The Coyne helicopter incident explained

I was recently challenged to explain the 1973 Coyne helicopter incident, which has been widely regarded as one of the best UFO cases out there. While I had read about it years ago, I didn't really remember the details, which I believe worked to my advantage, as I didn't have too much preconceived notions on what it was and what it did.

I began by finding the original reports and witness interviews, which in that case were relatively abundant and detailed, and basically just tried to read what the witnesses were describing, without giving too much weight on estimated speeds, sizes and so on, that tend to be quite unreliable.

It didn't take too long to realize that most of the time the witnesses were describing a plane. It wasn't even necessary to read that between the lines, the witnesses themselves described how the light moved like a plane, how they tried to check from the air traffic control if there were other planes in the area, and so on. But then they rejected such explanations as some aspects didn't seem to fit, such as it coming so close to the helicopter and having unconventional setup for lights.

I began wondering if there is a plane that would be a fit for those as well, and the answer turned out to be a definite yes for just one type: an aerial refueling tanker. That's what they do, they come close to other aircraft, for a good reason, and also use unusual configurations for lights, for good reasons as well, including turning off anti-collision lights that can cause distraction from close distance and with night vision equipment.

I wasn't too familiar how refueling tankers worked, but searching for such information turned out to be a really enjoyable experience of having a theory be confirmed to an extent I hadn't really expected. I basically found the instructions manual on how and why a tanker does the exact things that the UFO did. Some of those are not too easy to see from the original documents, as one needs to get past the unreliable estimates on speeds, distances and directions first to find out what actually needs to be explained, but after that, it was pretty much a perfect match. Everything seems to indicate that plane followed standard protocols on how it turned, adjusted its speed and altitude and so on.

I wrote a lengthy blog post that details my findings here:

The 1973 Coyne/Mansfield helicopter UFO incident finally explained

There's a short summary in the beginning that shows the story as it's usually told side by side with the explanation. There's also a map that shows the best guess flight path of that UFO/plane.

I'm confident that finally explains what they actually saw, even though I'm still missing the ultimate confirmation of such plane having been there, or if there happened to be a refueling track there at the time (there seems to be one close to the correct place now). As for why it apparently tried to refuel a helicopter that wasn't expecting or be equipped for it, I believe it was most likely an honest mistake, and I have provided some potential reasons for it in that post, as well as another case of a somewhat similar mistake. I'm also missing some detailed info that could determine with more confidence the model of that plane and whether the lifting effect on that helicopter could have been caused by the vortexes generated by that plane alone, or if it is still necessary for Coyne to have accidentally touched his controls. I would really appreciate if others here can help on those.

The stall speed of a C-130 is about 100 kts. The encounter took place about 2500 ft above ground level (AGL). No pilot in his/her right mind would attempt to fly a large multi engine aircraft at the stall speed, at night, at an altitude so low as to prevent any possible recovery from a stall, and in formation with another aircraft without the consent of the other aircraft’s pilot.

That would violate multiple Aviation Regulations and standard operating procedures.

Other than that, it makes perfect sense.
a reply to: Nickless

a reply to: 1947boomer

They need to do that close to stall speed, as that is close to the max speed of many helicopters. There are even procedures that instruct the helicopter to begin descending just before the refueling is about to begin as otherwise it isn't necessarily able to go fast enough for the plane.

The refueling speed envelope for the HC/MC-130 is documented here on page 35:

Air-to-Air Refuelling Flight Plan

It's 105-120 KIAS with a low speed drogue, so yes, close to the stall speed.

I haven't read your blog, but does it take into account the fact that the object was reported to have approached relatively rapidly and come to a stop and hovered above the helicopter for several seconds, filling the wind screen?

Also I seem to recall Coyne not only touched his controls during this time, but had them in a position such that the helicopter should have been descending?

And if it were a plane, and it were flew close enough to appear as large to the crew as it reportedly did, and allow them to see the object in as much detail as they said, wouldn't they have heard some kind of engine noise?

I should also add that it is physically unrealistic to expect that the wake turbulence experienced by a small aircraft following close behind a larger aircraft would cause the small aircraft to experience systematic aerodynamic lift (resulting in an unexpected climb). This has been studied and—due to basic physics of fluid dynamics—the net effect would be an overturning roll moment on the trailing aircraft.
a reply to: Nickless

a reply to: Nickless


You should maybe look further into altitudes that refuelling is done at. ATS has some great aviation experts who could help you out as 1947boomer is correct, but I'm no expert.

a reply to: BiffWellington

Yes, I have addressed all those there.

I don't want to repeat all those details here, but as a general note, it's worth to remember there were multiple witness viewpoints on those events, and not all of them agree on some of the details you also mentioned, which is already a good hint that not all of them are exactly reliable. The ground witnesses for example didn't describe the object having approached as fast as most of the crew seemed to think and one of the crew members didn't see the object at all, even though he was sitting on the front seat. It's also pretty obvious that the accounts of hovering in place do not accurately reflect reality, as one can't hover in place on top of a helicopter that is moving at 100 knots. That's a pretty good hint that the object didn't actually stop at any point, but the witnesses just viewed the events in terms of how it moved relative to the helicopter.

originally posted by: Kurokage
You should maybe look further into altitudes that refuelling is done at. ATS has some great aviation experts who could help you out as 1947boomer is correct, but I'm no expert.

I have done that, and it's also mentioned in that blog post and documented on the same page of that document I quoted above.

The refueling altitude envelope for the HC/MC-130 is 1000 feet to maximum service ceiling. So no problem there.

originally posted by: 1947boomer
I should also add that it is physically unrealistic to expect that the wake turbulence experienced by a small aircraft following close behind a larger aircraft would cause the small aircraft to experience systematic aerodynamic lift (resulting in an unexpected climb). This has been studied and—due to basic physics of fluid dynamics—the net effect would be an overturning roll moment on the trailing aircraft.

I'm not an expert on those, but I have addressed some of it in that post.

Here's a quote of some early tests:

Air Force flight test engineers with Aeronautical Systems Division (ASD) at Wright Patterson AFB hypothesized that helicopters could actually ride on top of the wingtip vortices trailing behind a C-130 Hercules transport. They believed the helicopter would be able to reduce power and extend its range by “drafting” behind the Hercules. A feasibility test at Wright-Patterson in 1965 demonstrated good compatibility between a CH-3 and C-130. Follow-up trials at the Air Force Flight Test Center at Eglin AFB, FL quantified the CH-3 power reduction to be 28 percent, resulting in a 25 percent increase in range.

That to me indicates such lifting effect would be plausible.

Another thing to think about is why a C-130 capable of air to air refueling would make a close approach to a random helicopter in any case. The H model Huey that Coyne was flying was not, of course, equipped for A-to-A refueling, so when he took off he would not have had any expectation of or plan for a rendezvous with another aircraft. Conversely, a refueling aircraft does not take off for the purposes of refueling another aircraft without a detailed flight plan that includes such information as where and when to rendezvous, call signs and radio frequencies, how much and what kind of fuel to transfer, which organizations authorize and are paying for the operation, etc. If any of that normal flight planning had been in place, the aerial refueling aircraft would have known that Coyne’s helicopter was not one of their “customers “.

Given the absence of a flight plan, a military C-130 making a close approach of the kind described by Coyne amounts to no more or less than “buzzing” a random, uncooperative aircraft in the middle of the night and at low altitude. As I said, that violates a number of aviation regulations and military operating policies, any one of which would have gotten the pilot grounded.

So, what is your explanation for why that would have happened and then not have been detected or reported?

Aerial refueling aircraft a reply to: Nickless

a reply to: 1947boomer

It may have been a similar mistake as in this accident a year later:

NTSB Aircraft Accident Report

In that case an F-111a fighter jet collided fatally with a plane belonging to a power company because it mistook that as a tanker during a night refueling training. If that happened, why not the "Coyne mistake"?

There was a refueling squadron/group located nearby in Columbus, so a training there would make sense. Also those refuelings are performed in hostile environments as well, which is why there are protocols to perform them with radio silence and minimum lighting, which of course are also practiced.

As I also mention in that blog post, the Coyne incident happened while Operation Nickel Grass was ongoing, which meant additional military air traffic and movement of helicopters as well. Wright-Patterson Air Force Base seemed to have been an important hub for that operation, and it's located some 90 km/60 miles to the west from Columbus and the transports would have happened towards the East Coast bases from there, so towards the region the incident happened.

So both the location and timing would make sense for something like that to happen.

As for rules and regulations, I don't think they necessarily broke any of them. I'm detailing the normal procedures in the blog, and it seems to me it could have been pretty much textbook, except for the fact that they mistook the helicopter as someone else. Since they made a mistake, and it could have ended badly, I'm not too surprised if the plane crew didn't report it, or the military didn't report it further even if the crew did, especially not after it hit the news as a major UFO event.

In my blog I also raised the possibility that their radio issues and almost running out of fuel during that trip could have played a role. Maybe they discussed their fuel situation on the radio while they were approaching Mansfield airport, which could have worked as a refueling stop, and the tanker crew happened to hear something like that being discussed, and misinterpreted the situation while they were expecting their real customer.

As for the low altitude, note that the helicopter was actually flying at their normal cruising altitude until the plane was very close to them. So while the story is typically told so that the altitude would have been something extraordinary, that was only the last minute movement and the tanker crew probably expected the helicopter to lower its altitude to gain speed at that point, according to the normal protocols, as I mentioned before. So there's nothing weird in that altitude and it was well within the normal refueling range, as I mentioned before.

I've actually seen two ufo's and didn't want to......first one over denver airports location nowadays.....in 1958 prolly observing the Rocky Flats plume.....second one at Dallas heading to go over midfield at Dallas Love.....I vote ufo hugely


second one was huge.......why, twas a 400 footer

You wrote:

"Air Force flight test engineers …. Hypothesized that helicopters could actually ride on top of the wingtip vortices trailing behind a C-130 Hercules transport".

Sure they could. Whenever a wing is generating lift-whether it's the wing of a goose or a C-130, it's creating trailing vortices. From the perspective of the pilot (or the goose), the vortex on the right wingtip is rotating counterclockwise and the left wingtip vortex is rotating clockwise. That means that if some object is located in the horizontal plane of the wing and trailing slightly behind and outside the wingtip (either one) that object will experience a small updraft due to the presence of the vortex that wouldn't be there if the object were simply moving through clear air at the same speed. If the object that is located in the updraft is another aircraft (or goose) it can exploit that small additional lift to reduce the amount of power needed for flight. This is exactly why geese and other migrating bird flocks spontaneously fly in V formations when they're going long distances; it reduces the average power required.

However, this only works if you're flying at that particular location relative to the wingtip. If you're flying somewhere else the effect will be in a different direction and/or non-existent. If you're flying underneath and slightly behind the lift-generating wing (where the helicopter was), you will experience a net downdraft. Also, if you're flying anywhere but directly on the lift-generating wing's centerline, you will experience a net rolling moment, one direction or the other.

In any case, these are small effects and diminish rapidly as you move more than about one wingspan away from the lift-generating wing. The altitude gain reported by the helicopter crew was dramatic. Coyne reported that when the object overflew his helicopter, his aircraft gained about 1750 feet in "a couple of seconds". The normal maximum rate of climb of a single engine Huey is about 1750 feet per MINUTE. If the crew's reports are to be believed, the momentary vertical acceleration was about 30 times greater than could possibly have been supplied by the helicopter's powertrain. That means that the vertical displacement of the helicopter had to have been supplied by an external agent-presumably the UFO. If the vertical acceleration was constant, it would have been at a level of 27 G during the 2 seconds. 27 G is way beyond the design limits of normal aircraft structures and rotor systems. If the vertical acceleration had been caused aerodynamically (i.e., by an updraft) from whatever source, it would literally have blown the rotor off the helicopter.

The crew did not report any noticeable increase in vertical acceleration during the event; they only noticed they were at a higher altitude after checking the instruments. This kind of detail hints at the kind of "strangeness" that separates UFO reports from IFO reports.

a reply to: Nickless

(?) (Lethal Force used against Moses by Police Officers or the Public, Counts as Capital Punishment...you are not entitled to anything until billions................I believe this is a Parallel, invalidating................

James Urban Ruppert (born March 29, 1934), is an American murderer, who was responsible for one of the deadliest shootings inside a private residence in US history.[1] On Easter Sunday, March 30, 1975, Ruppert murdered 11 family members in his mother's house at 635 Minor Avenue in Hamilton, Ohio in what has been referred to as the "Easter Sunday Massacre.

At around 4:00 p.m, James woke up, loaded a .357 Magnum, two .22 caliber handguns, and a rifle, then went downstairs. Entering the kitchen, he first shot and killed his brother Leonard, then his sister-in-law and his mother. Next, he took the life of his nephew David and his nieces Teresa and Carol, all in the confines of the kitchen. Ruppert then proceeded to the living room, where he killed his niece Ann and his four remaining nephews: Leonard III, Michael, Thomas, and John................wiki - James_Ruppert

.....................

Columbus Airport ... ... ... renamed to ... ... ... John Glenn Columbus International Airport (In God's Eyes, you don't have a legal right to live for violating that person's body, if that is what happened...........but God doesn't hold you/man to the entirety of the law (the wages is death for violating the law, God doesn't create a controversy, he just chooses sometimes to not answer, this possibly is another account tied to, "fake history" ... ... ... often times there will be a calamity, serial/mass murders, or uncleanness as a result of man's sin, surrounding genuine accounts, or perhaps, originating them) (Limited Liability, you do have a mechanism to answer a controverys with God as a result of your sin, or your sin in the law, that is Capital Punishment, the fact that the individual was not given a death sentences, leads me to believe, I have a clear understanding about what happened) (rumor has it that John F. Kennedy not only rap** "Baba Vanga the Babushka Lady, but also fathered a child by his sister ... needless to say the fact remains, (that is what the usa has done with me, several attempted male rape pregnancies using my relatives for (relatives) those purposes in their gratification, and at present), John F. Kennedy Assassin was his own son, between him and his sister, or at least that is what evidences point to, without clear admission)

(these are events leading to the Kecksburg UFO Incident, not to far from that) (nightly walks can be increased but you need to use more lethal force against Moses, whoever he is, or else it is just a waste of action, you can be relieved of your need of life processes in broad daylight or at my address, in your need to keep hurting me.................we'll up another public safety message soon to assist the authorities in this burden of living problem)

originally posted by: 1947boomer
However, this only works if you're flying at that particular location relative to the wingtip. If you're flying somewhere else the effect will be in a different direction and/or non-existent. If you're flying underneath and slightly behind the lift-generating wing (where the helicopter was), you will experience a net downdraft. Also, if you're flying anywhere but directly on the lift-generating wing's centerline, you will experience a net rolling moment, one direction or the other.

I have explained that in the blog, as well as why for most of the relevant time they were to the right of the right wingtip.

originally posted by: 1947boomer
The altitude gain reported by the helicopter crew was dramatic. Coyne reported that when the object overflew his helicopter, his aircraft gained about 1750 feet in "a couple of seconds". The normal maximum rate of climb of a single engine Huey is about 1750 feet per MINUTE. If the crew's reports are to be believed, the momentary vertical acceleration was about 30 times greater than could possibly have been supplied by the helicopter's powertrain.

The lifting happened in a few MINUTES, not seconds. Coyne himself stated that the altimeter showed a "rate of climb of 1,000 feet per minute". Jezzi stated:

I wasn't aware of the climb at all - and 1,000 fpm - it could have been less. It was not that much of a climb, that steep, that much acceleration. But the climbing is something that occurs somewhat easily in a helicopter if you're not paying attention. If you're flying the aircraft and thinking of something else. We were talking rapidly about what was happening. You get excited and you just go like this [demonstrates by raising left arm] and you're climbing. And going from 1,500 to 3,000 feet in two or three minutes is not going to be extraordinary. There are thermals that are so bad that you put your collective down and you're still climbing. I've had it happen to me.

Apparently they were all so focused on those lights that none of them looked at the altimeter before having watched the object disappear to the horizon. Also the ground witnesses didn't report seeing any sudden lift.

originally posted by: 1947boomer
This kind of detail hints at the kind of "strangeness" that separates UFO reports from IFO reports.

And in that case there wasn't such strangeness. All that is explained in the blog.

Another thing to think about is why a C-130 capable of air to air refueling would make a close approach to a random helicopter in any case. The H model Huey that Coyne was flying was not, of course, equipped for A-to-A refueling, so when he took off he would not have had any expectation of or plan for a rendezvous with another aircraft. Conversely, a refueling aircraft does not take off for the purposes of refueling another aircraft without a detailed flight plan that includes such information as where and when to rendezvous, call signs and radio frequencies, how much and what kind of fuel to transfer, which organizations authorize and are paying for the operation, etc. If any of that normal flight planning had been in place, the aerial refueling aircraft would have known that Coyne’s helicopter was not one of their “customers “.

Given the absence of a flight plan, a military C-130 making a close approach of the kind described by Coyne amounts to no more or less than “buzzing” a random, uncooperative aircraft in the middle of the night and at low altitude. As I said, that violates a number of aviation regulations and military operating policies, any one of which would have gotten the pilot grounded.

So, what is your explanation for why that would have happened and then not have been detected or reported?

Aerial refueling aircraft a reply to: Nickless

You wrote: "The lifting happened in a few MINUTES, not seconds."

Not true. The Army incident report that Coyne and the crew filled out and signed immediately after the incident says: "SSG Yanascek observed a red light on the east horizon, at ninety degrees to the flight path of the helicopter. Approximately 30 seconds later SSG Yanascek indicated the object was converging on the helicopter at the same altitude at an airspeed in excess of 600 knots and on a midair collision heading."

After taking over the controls and initiating a shallow dive to avoid a midair collision (SOP, by the way) a radio call was put in to the nearest air traffic control facility (Mansfield Tower) asking if any high performance aircraft were in the vicinity.

The report goes on to add: "The crew expected impact from the object instead, the object was observed to hover momentarily over the helicopter and then slowly continued on a westerly course accelerating at a high rate of speed, clear west of Mansfield Airport……".

Here, the term "hover" obviously means that the object was stationary relative to the helicopter, not the ground.

In other words, the "object" (not "aircraft') was only in proximity to the helicopter and matching speed with it "momentarily", not "minutes". Furthermore, when the object was in proximity, the crew all agreed that it was ABOVE the helicopter.

The crew did not state how long it took from the time they determined it was on a collision course until it was overhead, but given the high rate of closure, and the fact that they had to make a brief radio call, it was probably no more than 30 seconds or so. So, as I read it, the entire sighting took maybe a minute and a half, from eastern horizon to western horizon, during which time it was overhead and matching speed with the helicopter for a few seconds.

You went on to write: "Coyne himself stated that the altimeter showed a rate of climb of 1000 ft/min."

True, and I assume that's where you got the erroneous notion that the encounter took minutes instead of seconds. What you're not taking into account is the physics of how Rate of Climb (ROC) indicators work. ROC indicators use the same pitot tube and static port pressure inputs that the airspeed indicator and altimeter use. They are designed to calculate-using analog logic (springs and bellows)-the direction of change of altitude (up or down) and the approximate magnitude of that change. However, the response time of a ROC indicator has a time delay deliberately built into it for the purpose of filtering out high frequency noise (such as you get when you are flying in turbulence or are making abrupt control changes). The time constant for a barometric ROC instrument is typically about 8 seconds. In pilot basic training, we are taught that when flying in turbulence or in the presence of abrupt altitude changes, the ROC is inaccurate and cannot be relied on. A more accurate ROC estimate can be made by the pilot measuring the time between altitude hacks using (for example) the cockpit clock. The only conclusion that can be drawn from the 1000 ft/min reading of the ROC indicator is that the helicopter was rising at a high (but indeterminate) rate.

In an interview given with the Mansfield News Journal a couple of weeks after the encounter, Coyne was quoted as saying:

"I had made no attempt to pull up," he said. "All controls were set for a 20 degree dive. Yet we had climbed from 1,700 to 3,500 feet with no power in a few seconds with no g-forces or other noticeable strains."

In the same interview, Jezzi was quoted as saying: "It took just a couple of seconds." "I remember looking up through the ceiling and I saw a white light moving over top of us. I followed it to the left horizon, where it disappeared."

Both pilots agreed that the altitude increase was about 1850 feet in a few seconds.
a reply to: Nickless

Sorry, but I do not by this explanation one bit! Simply does not make sense. Another explanation filling in the gaps with what you think they saw, even though it sounds like absolutly nothing you describe.

This is up there with the metoerite theory put forward by Klass.

Witnesess said it was cigar shaped, and slightly domed.The colour was like a grey metallic looking structure, and was clearly visible. And the object did hover above and in front of the helicopter. Yanacsek said he thought he could see windows along the top dome section. This sounds nothing like the craft you suggest. Again, your belief is filling in the gaps on what you thought they saw. We see this time and time again when people try to debunk ufo cases.

Again, witnesess on the ground describe a craft that sounds nothing like the craft you describe.

And the green light is bizarre in itself, and again, what the witnesess say, does not sound like a craft you talk about.

Sorry, sounds like more clutching at straws

originally posted by: 1947boomer
You wrote: "The lifting happened in a few MINUTES, not seconds."

Not true.

It is true, according to both crew members and their instruments, as I mentioned before. Plus no ground witness claimed to see any rapid climb.

originally posted by: 1947boomer
In other words, the "object" (not "aircraft') was only in proximity to the helicopter and matching speed with it "momentarily", not "minutes". Furthermore, when the object was in proximity, the crew all agreed that it was ABOVE the helicopter.

Of course it was over them, and yes it was there only momentarily. But they only noticed the climb after having watched the object go to horizon, and during that time they were flying in area affected by the vortexes of the plane.

originally posted by: 1947boomer
True, and I assume that's where you got the erroneous notion that the encounter took minutes instead of seconds.

Nope, I got it from the words of the crew members themselves. I already quoted what Jezzi said, and he was quite clear how such a climb over a few minutes is nothing exceptional.

originally posted by: 1947boomer
The only conclusion that can be drawn from the 1000 ft/min reading of the ROC indicator is that the helicopter was rising at a high (but indeterminate) rate.

So you don't trust what the crew said, you believe the ground witnesses would have missed a sudden lift, and you also don't trust the instruments. Instead you trust Coyne's vague assumptions when the lift happened, while at the same time ignoring how he himself stated he looked at the altimeter only when the object was already somewhere close to the horizon.

Basically you are trusting the least reliable assumptions instead of everything else that shows how unreliable they are.

originally posted by: 1947boomer
In the same interview, Jezzi was quoted as saying: "It took just a couple of seconds."

By which he most likely meant just that brief moment when they tried to avoid the collision and the object was above them. Otherwise he would have contradicted himself pretty badly with everything else he said.

originally posted by: 1947boomer
Both pilots agreed that the altitude increase was about 1850 feet in a few seconds.
a reply to: Nickless

No they didn't. I already gave a direct quote by Jezzi from his interview, there's nothing unclear in it:

I wasn't aware of the climb at all - and 1,000 fpm - it could have been less. It was not that much of a climb, that steep, that much acceleration. But the climbing is something that occurs somewhat easily in a helicopter if you're not paying attention. If you're flying the aircraft and thinking of something else. We were talking rapidly about what was happening. You get excited and you just go like this [demonstrates by raising left arm] and you're climbing. And going from 1,500 to 3,000 feet in two or three minutes is not going to be extraordinary. There are thermals that are so bad that you put your collective down and you're still climbing. I've had it happen to me.

originally posted by: Jay-morris
Sorry, but I do not by this explanation one bit!

The fact is though that I can explain pretty much every detail of those events, and so far those haven't been successfully challenged.

originally posted by: Jay-morris
Simply does not make sense. Another explanation filling in the gaps with what you think they saw, even though it sounds like absolutly nothing you describe.

And I have explained in some detail why their observations didn't match reality at some points and what where the causes.

originally posted by: Jay-morris
This is up there with the metoerite theory put forward by Klass.

I don't think you have even read my explanation if you think so.

originally posted by: Jay-morris
Witnesess said it was cigar shaped, and slightly domed.The colour was like a grey metallic looking structure, and was clearly visible. And the object did hover above and in front of the helicopter. Yanacsek said he thought he could see windows along the top dome section. This sounds nothing like the craft you suggest. Again, your belief is filling in the gaps on what you thought they saw. We see this time and time again when people try to debunk ufo cases.

Again, witnesess on the ground describe a craft that sounds nothing like the craft you describe.

And the green light is bizarre in itself, and again, what the witnesess say, does not sound like a craft you talk about.

Sorry, sounds like more clutching at straws

They didn't claim to have seen the craft properly. Jezzi on the front seat didn't see it at all, even though it was supposed to fill the windscreen. Coyne described how he (in reality seeing the wing tips) saw gray metallic areas that were lit by the navigation lights. Not the whole craft. The green color of that light has been explained before, and most of the crew already recognized in their interviews how it could have been the result of the green glass of the helicopter. Jezzi didn't even see the green. Coyne took the possibility of it being a fighter jet seriously enough to ask about it from the air traffic control later. It's pretty obvious they didn't really see it properly at any point.