the.north remained in sky fm^ an hour or more. The obje’ctto the south was visible for two or three hours and beamed do.Jn a stream of light from time to time. Numerous individuals, including the und rsigned, witnessed the aEtivities in paragraphs 2 and;. _ It n~ved t!l- ff.JZJ CI-~ts 1. I~C;~ _’, Deputy . ._, th.e ,1 . L t Co 1, USAF ase Cornmander r- ;. ,- -. ~,-.~.. """.}... . "
  • . ArT - ht p:/ aitportaICLayouts/ Main Proces ing AIT - Options Edit Request Details 74589 ,304
  • "’’’-’.;’:’’~ ’A..~tt}, fV 3Vt J ~’/. ."’Q".~ ~,:,,::<::"’:,:~’7~ 1?.~.. l". ",.~ _..,., . ., M,/":,:’; . ENCLOSURE TRANSFERRED TO FILE D/DAS/1 0/2/8/16 PART H
  • ENCLOSURE TRANSFERRED TO FILE D/DAS/1 0/2/8/16 PART H
  • o ~~ ~
  • .~ ~ eN WriTTel1 Answers 7 APRIL 1998 I is lSO mil1ion, but is expected to rise to noo million as the remaining systems are assessed and rectification work on them casted. Wrilfen Answers 222 Year Number 434 795 666 781 982 472 280 147 749 12 Total 4.4 Some million has been hpended to date. This reflects only the cost of work sol far completed. It does not include expenditure which’ has been contractually committed but not yet paid. The year 2000 cost figures are collected within MOD on a budget holder basis and not,by Service. The costs provided include the total for all of MOD’s budget areas. 1989 1990 1991 1992 ]993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 6.255 RAF Fast Jet Aircrew Mr. Brazier: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many (i)actual and (ii) peacetime establishment RAF fast jet aircrew are allocated ,to (a) Tornado GR, (b)Tornado F3, (c)Jaguar and (d)Harrier. [37934] Dr. Reid: The information requested, as at 3 April 1998, is set out below: Aircraft FaST jeT airerell" TOTal aircrel1,l Tornado GR I Tornado F3 Jaguar Harrier Peacetime establishment Actual strength Peacetime establishmem Actual strength Peacetime establishmem Actual strength Peacetime establishment Actual strength , As at 3 April 1998 294 274 265 250 60 55 73 73 During this period four of the CHARM penetrators fired have been recovered. I hope this information is useful. Low Flying Training Helen Jackson: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answers of 30 March 1998. Official Report, column 4] if the military exercises were 4, carried out over the Sheffield area; what regulations govern (a) military and (b) other aircraft breakin!! the sound barrier; and if the sonic booms detected by Edinburgh University Seismology Unit above Sheffield, on 24 March 1997 were the result of aircraft breaking the sound barrier. [37991J Mr. SpeHar: It is not possible, twelve months after the date in question. to state precisely where military aircraft activity was being carried Records kept show only that aircraft were booked to carry out low flying over the Peak Disfrict between 2030 and 2 I 07 hours local time on the evening of 24 March 1997. No low level flying is permitted over the Sheffield urban area, or any other’ major conurbation. Records of flying at medium levelbetween 2,000 and 24,000 feet-are not maintained so it is possible that there were aircraft in the area at medium out. Uranium Shells Mr. Alasdair Morgan: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how (1)how many depleted uranium shells have been fired at the MOD/DERA base at Dundrennan, Kirkcudbrightshire, in each of the years since such firing started; [37611] (2)how many of the depleted uranium shells fired at the MOD/DERA base at Dundrennan, Kirkcudbrightshire, have subsequently been recovered. [376]2] Mr. SpeHar: This is a matter for the Chief Executive of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency (DERA). I have asked the Chief Executive to write to the hon. Member. Letter from John Chisholm tv Mr. Alasdair Morgan, dated 7 April ] 998: . As Chief Executive of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency I have been asked to reply to your questions to the Secretary of State for Defence about depleted uranium shells at Kirkcudbrightshire. The number of depleted uranium rounds fired at the Kirkcudbright range each year since the start of the CHARM programme are as follows: leve1. The regulations governing military aircraft flying at supersonic speeds are contained in the Joint Service Publication entitled ’Military Flying Regulations’, an extract of which was provided in the answer I gave her The on 1 April 1998, Official Report, columns matter for regulations which apply to civil aviation are a my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions. 547-48. As for the sonic event detected by the British Geological Survey at Edinburgh University, I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave her on 30 March 1998. Official Report, columns 4]4-]5. SOCIAL SECURITY Year Number 1982 1983 1984 9 56 179 152 J 18 151 272 1985 ]986 1987 1988 J 12 CWI54-PAGI/4:! Incapacity Benefit Mr. Cummings: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many claimants of incapacity benefit are suffering from pneumoconiosis and emphysema in the areas covered by the Seaham and Peterlee BenefitS . [37909J Agency offices.
  • "’ , ’ -e,e MINISTRY OF DEFENCE TUESDAY 7 APRIL 1998 MRS HELEN JACKSON (LABOUR)(SHEFFIELD. HILLSBOROUGH) 10 N To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his Answers of 30th March, Official Report, column 414, if the military exercises were carried out over the Sheffield area; what regulations govern (a) military and (b) other aircraft breaking the sound barrier; and if the sonic booms detected by Edinburgh University Seismology unit above Sheffield, on 24th March 1997 were the result of aircraft breaking the sound barrier. [37991] MR SPELLAR f; It is not possible, twelve months after the date in question, to state precisely where military aircraft activity was being carried out. Records kept show only that aircraft were booked to carry out low flying over the Peak District between 2030 and 2107 hours local time on the evening of 24 March 1997. No low level flying is permitted over the Sheffield urban area, or any other major conurbation. 2,000 and 24,000 ft Records of flying at medium level ~ - between are not maintained so it is possible that there were aircraft in the area at medium level.
  • , ’ ee, The regulat ons govern ng m l tary a rcraft fly ng at superson c speeds are contained n the Jo nt Serv ce publ cat on ent tled ’M l tary Fly ng Regulat ons’ , an extract of wh ch was prov ded n the answer I gave her on 1 Apr l 1998 (Off c al Report, Cols 547-548). The regulat ons wh ch apply to c v l av at on are a matter for my hon Fr end the parl amentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Reg ons. As for the son c event detected by the Br t sh Geolog cal Survey at Ed nburgh’Un vers ty, I refer my hon Fr end to the answer I gave her on 30 March 1998 (Off c al Report, Col 414). Wednesday 7 Apr l 1998 25481
  • . The regulations go~erning military aircraft flying at supersonic speeds are contained in the Joint Service Publication entitled ’Military Flying Regulations’, an extract of which was provided in the answer I gave her on 1 April 1998 (Official Report, Cols 547-548). The regulations which apply to civil aviation are a matter for my hon Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of -. J- State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions. T . ,. ( As for the ~.;. " ~ismQ19~ioal a~Livlty Geological Survey at detected by the British Edi~urgh University, I refer my hon Friend to the answer I gave her on 30 March 1998 (Official Report, Col 414). April 1998 2548I
  • . BACKGROUND NOTE: Mrs Jackson tabled five PQs for answer on 30th March along with another for answer on 1 April (copies attached). All referred to an incident which occurred over the Peak District on 24 March 1997. The parts of the question referring to flying regulations and the Edingburgh Seismology unit were both asked in these previous questions. The incident in question remains unresolved. At around 2200hrs on 24 March 1997 a number of witnesses located in and around the Peak District reported hearing an aeroplane in trouble followed by a crash. Police and RAF Search and Rescue helicopters were scrambled and conducted a thorough search of the area but found no signs of a crash. No civil or military aircraft were reported missing for that day. Since the event a number of theories have emerged, including one that the ’crash’ heard by the witnesses may have been a sonic boom generated by an aircraft. We do not know whether military aircraft were operating over Sheffield on the evening in question. An investigation now would be impracticable given the passage of time. The only centrally maintained indication of activity are the low flying booking sheets and these show that Tornados from RAF Marham were booked to fly within Night Low Flying Sector 3A between 2030 and 2107 hours local time on 24 March 1997; over an hour before the alleged incident took place. Although low flying military aircraft are not permitted to overfly towns and cities, it is possible that the Tornados (or other military aircraft) may have flown over Sheffield at medium level. In accordance with Flying Regulations, squadrons report any inadvertent sonic events to Headquarters Military Air Traffic Organisation (HQ MATO). They can confirm that no inadvertent sonic events were logged with them for the evening of 24 March 1997. It is possible, however, that an aircraft may have generated a sonic event of which the pilot was unaware.
  • .’ " , ! I ANSWER: It is not possible, twelve months after the date in question, to state precisely where military aircraft activity was being carried out. Records kept show only that aircraft were booked to carry out low flying over the Peak District between 2030 and 2107 hours local time on the evening of 24 March 1997. No low level flying is permitted over the Sheffield urban area, or any other major conurbation. Records of flying at medium level - between 2,000 and 24,000 ft - are not maintained so it is possible that there were aircraft in the area at medium level. The regulations governing military aircraft flying at supersonic speeds are contained in the Joint Service Publication entitled ’Military Flying Regulations’, an extract of which was provided in the answer I gave on 1 April (column 547/548). The regulations which apply to civil aviation are a matter for my honourable friend the Parliamentary UnderSecretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions. As for the seismological activity detected by the British Geological Survey at Edingburgh University, I refer my honourable friend to the answer I provided to her on 30 March (column 414). BACKGROUND NOTE: Mrs Jackson tabled five PQs for answer on 30th March along with another for answer on 1 April (copies attached). All referred to an incident which occurred over the Peak District on 24 March 1997. The parts of the question referring to flying regulations and the Edingburgh Seismology Unit were both asked in these previous questions. The incident in question remains unresolved. At around 2200hrs on 24 March 1997 a number of witnesses located in and around the Peak District reported hearing an aeroplane in trouble followed by a crash. Police and RAF Search and Rescue helicopters were scrambled and conducted a thorough search of the area but found no signs of a crash. No civil or military aircraft were reported missing for that day. Since the event a number of theories have emerged, including one that the ’crash’ heard by the witnesses may have been a sonic boom generated by an aircraft. We do not know whether military aircraft were operating over Sheffield on the evening in question. An investigation now would be impracticable given the passage of time. The only centrally maintained indication of activity are the low flying booking sheets and these show that Tornados from RAF Marham were booked to fly within Night Low Flying Sector 3A between 2030 and 2107 hours local time on 24 March 1997; over an hour before the alleged incident took place. Although low flying military aircraft are not permitted to overfly towns and cities, it is possible that the Tornados (or other military aircraft) may have flown over Sheffield at medium level.
  • . In accordance with Flying Regulations, squadrons report any inadvertent sonic events to Headquarters Military Air Traffic Organisation (HQ MATO). They can confirm that no inadvertent sonic events were logged with them for the evening of 24 March 1997. It is possible, however, that an aircraft may have of which the pilot was unaware. generated a sonic ev~nt Copy to: PSOjACAS AS.DD2 DPO(RAF) PRO Scotland RAF Kinloss HQ MATO- Ops Support 1 - Sec(AS)2a
  • " . ’- ’.. . .- bY- .:.~ ::i~:I<r~..f.<<t~. ~, ,’Low ....’, .. ,:. . ., :’.:;.l;’’::.:<. ’ -. . ."’; - .Jacboa:;:T~ ybiJT~ ::’... ’" , .’ .."Helm .asJc.;thc: Statc:!for.:.(:, D.I_DC:e’ .;’.;’..:. . : ’.:. . .:.’ .... . ". ~,’~f. ~1w:..9OtDplainb wcrc.:~ve .~~. RAF.~.IOw.tlying’~~Jating ~4’~r! .[~9.’{j,;,! ~, . .". ,;’. (1). ~~’~r~x~i~l:’~ ~.: (3).f0l’~!:~.~AAf.~. ’- 1997: . , .; ’:. :." ’(2)’j[ RAFIN .to ,.....,!"...; . ,.’... ’. ...’ , ...: ~ ro riillitary ’aircraft. wer engage(!’~) ’ lID ~erciso: OYGC NIJI1bcni’ EoJIand 10.30 pm m24.March :1997: ."".’,’. :;,..~" , . ’." ":’ . .:’ . . ’9.30 . .:: : .~’.~:’ ".cbc. m.omin . of,~ iHda#!a’I~;’.~~:".:i’;:.~’"..’’’ ’.: ...:~~..t.:....’..,: H,~, zono ,’8rOUJid HoW. ’reselYOir Wre rO f:.t :-. . of~991.’~’~VCdi"7.,,17~~f~. .Wat~ cli :y~~ DcrbjJ~aie Mr..~::~~. :;Wber of’~,:aircrd[~Q w~’!E &~;".:._~."S :~:6.~: . -, ~ .~.. _’_’.’I!tD’.... . :. ’ o’M ~".’~ sightings (4) Ib bJio’ima (bJ &e fI’oiia’tI1o.s . " 1 .’... . ..~,." 2SMaic ’’’’’.’. i:. :;~~n!ace’>;~..ll~. . .’ recd.~ , ." ’. ’." .. . ’to,~.out .1ow .ft’. .traJ.W 1KJ ~"’,J: J_ " ~"Aymg., eO’""",. Or h~.......4’ 1be". . .. i for that date .. ’I . acroii fiE ’trIc.:No ie .. Cr ....... 011 24 or 2:" M sisbtiais of 1m’ by my ’Department A Teinp was established’ 2S ccaitrcd oil Rese.tvolr. m allowman kAPMar,’ud Rescne hCliCOJif"’i y I 00....., -,MaI "’,: ~ -Dang~~~ er ~ ~ in response to a request for assistaDce (.~ .t.;i from South YorIc.s ire Poli omercany out I scartb ofthe area witbont to disturbance . mlllwy aLraatL Such Danger Areas by Search are routinely established for operation" and Rescue HANSAID. EXTIAC’l ~ ~."~ ~?,~.!..71 &’ ..::t.:.~:._.........._ Cot, Dated .m~ld) -. ..... . ~ ;.. ;.i " , ,’!.:k: .. ." . , ’., : ’’’1’ ;. Belerl" D" To uk ....: . of’Stir for .b’1e’~o’r’..&.we t:’n.rATO’aj~D4L wu respoDSI Dcfc:ntc if m ~U’, ddcctcd by Edb tgl1 tWosniC:booms above . 22.06 at 21.52 .ty. U !’Ivers! Seismotasy Umt ’r ,~.;,., and. . "’.! ..:~ on . . [364OS] 24"Malth 1997. . .... .... . ....; ’00.. &;DI~ J~IU s.. r~-e S~dd ...... Mr - ~I1er~ed RAP DI’.l:iAtp ~h 1997.. :’ g 24 Wc’lia~e"(O by . . . ." ot:sonic ’.~ I. ey’~~}le~ for.lbc.c~g..of ’. ,...., . ";’" . MANIAID EXlltACI CtJI. . .4/)’.::b...~.I~...,.;tG....... ... 09MI ~3q,~lq~g. I
  • . ~ ’., The regulations governing military aircraft ’flying at supersonic speeds are contained in the Joint Service Publication entitled ’Military Flying Regulations’, an extract of which was provided in the answer 1 gave her on 1 April 1998 (Official Report, Cols 547-548). The regulations which apply to civil aviation are a matter for my hon Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions. As for the seismological activity detected by the British Geological Survey at Edingburgh University, 1 refer my hon Friend to the answer 1 gave her on 30 March 1998 (Official Report, Col 414). April 1998 25481
  • "’ . BACKGROUND NOTE: Mrs Jackson tabled five PQs for answer on 30th March along with another for answer on 1 April (copies attached). All referred to an incident which occurred over the Peak District on 24 March ’ 1997." The parts of the question referring to flying regulations and’the Edingburgh Seismology Unit were both asked in these previous questions. The incident in question remains unresolved. At around 2200hrs on 24 March 1997 a number of witnesses located in and around the Peak District reported hearing an aeroplane in trouble followed by a crash. Police and RAF Search and Rescue helicopters were scrambled and conducted a thorough search of the area but found no signs of a crash. No civil or military aircraft were reported missing for that day. Since the event a number of theories have emerged, including one that the ’crash’ heard by the witnesses may have been a sonic boom generated by an aircraft. ’ We do not know whether military aircraft were operating over Sheffield on the evening in question. An investigation now would be impracticable given the passage of time. The only centrally maintained indication of activity are the low flying booking sheets and these show that Tornados from RAF Marham were booked to fly within Night Low Flying Sector 3A between 2030 and 2107 hours local time on 24 March 1997; over an hour before the alleged incident took place. Although low flying military aircraft are not permitted to overfly towns and cities, it is possible that the Tornados (or other military aircraft) may have flown over Sheffield at medium level. In accordance with Flying Regulations, squadrons report any inadvertent sonic events to Headquarters Military Air Traffic Organisation (HQ MATO). They can confirm that no inadvertent sonic events were logged with them for the evening of 24 March 1997. It is possible, however, that an aircraft may have generated a sonic event of which the pilot was unaware.
  • . . . . . f I ANSWER: It is not possible, twelve months after the date in question,. to state precisely where military aircraft activity was being carried out. Records kept show only that air raft were booked to carry out low flying over the Peak District between 2030 and 2107 hours local time on the evening of 24 March 1997. No low level flying is permitted over the Sheffield urban area, or any other major conurbation. Records of flying at medium level - between 2,000 and 24,000 ft - ,are not maintained so it is possible that there were aircraft in the area at medium level. The regulations governing military aircraft flying at supersonic speeds are contained in the Joint Service Publication entitled ’Military Flying Regulations’, an extract of which was provided in the answer I gave on 1 April (column 547/548). The regulations which apply to civil aviation are a matter for my honourable friend the Parliamentary UnderSecretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions. As for the seismological activity detected by the British Geological Survey at Edingburgh University, I refer my honourable friend to the answer I provided to her on 30 March (column 414). BACKGROUND NOTE: Mrs Jackson tabled five PQs for answer on 30th March along with another for answer on 1 April (copies attached). All referred to an incident which occurred over the Peak District on 24 March 1997. The parts of the question referring to flying regulations and the Edingburgh Seismology Unit were both asked in these previous questions. The incident in question remains unresolved. At around 2200hrs on 24 March 1997 a number of witnesses located in and around the Peak District reported hearing an aeroplane in trouble followed by a crash. Police and RAF Search and Rescue helicopters were scrambled and conducted a thorough search of the area but found no signs of a crash. No civil or military aircraft were reported missing for that day. Since the event a number of theories have emerged, including one that the ’crash’ heard by the witnesses may have been a sonic boom generated by an aircraft. We do not know whether military aircraft were operating over Sheffield on the evening in question. An investigation now would be impracticable given the passage of time. The only centrally maintained indication of activity are the low flying booking sheets and these show that Tornados from RAF Marham were booked to fly within Night Low Flying Sector 3A between 2030 and 2107 hours local time on 24 March 1997; over an hour before the alleged incident took place. Although low flying military aircraft are not permitted to overfly towns and cities, it is possible that the Tornados (or other military aircraft) may have flown over Sheffield at medium level.
  • J~ ’. . . .. In accordance with Flying Regulations, squadrons report any inadvertent sonic events to Headquarters Military Air Traffic Organisation (HQ MATO). They can confirm that no inadvertent sonic. events were logged with them for the evening of 24 March .1997. It is possible, however, that an aircraft may have. generated a sonic event of which the pilot ’was unaware. Copy to: PSO/ACAS AS.DD2 DPO(RAF) RAF Kinloss PRO Scotland HQ MATO - Ops Support 1 Sec(AS)2a -
  • "- /. . .. ’ .’ ’:11 ~;:.(":.: : 9~’~ ’i -.’fn,:~i:.~: :;:~. :’.~:~"1:’~~:. ~ ..-:RdC’ll ~~:~f.Statc::f~.~.;: ~Iw: by’ ~1’ RAF:~g.1ow.fIying’~ . laac:e’ . . ..... ... -. . ’. . .JadaJ:oa:;:To..asJc,;tbc (1) .,~plainb ’Wcrc:.:rivcd ..-;:. 24:~~i. ,thq relating .to ’. ...’:",!:..,..,. ’~’:;! ..... .~. . ’(2)’j[ RAFIN TO itaty ’ailmft veri’ engage(f’ an c:~er5C: Oyec NOIthcni. England betw ’9.30 :’; 10.30 pm .mi U.Mazch :1997: .". .’ ’:’ ;:",:" n .’ . .... ":’ . .. "~I’ .: ~!:~~,~.~~r.v<? ~’~rm,~,g’;~~~x .~h:;;~’.:!f:~ Mf.~. i~ ~nc..~d..,~~. M~ 1997, :." ’. ..’ . . re~ JJ2,S J?9l;.i’!.......~:;...... 2$ ~ ~: .~/..~~ ~~ ~ ie~’.~~~:,~ jII lor (3) ~~::~~ .~.~~...: " lf:.~.. ;....~...:’..........: ’. .~were’~vCd "’:’i Maicb’1991.’~ -’1"~ what (4) sighdngs of bUe’aJd (bJ lice from ’S tli . rs, 0024 ,...... . ,. , . ,.’ :O."~’ "1"" . oJ;ill’hk Ib . m ’..~ . .... number of’mili.:aircraft wen({ bOOkc(1’10: out’ iow 11"’ ~.’. .. d....: in OOrtii ~"A)’1Ag t .99"7 The", MI~"’>’" B paOD.w’cv~"’uJ: OJ .. vo.Marl::h.’1. . ’I~~’ :&iicft AetlYi:;~ .C .(ar that date er ’IOc iti :No si$btin 0(’ oQ 24 or i:r M ii J 99’( 9i received by my t A Tein was eatabUshcd’on 2S Marh,’ centred ’Danger oil Reservoir, m allow an RAP Mr., ’ .’ di~:~ :~ I of..D’~i o:ac:ro:.. ’UK. ~. ~ Ho~:; Semb and Resene . in response to a request for assistance from South Yorlc8.hire Police,to cany out a search of the area withont disturbance by orbcr military Such Danger Areas are routinely established for and Rescue hClicopeer. a1rcrat’t. Search operations. HANSAJD EXTRAC’I Col. D&ted ~ ~ i -; Sonl~ ~IDS (Sbeffield) or’Sb.i , JadtsoD~, "lad: tk ’cl itbe if an RAFINATO aitiraft ., ..’ ~ S~~. " ~? ~.!..7 ~ ..~.~:.._...._.... ...... ,~ . #. . ’., . , :. -;,. . ,,’!’:!’.: Belen . T’.o.f,cn~’c’ .for . was respoD!J e ’( booms above Sheffitld detccttd by Edii1btgh ’~ed ey’~~.;be g RAF ria~e. recoo’.:of:for .thc.eY~..ng~of .~AT9 . ....... . SO~ty’ To . . ’,. ..’ ,: 22.~^ ..; Utw? on at 21.52 !Svers) . SeismotoS}’ Unit ’;’ ,~,;,., and....t.! . (3 . . 5] 24"March 1997. ..... . . ,_... .... :’ g 24 MMch Wc’ by 1997.. . .~o ~t ’" D( ." sonic ’. ’’’’;’’ . HANU.IO EXTRACt 4/) C<3J. ~. ...l.J.............~,)...... Oa ~3q ~!-qC]~
  • - ~., . ’..-.:.~ ~ MilitaJy A.Ircntt Hdeo SWc Def~ nulitary aircraft"KstngS~tarythebarrier above ement if. Wil~ make r gu1ations co~g tnu1 Ibe Jacbon: To tho of a SOlIIld urba.n and (b)otber areas. (a) for on (3 j "an which ar Mr. SpeUar: The followiPg re~ations. e)ttl’act m Milit~ Flying Re~atiot1S. ap ly’.-to aircraft in UK .’ ",.-.’" airspace: ::;~ supersonic flying by ml1ItaI)’ .’ . In tile Urri[ed IGng om FliSh Information Re~oif (FIR); O"iet-th medium 804 hieh level 5upmonic flights are to be m 10 sca.Aircraft heading dita:dy out n lcs may acc:elcrau: (0 aloni;.~ (am)out to. lei. and sp<<4 VIICR at lc 10 nautical flight at 1east 2f1’.divergent from the mean line of the: Coast; t angle: of dive is not to excced.th~ I11lnimum ncc~5II., fJIgh[s’wlth aircraft p?inling Inwards.the: tw.turning or flying su~ . of. .m coast are take place at least 35nrnSu~~ from the ~)eI the .....1 : ~st oasUinc. :.’ ~ ~.. ~;.th~:’!’~.~ ~iI~’1. :.Q ~cl! Op~ r~tu ?,~n: ~g.au.~~:’~;.};~.,~,: ~ir ~$SioDS. pla~ s:y~nr apptopnAt~ iu.~~~.re ~ Ra~ar to [0 . .’ . " . Y wRbin UX Supenonii: flying allow level avec take pillet> provided that the above rules I!CCI followed and addition. a radIl1Msual’~uch $ inail1taincd in. order 10 avold’Qi foIlQWing’by.lhe"rnarglns indi tcd: ’. . 11,.:"0 . oil d gas insuillatiol!S;:3,. . IiDd fi"cd or (I) minimum of 6nm. Clvili"" or mnitary transport (b) . ...../" I . ( ) 6nm.: main . With d>e exceptloo’:or Defence radar.statton of all are to aotify the sta ons to .mlll1ta.itfII. ..flights adv their contrOl.. " . of’lIpetsoni flighu carried . Jf any has inadvcrie’1idy knows .or sdipc:cts that his a in. nude I &uPC:rronic..fligbt he is.to epter of In addilio,,". u the of the flight colIC nC!l to notify the approprill1e SlII on ’to. .30m (JIJies of the aircm(s . !J . h ~1JtteDC:e$. n:wrd f a . .’ " . ~ ~bJpplng ~ ’,. o~t urKb- caP.tJin ^~~~ Book. ~18J c -.1 ~ ~~~lIs ~. s~ ~ i~ ~~d~ ~. rn ’:’:./<’) ~.,sibility ra S~OD ~anding"’I1i.e.~ ~. Ihc:.!f1.isf:tt )’Ii@P,: Q.,~ "" HAN&ARD Col. EXTRAC I ~_~~1.7~ ..~~’t.~...._ . Dmd (
  • . . ~ .." .. ’" .j (,-, ~ .. S~ .:.~. MiI1tuy AIrc:raft Deleo JacboD: To the of st for . Defeace if Will make a at on the r gulations breaking cov=i:ng milituy aircraftereas. Ibct sollDd barrier above (a)urban and (b)odIer (36406) , ~~.~ Mr. SpeDar: The following reg).llations. wtch arri"an {rom Militao’ Flying Re~atiOt1S. apj1ly’.,to ~:;~ supersonic flying by mJlItaI)’ a in .UK" airspace: ",,-’’ . . e:ttr8Ct . .. In the Upited Kingdom FliShC Information Re2oif (FIR,); level supersonic ftigbts are 10 be m O’et medium an" Airctaft heading d [)y out 10 sea may tcc:elcra 10 speed VIIen a lCiU1 10 nautical miles (um)out 10. sea. and a1oai flight at 1eaJt 2(J’.diverp1t from Ih mean line the Coast; angle dive is not to exCQCd.the I1D m necasmy.. fIIghIJ with tIK 6ircnf’t ~lnIiDllnWank.thc Iud. tuming or flying the parallel to the coast arc to lake place at. least 3 Snm from ...j . .’ ~ of. ~iP su~c: or. Su~~ ~f ~;:~.. ~iI~ ~ ~t~ ~~:. ~g.~~~.~,:.,: ~ ~ ;~~’ ~ ~ ~~:s~~~.f~~~.i,I ~ ~in A~ ~ ~ ~ ~~d~ ~td ~ ~. ~ . ~,: ~st ~. ~davold’~ ~~I!’i :.. : " oastli wicbn UK at low le.vet avec fhc SlIpeIJOI{ flying take p11W~ provided that the above .nlles I!I’C followed addition, a radatMsual’seU’Cb inail1laiftcd in,order 10 . follo.Wing’by.lh . . in !:~ ’:~’ .’,.(1 ’.. lwglps indi ted: ’. oU Md ps InsUllla (a)SbJpplD& IUId rptc:d or (b)ClviliiUJ or military transport ain:t3ft: a l1imum .of 6001. "-J"’ ’. ~ I ( V Hd!copt.~ main ir DeC c ID$. iN exccptioo"oC ) Ib are to aoliCy the flights in adv 6nm.: .Ii , adthoiifier apprOpriat!ll radar.station of plancie . Radar IWlOOI t .maictaiJt’a pc:rmanciit ’;:~’l~: rried u.lhcir ~1rOl.. .... , has il1adverie7idy knows or silSpc:tts his a If my in. I1UIde I SUpersolC:.. flight he is.1O epter t Book. I"adcIilion..h iaradar starionsibili!y of of !he fliBhf: collUl1Cd 10 notify ’to ,vpeisoni "of fligh IbaI. ~lIs .30miDLItes or the aircnft’.1 ~in.g..1’rie.nii’u..lon Of laI .’ ip,c alllU . c.. :.. HAN5AID Col. EXTRACI ..~1L~~.~.....f~ .~ 0t_":d. ~:( Deh
  • .. . Thu I ! I 2 Apr, 1998 14:39 mailbox DATE TO 02/04/98 ICSlFMS)Sec , , log Page 6 SUBJECT PARLIAMENTARY QUESTION CODES - IMMEDIATE - DO NOT ERASE ( Sent: 02/04/98 To: ICS(FMS)Sec CC: Ref: 11385 Subject: PARLIAMENTARY QUESTION - ACTION Text: Attached PQ to be passed to Immediately. PQ 2547i priority: Urgent Reply Request [ ] View Acknowledge [*] Delivery Acknowledge [*] 02/04/98 SEClAS) REGISTRY 1 Attachments [ 1] Codes [ ] PARLIAMENTARY QUESTION - IMMEDIATE ( J Sent: 02/04/98 at 9:49 To: SEC(AS) REGISTRY 1 CC: Ret: 11386 Subject: PARLIAMENTARY QUESTION - IMMEDIATE ACTION - DO NOT ERASE Text: Attached PQ to be passed to the appropriate Desk Officer Immediately. PQ 2548i Priority: Urgent Reply Request [ ] ~] Acknowledg~] View Delivery Acknowledge Attachments [ 1] Codes [ ]
  • . Public Record Office. Any from the 1950s and early 1960s that survived are open for public viewing and if you (or a representative) wo ld like to look at these files they are held at the following address; The Public Record Office Ruskin Avenue Kew Richmond Surrey TW9 4DU Tel: 020 8876 3444 Fax: 020 8878 8905 Files from 1970 onwards will be opened annually as they reach their 30-year maturity point. With regard to the files that are less than 30 years old, I can inform you that the Department receives about 400 sighting reports from members ofthe public, each year and a similar number ofletters, some of which may also contain sighting reports. The information is filed the form it is received on Branch files and therefore contains the personal details of manually in all those contacting and corresponding with the Department. MOD has a duty to protect this third party confidentiality and the 30-year period is deemed appropriate for this purpose. Before access could be given to the material, staff would need to be diverted from their essential defence-related tasks to retrieve the material from archives and scrutinise and remove all ofthe personal information from many thousands of documents. The latter action would be necessary because the alternative, to contact everyone providing the information to secure their agreement to the release oftheir personal details, would be unworkable. I regret, therefore, that your request for copies of all this material is refused under Exemption 9 ofthe Code ofPractice on Access to Government Information (voluminous or vexatious requests) and Exemption 12 (Privacy of an individual). We would, of course, be happy to look to see what information might be made available if you could be more specific about the period, or reports of particular sightings that you are interested in. This would then enable us to consider whether a more focused effort on a limited amount of material might be possible. If you are unhappy with the decision to refuse your request for full access to MOD files and wish to appeal, you should write in the first instance to the Ministry ofDefence, Directorate of Information (Exploitation),Room 819B, St Giles Court, 1-13 St Giles High Street, London WC2H 8LD requesting that the decision be reviewed. If following the internal review you remain dissatisfied, you can ask a Member of Parliament to take up the case with the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration (the Ombudsman) who can investigate on your behalf. The Ombudsman will not, however, consider an investigation until the internal review process has been completed. In your letter you also mentioned the alleged incident at Rendlesham Forest. When the Ministry ofDefence was informed ofthe events which are alleged to have occurred at Rendlesham ForestlRAF Woodbridge in December 1980, all available substantiated evidence was looked at in the usual manner by those within the MOD/RAF with responsibility for air defence matters. The judgement was that there was no indication that a breach ofthe United Kingdom’s air defences had occurred on the nights in question. As there was no evidence to substantiate an event of defence concern no further.investigation into the matter was necessary. Although a number of allegations have subsequently been made about these reported events, nothing has emerged over the last 20 years which has given us reason to believe that the original assessment made by this Department was incorrect.
  • ... , i;~-,.,.""",y t t;;,.- J. 1--tQ. J I .. ao t’ fY tA f:s on tD c hi Q. e.d P<~ Q.Gt:s Ie,. rX cl, 0.:0Y ~j ,1- c:. P ~ /’~ ~;Q. f . Qbj ~ Y" R.:# F Q. Iv Or- c:c.fY:s e. Ii’" -h o (’ ~ ~ r D p J c:i.2’(’).’1 ’;$ -U .R’}F ~ ; o ; Ai c ) s- 0FF ~.- . 0. ’c ~cl t;,. V w.; ~~ ’" G. c ~e. d,A’ ~ 0. t Q,. . , y. cl Q. u.o’.sQ.,.Aj 0. (~ W C 0"1 i"’I . c. C. .’Y’1 3;..’y to, t.h pi ot:$ :5Shl’ ( S v (’:s Aie t:S 0 i s .. ~. G M C;. th V d D 0f I ,Q.~T B?O"1 ;~"" OiiU. W e Ge..p < c’ .’ <$ h d ~dJ;C .Q..:<): .,~.~. :So I ,~tv) .$.0 ~n c) 0 FYi Q. , n S Y ~ ~ -’h e. c. ~v. f’ Q. *<5 ( Cj t..~. r ?Q’t5 :Sh p (’ c- ~
  • . - Unidentified Flvine Obiects Questions to Ministrv of Defenee/DAS (See} 1. Can the MoD th~. ,. . list current posts within the Air Staff and in Operations where staff have a direct or subsid’ary responsibility for the investigation of UFO reports and/or the handling ofpublic inq iries relating to the subject. Ofthe posts identified, can a percentage of staff allocated to UFO-related duties be specified? tim~ 2. Does DAS (Sec)maintain figures/statistics relating to the number of enquiries received ITom a)the public and b)the media relating to UFO issues dealt with on a year by year basis and if so are these available? 2 - - A" j)AS 3. Can MoD specify the extent of liaison that has taken place with a)the Royal Australian Air Force and b) United States Air Force with respect to the investigation of UFO reports, ITom records that are available. 1t_-4. Ac..:t:=.( ~ec.. 4. Has the MOD ever called upon the expertise of psychologists (external or service personnel) in respect of a) individual investigation and b) analysis or advice on any aspect of UFO issues; if so is this material available for research purposes? 3 _ ]As _ 4.6"’1 As" I’ HQ Fighter Command Air Staff Instruction F/l dating ITom 1960, Public Record Office (DEFE31/118), instructs Operations staff that UFO reports sources and radar stations should be reported to Air Intelligence 5breceived ITom service (circa Ministry DDI (Tech).Reports received ITom the public should be directed 1959-64)at Air to department S6 (the forerunner ofAS (Sec)2a. Could the MOD confirm that the reporting division between Air Intelligence (asthe destination for service and radar for reports received ITom the general public, continues to exist reports) and DAS(Sec) today. 5. Can the MoD outline the precise role ofRAF Rudloe Manor, collection and investigation of UFO reports ITom service sourcesWiltshire, in reporting" prior to 6. 5..)(Jr I D(~c .. ,As 1992. 7. Does the MOD maintain a paper or electronic record ofradar radar tracks recorded within the UK Air Defence Region that tracks or reports of have remained unidentified following investigation? Ifthat is the case, for how long are what is their security classification and after what period of time will records be available at the PRO? recordspr-eserved, ~ _’ 8. In 1996 in the House of Commons, Defence Minister Nicholas Soames stated that RAF aircraft were scrambled on two occasions "in the past five years" to intercept unidentified targets detected UK Air Defence by Radar. Could MOD specify: a) details of incidents recorded between 1990-2000 when aircraft were scrambled to intercept targets that have remained ’unidentified’ following MoD investigation. 1 _ ’ :pAt) Ac
  • <;" ’ DEPARTMENT f, ’- OF HEADQUARTERS 81$T AIR FORCE COM AT SUPPURT CIWUp APO NEW (USAFE) VOR;; 09755 ~Pl An~ Tci"’~CD ’-- ’f THE i.’.!. ~ECT: UnexP1 a 1 ned L 1 ghts TO: .. _ _ __ _ _ _ _._ _.._ -- -. ---.. -- - ’13 - -: -~ RA F / C C 1. /tJ~~~~#;~"’~’:~ :.?. .;’"~. ( lli:’~: ~ (<~’~i’~,,.....~.~ ~; ,: ,~"" >~ h-)"..... OF: ~’--’-- --- -. Jan’87 ""~~~~:~~1%j~-- ~- -=- ::i le:J --. -, , - ’ f ~rest ~s ~e n..r Cf~S ~ ~~ed ~ f/jjJ4aL 1. Th~ ’ It CoJ, USAF Deputy Base Conmander . ,.’ tr.e ~’tIPticaJ to’the-.north , .’ - ~" =- I . m.o t~ t~ ~ters O. .’.i;. . . ~’"t". ",.s.,’~ .-- Early in the secUrity Police morning of 27 RAF ~JOOdbridge. Patrolmen Sa" Dec 80 (approximateJy dO"n, they Thinking an tinusual lights outside D3DDl), t"o USAF calJed for ai"craft the back The on-duty fJ i ght ch i epermission to gomight have cra>lted or gate at ceed On f resPonded Outside been forced The individuals in and a lJ o"ed the gate to . and triangular The object "as reported Seeing th,’ee patro! inl’esUgate. to pi.oa strange in shape, described base and being metalic glo"ing object app~ximatelY asto approximateJy "ith a ,"hi in appearance a bank(s) te 1 ight, The high. It three meti.s across As the Pa t of bJue lights object itseJ f had a ilJumlnated the entire the ro1 men unde~eath. The PuJSing red light and disappeared. a Pproa ched 01) top the and At this time obj ee t, it object fren~, maneuve "edhovering or on legs. the animaJs object "as the back th ro ugh the on a nearby briefly sighted gate. farm "ent trees approxinBtely In into 2. The next hour Jater a day, th ree found "here depress the nigh t (2 Dec obj ect had been ions J J /2" deep g and 7" sigh te 80) the of D. I mi lJ i roen tgen s a rea "as chec ked d On the gro un d. In di amete,’ we,’e press ions The fo)J ",vi for rad A nearby and near the "ere reco rded >Ii th pea k i a t Ion. Beta/gamma n g center of the tree had rea toward the moderate (.05-.07) trlangJe rea din gs In the th ree di figs dedepressions. the readings on the 3. later in side of depressions. the the It moved about night a red sun-like light partic 1 es and and PuJsed. At "as seen through one then broke appeared. Immed the into fl ve point it appeared to i ate Iy in the Sky; thro" offtrees. therea f ter, sepa ra te "h i te objects t"o "ere about 100 objects to the th"ee s ta r-)I and then glowing aven nts and Off the horizon. north and One to ke objects "ere’no d i st iced the south, The objects disPlaYed red, north appeared. moved rapidly al) of "hieh green and to be tUrned in sharp an hou r tor fu)) circ)es. throug~4Jue-lights. The objects to angular an 8-12 PO"er 0 The Object" the hours and more. The objiitt ’to lens. beamed do’m a then the south Wa rema Ined in duals, inclUding 2 and 3. the und stream 0 f J i ght from s vis i b 1 e for t"o 0the Sky. fOlr three rsigned, ’i time tnessed the to time. Nume rous i nd i v iaetiVitles in paragraphs foot. thel’ .1.~~.’!.."’- ". ’_, ;..-:--
  • ’e . r~~;’ /4V7.e~ t;IML2; il6...t atWtb5.d1iHace-s ’.m~mdCaL1a/<<:m . ~/iL$/%~~~~~1 ~&, CMc/f~~,’! L~S/l ";J,~ ffl~_>~UJdleGhCt/lfL:/. InCi~!iCi&5fi.6,(gt’iC ;"i Q1/Z’%01<1!76/,F!’/4 h;;;,:M. "’i *~,~.,~,"1]5 /lfC)(J. r> ’ ’" .... ... / ~ t1le...d"y.~~ 0~O? J-h.e....mttmQc~~ a/2;/;~~.......&62j/ez;zXJ9’ /~#e/": /?e/7 .C 0/ bCJI?7....... J~~, ~~~J:i~ ’ .iiZtS!4C~j.f5l::S;i!.,. OU/"’.. 92~/??’<26>. ;-h,~ pre.s/- . a3i~igh (/)(J~i,4dC)4;)-:5) a~ m6e,r /9~CJ.? en. rJDc/,.~~//y./.:/ ’c/uoU~’~ ’ G> ;;"j.6.:e;,I:C)/~’t.A.(hr<td~q., I-f:o uCf: 61k/bo.ce! Rf~ 5eCtL/’/,*~.~. 5 /yl:2ht’129:5_,aac;*d: o rl1/’ 1h{ " ?!7e’&’/k;Clr , S I fi’7/;/x"cU7/ Cf2 I’
  • .,.,.. ."’) ~. ;PQ ?06?C @J SIR PATRICK WALL (CONSERVATIVE) (BEVERLEY), Sir Patrick Wall - To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, if he has seen the United States Air Force memo dated 13 January 1981 concerning unexpl lights near RAF Woodbridge. .. SUGGESTED ANSWER (Mr Stanley) Yes. " ’.~ ined
  • .’; , " ’. . Back~round Note These three guestiomfollow from the News of the World .. . article of 2 October 1983 (Annex A) describing an alleged UFO sighting by USAF personnel at RAF Woodbridge in Suffolk ’on 27 December 1980. ’. The report of 13 January 1981 (Annex B) examined by Air Staff and DS 8. It was concluded that.there was nothing of defence interest in the alleged th~ sight~g. There was, of course, no question of any contact with "alien b ings" nor was any unidentified object seen on any radar recordings, as alleged in the News of the World. A BBC investigation into the incident " followi~g publication of the News or the World Article concluded that a possible explanation for the lights seen by the USAF personnel was the pUlsating light of the Orfordness lighthouse some 6 7 miles _ away. ’.. The sole interest of the MOD in O reports is to establish whether they reveal anything of defence interest (eg intruding aircraft). MOD investigations are not pursued beyond the point at which we are satisfied that a report has no-defence implications. No attempts are made to identify ad catalogue the likely explanation for individual reports. Last year, Lord Long, during a debate initiated by the Earl Clancarty, said that he would look into the possibility of PUblishing such reports as are received by the Ministry of
  • ~ .’ cI. ~ "’) Defence. US 6f S(AF) has now decided to-releasecompilat1ons of reports." They will be published on a quarterly :t>asis and will be. available to members of. the PUbli,c,..at a ,small charge. to cover costs.’ US of S(AF) had planneci, to’make an announc’ement shortly in the! House ot Lords through an ’arranged PQ. Pending arrangementsf r an announcement in the Lords, US of S(AF) has agreed that we should indicate the decision in the Commons. -"~ .., ... .
  • 547 . I Written AllSwers 1 APRIL 1998 unresolved issues of factual accuracy raised by the Prison Service. The protocol has the full agreement of the Directol’ General of the Prison Service and the Chief Inspector. World Cup Mr. Maude: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what information the French authorities have provided to him about the proportion of tickets which will be checked against identification at the [37166] turnstile during the forthcoming World Cup. Mr. Michael [holding allswer31 Marcil 1998J: We are assured by the French authorities that supporters attending matches during France ’98 will be subject to a range of security checks by police authorities and stewards before entering stadia to ensure that they hold valid tickets, and to further checking following entry to the ground. This will include stewards conducting checks on the validity of tickets prior to entry to the ground and again before All ticket holders will the person takes up his or her be subject to a search outside the stadium by the police or gendarmerie, providing a fUl1her opportunity to check on the validity of tickets. seat. The French authorities have not stated that any specific proportion of tickets will be checked against identification; That is an operational matter for the French authorities. They have indicated that checks against identity will be carried out in any circumstances which give rise to suspicion. Verification checks will also be cani~d out rin a random basis. There is strict ticketing legislation in place in France and the authorities have undeI1aken to apply this rigorously. Firearms Mr. Robathan: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many claims have been made for increased compensation payments to former owners of handguns handed in under the Fiream1s (Amendment)Act 1997: and how many (a)have been settled and (b) are [37294] outstanding. Mr. Michael: The levels of cOI1’pensation under Options A and B of the compensation scheme and the evidence required in support of claims under Option Care prescribed in the scheme booklet approved by Parliament. There is no provision for making increased payments outside the terms of the scheme, and so the question of claims for such payments does notarise. DEFENCE Military Aircraft Helen Jackson: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the regulations covering military aircraft breaking the sound barrier above I 364 6] (a)urban and (b)other areas. 271.} CWI.:’d-PAGI1I7 Written Answers 548 Mr. SpeHar: The following regulations, which are an extract from Military Flying Regulations. apply to supersonic flying by military aircraft in UK airspace: In the United Kingdom Flight Information Region (FIR). an medium and high lev;1 superso~ic nights are to be-made over the sea. Aircraft heading directly out to sea may accelerate to supersonic speed when at least 10 nautical miles (nm)out to sea and along a flight of at least 20" divergent from the mean line of the coast; the the minimum necessary. Supersonic angle of dive is not to !lights with the aircraft pointing lOwards the land. tuming or Oying parane) to the coast are to take place at least 35nm from the nearest coastline. Supersonic flying at low level over the sea within UK FIR may in take place pro.ided that the above rules are followed and addition, a radar/visual search is maintained in order to avoid the following by the margins indicated: (a)Shipping and t xed or mobile oil and gas installations: 3nm. (b)Civilian or military transport aircraft: a minimum of 6nl11. ex~eed that. (c)Helicopter main routes and corridors: 6nl11. With the exception of Air Defence missions, operating authorities are to notify the appropriate radar station of all planned supersonic flights in advance. Radar stationsare to maimain a permanent record of supersonic lights canied out under their comrol. If any captain knowsor sllspects that his aircraft has inadvertemly made a supersonic light he is to enter details in the Flight Authorisation Book. In addition, it is the responsibility of the station concerned to notify the appropriate radar station of the flight within 30 minutes of the aircraft.s landing. The radar station is to maintain a special record of all such oc urrences. Defence Evaluation and Research Agency Sir Teddy Taylor: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will contact the customers using the facilities at the firing ranges operated by DER before coming to a decision on the transfer of work from [363891 Shoeburyness to Eskmeals. Mr. SpeHar [holding answer 26 March 1998J: As part of the DERA land ranges rationalisation study, customers were and continue to be consulted about their future requirements for test and evaluation capabilities, the likely volume of the work, and the funding available for this work over the next five years. Once the current consultation phase has finished, all contributions will be considered openly and fairly before a decision is made on how best to meet the needs of the DepaJ1ment in the most cost effective way. Sir Teddy Taylor: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what estimate he has made of the future reductions in spending which will arise at DERA in Shoeburyness in consequence of the management 136386] reorganisations. Mr. SpeHar [holding answer 26 March 1998J: The land ranges rationalisationstudy recommends changes that, in a full financial year, will produce savings in operating costs at Shoeburyness of some f8.9 mHlion per year. Sir Teddy Taylor: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the expenditrireinvolved in operating ’ the DERA range facility at Shoeburyness in the most recent year for which figures are available; and what savings in annual administrative costs have accrued from management reforms in respect of the facility and from the changes introduced in consequence of the first lJ stage of the reorganisation of the ranges. 3~7] !i l
  • ee MINISTRY OF DEFENCE WEDNESDAY 25 MARCH 1998 MRS HELEN JACKSON (LABOUR)(SHEFFIELD, HILLSBOROUGH) 23 To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, if he will make a statement on the regulations covering military aircraft breaking the sound barrier above (a) urban and (b) other areas. [36406] MR SPELLAR The following regulations, which are an extract from Military Flying Regulations, apply to supersonic flying by military aircraft in UK airspace: In the United Kingdom Flight Information Region (FIR), all medium and high level supersonic flights are to be made over the sea. Aircraft heading directly out to sea may accelerate to supersonic speed when at least 10 nautical miles (nm) out to sea and along a flight of at least 200 divergent from the mean line of the coast; the angle of dive is not to exceed the minimum necessary. Supersonic flights with the aircraft pointing towards the land, turning or flying parallel to the coast are to take place at least 35nm from the nearest coastline. Supersonic flying at low level over the sea within UK FIR may take place provided that the above rules are followed and that, in addition, a radar/visual search is maintained in order to avoid the following by the margins indicated:
  • ee (a) Shipping and fixed or mobile oil and gas installations: 3nm. (b) Civilian or military transport aircraft: a minimum of 6nm. (c) Helicopter main routes and corridors: 6nm. with the exception of Air Defence missions, operating authorities are to notify the appropriate radar station of all planned supersonic flights in advance. Radar stations are to maintain a permanent record of supersonic flights carried out under their control. If any captain knows or suspects that his aircraft has inadvertently made a supersonic flight he is to enter details in the Flight Authorization Book. In addition, it is the responsibility of the station concerned to notify the appropriate radar station of the flight within 30 minutes of the aircraft’s landing. The radar station is to maintain a special record of all such occurrences. Wednesday 1 April 1998 24361
  • e e (a) Shipping and fixed or mobile oil and gas installations: 3nm. (b) Civilian or military transport aircraft: a minimum of 6nm. (c) Helicopter main routes and corridors: 6nm. ~A ~with the exception of Air Defence ) missions, operating authorities are to notify the appropriate radar station of all planned supersonic flights in advance. Radar stations are to a permanent record of supersonic flights carried out under their 1> maint~ controJ.:..-;c’ )(If any captain knows or suspects that his aircraft has inadvertently made a supersonic flight~ he is to enter it is details~ in the Flight Authorization Book. In the responsibility of the station, concerned to notify the appropriate~radar Jstationl of the flight within 30, minutes of the aircraft’s landing. The radar station is to maintain a special record of all such occurinces.x addit~on, " March 1998 24361
  • , BACKGROUND NOTE: In addition to this question, Mrs Jackson has tabled a further four questions (PO 2434i, 2440i, 2444i, 2446i) relating to an incident which took place over the Peak District on 24 March 1997. Her interest in the event may have been generated by a number of recent enquiries from journalists. Helen Jones MP has also asked a related PO 2448i. The incident in question remains unresolved, at around 2200hrs on 24 March 1997 a number of witnesses reported hearing a plane in trouble followed by a crash. One claims he saw a red glow in the sky. police and RAF Search and Rescue helicopters were scrambled and conducted a thorough search of the area but found no signs of a crash. Records for both civil and military aircraft showed that no aircraft were reported missing for that day. Since the event a number of theories have emerged, including one that the ’crash’ heard by the witnesses may have been a sonic boom generated by an aircraft. Individual squadrons record any inadvertent and unauthorised events but these logs are only held for six months. Copy to: PSO/ACAS AS.DD2 DPO(RAF) RAF Kinloss - PRO Scotland Ops Support 1 HQ MATO Sec(AS)2a -
  • , *********************************************** PARLIAMENTARY QUESTION - URGENT ACTION REQUIRED *********************************************** DATE FOR RETURN 12:00 ON THURSDAY 26 MARCH 1998 PQ 2436i PQ REFERENCE PQ TYPE SUPPLEMENTARIES REQUIRED? written No MINISTER REPLYING PARLIAMENTARY UNDER SECRETARY USofS OF STATE LEAD BRANCH: COpy ADDRESSEE(S) SEC(AS) - The answer and background note must be authorised by a civil servant at Senior Civil Service level or a military officer at one-star level or above who is responsible for ensuring that the information and advice provided is accurate and reflects Departmental Instructions on answering PQs DCI GEN 150/91. Those contributing information for PQ answers and background notes are responsible for ensuring the information is accurate. The attached checklist should be used by those drafting PQ answers and background material, those contributing the information and those responsible for authorisingthat answer and background note as an aid to ensuring departmental policy is adhered to. are I f you or others concerned are uncert.ain about how PQs in or answered seek advice from a senior civil servant closely associated with your area. MP’s DETAIL: MaS HELEN JACKSON (LABOUR)(SHEFFIELD, HILLSBOROUGH) QUESTION make 141TO ask the Secretary of State for Defence, if he will covering military aircraft a statement on the regulations breaking the sound barrier above (a) urban and (b) other areas. [36406] REMEMBER you are accountable for the accuracy and timeliness of the advice you provide. Departmental Instructions on viewed answering PQs are set out in DCI GEN 150/91 and can be on the CHOTS public area and on DAWN.
  • .’ , (a) Shipping and fixed or mobile oil and gas installations: 3nm. (b) Civilian or military transport aircraft: a minimum of 6nm. (c) Helicopter main routes and corridors: 6nm. ’With the exception of Air Defence (AD) missions, operating authorities are to notify the appropriate radar station of all planned sUpersonic flights in advance. Radar stations are to maintian a permanent record of supersonic flights carried out under their control...’ ’If any captain knows or suspects that his aircraft has inadvertently made a supersonic flight... he is to enter details... in the Flight Authorization Book. In addition, it is the responsibility of the station concerned to notify the appropriate... radar [station] of the flight within 30 minutes of the aircraft’s landing. The radar station is to maintain a special record of all such occurances.’ March 1998 24361
  • . , BACKGROUND NOTE: In addition to this question, Mrs Jackson has tabled a further four questions (PQ 2434i, 2440i, 2444i, 2446i) relating to an incident which took place over the Peak District on 24 March 1997. Her interest in the event may have been generated by a number of recent enquiries from journalists. Helen Jones MP has also askep a related PQ 2448i. The incident in question remains unresolved, at around 2200hrs on 24 March 1997 a number of witnesses reported hearing a, plane in trouble followed by a crash. One claims he saw a red glow in the sky. Police and RAF Search and Rescue helicopters were scrambled and conducted a thorough search of the area but found no signs of a crash. Records for both civil and military aircraft showed that no aircraft were reported missing for that day. Since the event a number of theories have emerged, including one that the ’crash’ heard by the witnesses may have been a sonic boom generated by an aircraft. Individual squadrons record any inadvertent and unauthorised events but these logs are only held for six months. Copy to: PSO/ACAS AS.DD2 DPO(RAF) RAFKinloss PRO Scotland HQMATO Ops Support 1 Sec(AS)2a - -
  • .., . . .’ .’ " Tue 24 Mar, 1998 12:50 . mailbox log Page 11 ,,’ ’,DATE ’ TO 24/03/98 SEC(AS) REGISTRY 1 SUBJECT PARLIAMENTARY QUESTION CODES’ - IMMEDIATE - DO NOT ERASE ( Sent: 24i03/98 at 10:52 To: SEC(AS) REGISTRY 1 CC: Ref: 11218 Subject: PARLIAMENTARY QUESTION - IMMEDIATE ACTION Text: Attached PQ to be passed to the appropriate Desk Officer Immediately. PQ 2436i Priority: Urgent Reply Request [ ] ~] view Acknowledge~] Delivery Acknowledge 24/03/98PA/SEC(O) PARLIAMENTARY QUESTION Attachments [ 1] Codes [ ] - IMMEDIATE ( , Sent: 24/03/98 at 10:55 To: PA/SEC(O) CC: PJHQ-CIVSEC-PS Ref: 11219 Subject: PARLIAMENTARY QUESTION Text: Attached PQ to be . Immediately.(243 priority: Urgent Reply Request [ ] - DO NOT ERASE to the appropriate Desk Officer view Acknowledge [*] Delivery Acknowledge [*] Attachments [ 1] Codes [ ]
  • ’D Page 3 of3 Main Building itehall ndon SWIA 2HB What kind ofemailer are you? Find out today - get a free analysis ofyour email personality. Take the quiz at the YaboQ!MailChampioI1ship. 20/02/2007
  • [~I RBPORT OF AN.UNIDENTIFIED FLYING OBJECT e A. Date, Time & : Duration of Sighting I ThIlP~, 25 B. Description f Object (No of objects, size, shape, colour, brightness) k t D. E. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I F. G H. I. J. ~ wt-:It tf,;u. ,IJw f~ I Exact Positionf Observer Location, indoo /outdoor, stationary/movi g Prfof,) , Direction in which Object first seen (A landmark may be more useful than a badly estimated bearing) of. Sight. (Estimated heights are unreliable) J//(l I I I I I I I I I I 1 I tit /IJ/k J oop- 2 Distance (By reference to a known landmark) Movements (Changes in E, F & G may be of more use than estimates of course and speed) ~ (~rd4 Nutd. HoVl Observedi(N ked eye, binoculars, other optical device, still or movie) Angle , IJ. /, M(lt eo It 1 1 I 1 tv/A I1NVJ I ~ J.A1/~ Met Conditions during Observations (Moving clouds, haze, mist etc) tWf 1 cI~ Nearby Objects (Telephone lines, high Voltage lides, reservoir, lake or dam, swamp oJ marsh, river, high buildings, tall chimneys, steeples, spires, TV or radio masts, airfields, generating plant, factories, pits or other sites with floodlights or night lighting) w6 I I I -I IJ/k ~ - I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
  • EZI eEPORT OF AN UNIDENTIFIED FLYING OBJECT A. Date, Time & Duration of sighting ANNEX A TO SOP 502 23 Mar 93 Description of Object 9f 98j~S.~s, ~ize, sbap~colour, brightness) (t-.Jo C. Round and large with lights around the edge. Hovering Lopation,.in 9()r/outdoor’, stationary, moving B. Outdoors serv~d.~naked e e, HOIJVO binoculars, other optical device, still or movie) Naked eye Dir~cti9rlir whi h objectr first seen (a landmark may be mor useful than a badly e~timated bearing) T right of house F. Angle of sight (Estimated heights are unreliable) Almost overhead G. Distance (By reference to a known landmark) Not possible H. Movements (Changes in E,F & H may be of nlwewse than estimates of course and speed) Moved off and appeared to descend J Met Conditions <;luring observations (Moving clouds, haze, mist etc) 19302 Drizzle K. Nearb Objects (Telephone lines, high voltage lines, reservoir, lake or dam, swamp or marsh, river, high buildings, tall chimneys, steeples, spires, TV or radio masts, airfields, generating plant, factories, pits or other sites with floodlights or night lighting) Clear view L. To whom reported (Police, military, press etc) AF Ops D. . E. -
  • [Zo J REPORT OF AN UNIDENTIFIED FLUNG OBJECT e A. . B. Date, Time & Duratiol1 f Sighting Description of Object (No of objects, size, shape, colour, brigh tne:ss) C. Exact Position olf Observer Location, indoor/outdoor, stationary/moving D. How Observed (Naked eye, bil1 culats, othelr optical device, still or[ mov:ie) E. Direction in which Object first seen (A landmark may be more useful than a badly estimated bearing) I I I I I I F. Angle of Sight (Estimated heights are unreliable) I I I I G Distance (By reference to a known landmark) I I I I H. Movements (Changes in E, F & G may be of more use than I estimates of course and speed) I I I Met Conditions d ring Observations I (Moving clouds, haze, mist etc) I I I I J. Nearby Objects (Telephone lines, high Voltage lines, reservoir, lake I or dam, swamp or marsh, river, high I buildings, tall chimneys, steeples, I spires, TV or radio masts, I airfields, generating plant, I factories, pits or other sites with I floodlights or night lighting) I I I- tu.o zr< MI.{t( aft"K I 7 fVVt h,.fi )M(b(~lw(J Aj<<l; wkd. .dff~ ~ 4ft (J.J,.’k. .~. I~ Rh"’r~ /hL {Jf,f f<1fY(. ("rr }JJJ (1l I IM5( f/.ev. J.’rtItkf ~. ,. f~ I I I I I. 50/ NE tv/^ ~ tvlk ,v(ft- III Af~J I, LM"’~ f"tSt, tJ $rN1l- 5 /vlk ~11A1L5 ( ~: I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I -i I I ~ I I I I I I I I I I I I I
  • Fll’ Air Traffic Control Report of Unidentified Flyil!g Object . .,) e. ~~ ~-s.,^: f -6eo~ fa(""~ ,~,.-. ~ 2. n.co..)t’"’$ Exactposition ofobserver. ~ How observed. .’"c Q-t c. .~. 0...""oS .tg~fa~ Direction in which object was first seen. So~ Angular elevation of object. N(A NfA ~ c. I- H Movements of object. J Meteorological conditions during observations. K ~ No",... c~ ~"."’o: ,.~ OC’, Nearby objects. N/A continued over (f[r (I
  • f~1 ~ .t .1 ( .PORT 1 I A. I I I B. C. D. E. OF AN UNIDENTIFIED FLnNG OBJECT Date, Time & Duration of Sighting Description of Object (No of objects, size, shape, colour, brightness) Exact Position of Observer Location, indoor/outdoor, stationary/moving Th~, z S t MA;1t tJ{ k Pr ’1 Direction in which Object first seen (A landmark may be more useful than a badly estimated bearing) Angle of Sight (Estimated heights are unreliable) G Movements (Changes in E, F & G may be of more use than estimates of course and speed) I. Met Conditions during Observations (Moving clouds, haze, mist etc) IJw ’t JIIt[ t1l - fN/~l- 10" l,UI HMA1 J /1& >1~ j,J, tiM1.$ clMl) J. - Nearby Objects (Telephone lines, lines, reservoir, lake or dam, swamp or marsh, river, high buildings, tall chimneys, steeples, spires, TV or radio masts, airfields, generating plant, factories, pits or other sites with floodlights or night lighting) ~ J/k Distance (By reference to a known landmark) H. 11. ff ~ CL-rJA I NJt.J How Observed (Naked eye, binoculars, other optical device, still or movie) F. MfftLl, high Voltage IJ/k I I I I I I I I - II I I I I I I I I I I I I
  • Ell [, r,(t.~ l I -REPORT A. . ANNEX A TO SOP 502 OF AN UNIDENTIFIED FLYING OBJECT Date, Time & Duration of sighting Description of Object (Noof objects, size, shape colour, brightness) C. Round and large with lights around the edge. Hovering Location, indoor/outdoor, B. 23 Mar 93 Outdoors stationary, moving How Observed (naked eye. binoculars, other optical device, still or movie) Naked eye Direction in which object first seen (a landmark may be more useful than a badly estimated bearing) To right of house F. Angle of sight (Estimated heights are unreliable) Almost overhead G. Distance (By reference to a Not possible H. Movements (Changes in E,F & H may be of more use than estimates of course and speed) Moved off and appeared to descend J Met Conditions during observations (Moving clouds, haze, mist etc) D. . E. known landmark) K. . L. 19302 Drizzle Nearby Objects (Telephone lines. high voltage lines, reservoir, lake or dam. swamp or marsh, river. high buildings, tall chimneys, spires, TV or radio masts, airfields:generating plant, factories, pits or other sites with floodlights or night lighting) Clear view To whom reported (Police, AF Ops slee’pl~s, military, press etc)
  • --- , -.. ---- [20 J t- ~PORT A. OF AN UNIDENTIFIED FLfiNG OBJECT Date, Time & Duration of Sighting B. Description of Object (No of objects, size, shape, colour, brightness) 11<<) 2~1( Mu,~ ~~ IIII>’( Exact Position of Observer Location, indoor/outdoor, stationary/moving D. How Observed (Naked eye, binoculars, other optical device, still or movie) }JJJ l7( Direction in which Object first seen (A landmark may be more useful than a badly estimated bearing) Htut~ f""" H. I I Distance (By reference to a known landmark) Movements (Changes in E, F & G may be of more use than estimates of course and speed) ~ 1. I L I J. I I I I I I I I I. $w N/A /-, ~ ~5/,wM~ fJlk AfptMJ. W~ J f~l, kJ Met Conditions during Observations (Moving clouds, haze, mist etc) Nearby Objects (Telephone lines, high Voltage lines, reservoir, lake or dam, swamp or marsh, river, high buildings, tall chimneys, steeples, spires, TV or radio masts, airfields, generating plant, factories, pits or other sites with floodlights or night lighting) J..,.,ckr Nf Angle of Sight (Estimated heights are unreliable) G w~ ~ K,. .rJ, lA’tsC I I ("H OJs:k F. "If"/( 7 ’(IJf ~,:f1 f-.cq", ~N,ftl~lcfd.>td lJu Ihl C. E. I AJIJc ~,c,tJl~ tit
  • ~ r~I’:~ e,.LONDON I" ,~.,...-:;.’>’. . " . f/1 "}" Air Traffic Control (ft! LUTON AIRPORT "ill A :j ~l~ Report of Unidentified Flyi,!g Object ’ ’,I 1 H jt:.d !d’ ’:! ; (/ 8 Date, time and iI " ofsighting. 2,!02/C3 ;2.000 --e fo..,~~~~ ,~~~ -6. .fo ...,. C f’ f; I, f. l’ rr, Exactposition ofobserver. D How observed. ’ " C""~ ’Q,"" ., ~1. r,I;~, 2. -’.0~f"’$ Description of Object{s) I) I, duri./on c.w.. s "5. . .-4- c~:.4&~~ 0 ,;1 ., I; E Direction In which object was first seen. ,,’ F Angular elevation ofobject. I; f: ~" t ’. " W: N(A G DIstance ofobject from observer. ;,1 r 1’ "I NfA H fi, n’ Ii i .,1: I’ J Iii ;,1 :;’ ,,1 " ’" ~~:r :tc~.-:,i!,:! J ~ Movements of object. No",... - "!.:as-"cM ~"a’-:,. ~ ’-1-000’ Meteorological conditions during observations. K Nearby objects. -I", ,:j H NfA ,i " continued oyer " . : :’4 ’;,j ,’ -. ;,j ’,~ . . -. --..__A