UFO Cover Story: Air Canada Pilot Mistakens Venus for USAF C-17 and Enacts Emergency Dive

reply to post by tarifa37


Flight Aware Live

reply to post by GhostLancer


The fact that the USAF C-17 was at the scene of the incident is very suspect for one. For what reason was it there? If it was even there at all you never know with the US government. If the USAF C-17 was there on scene, it was clearly there for a reason. What I suspect is that it was there investigating the UFO that they are trying to convince us was the planet venus. 😳 ..... Sure. I am not saying that it is entirely impossible for the pilot to have experienced a moment delusion after awakening. After all, I'm sure that's happened to all of us, waking up, overtired and confused. With the presence of the USAF C-17, it just seems like a classic case of a US military coverup. This USAF C-17 only had the entire sky to fly in, why was is there?

Originally posted by Tigerseye
reply to post by GhostLancer

 

The fact that the USAF C-17 was at the scene of the incident is very suspect for one. For what reason was it there? If it was even there at all you never know with the US government. If the USAF C-17 was there on scene, it was clearly there for a reason. What I suspect is that it was there investigating the UFO that they are trying to convince us was the planet venus. 😳 ..... Sure. I am not saying that it is entirely impossible for the pilot to have experienced a moment delusion after awakening. After all, I'm sure that's happened to all of us, waking up, overtired and confused. With the presence of the USAF C-17, it just seems like a classic case of a US military coverup. This USAF C-17 only had the entire sky to fly in, why was is there?

Good points. It's highly likely that the C-17 was there to investigate and/or monitor the UFO that we suspect was really there, not the planet Venus.

I am not an aviation expert, but I have lived near airports and Air Force bases my entire adult life. For me, here is why the Venus story falls flat: Airplanes at night have running lights that are usually green and red. They sometimes run with forward lights as they come in for landings. As far as I know, it is rare for aircraft to fly their entire route with the bright, white lights on. Further, even if these lights are on, the red and green lights should also be on. So, even if the copilot did see a bright light, thousands of hours of flight time and experience should have informed him that he was looking at Venus, not a plane. Further, his captain verbally informed him of the location of the C-17 twice (sounded like it was twice he mentioned it). Lastly, using "Venus" as an explanation for odd sightings and mistaken identity has been a cliche' since the days the Air Force and Project Bluebook liberally used it to discredit valid sightings. In 1952 UFOs pretty much filled the skies over Washington D.C., and thousands of people reported sightings. Official explanations included: ducks whose underbellies reflected light; temperature inversions; and, of course, the planet Venus.

Again, why would air traffic controllers put two aircraft within 1,000 feet of each other, practically passing directly over/under each other when you have the entire sky of the North Atlantic available? Doing this simply allows for the possibility of a mid-air collision when it doesn't have to exist. I think the Air Canada flight happened to be at the wrong place at the wrong time because it stumbled upon an Air Force C-17 conducting some operation involving a large, bright UFO. Again, if this entire event had nothing more to it than a pilot hallucinating, then the report should not have taken nearly two years to come forth.

Over the last week I’ve noticed Venus appearing very bright on the western horizon shortly after sunset. In fact it was bright enough on Tuesday evening that as an amateur astronomer, even I mistakenly thought it was a low flying aircraft at first. I can easily believe that a pilot without knowledge of astronomy, seeing Venus from the right angle, could have put a plane into a dive to avoid a collision with what he perceived to be an oncoming aircraft.

Here is the approximate route of Air Canada flight 878 and approximate location of the incident ....



Here is the location of Venus at 2am EST on January 14, 2011 as seen from 35,000 feet. Note the magnitude -4.28, nearly the maximum possible brightness...



Here is a C-17 landing light..


In this case a tired pilot was already alerted to another aircraft on a reciprocal heading, looked out from his navigational display expecting to see C-17 landing lights in front and 1000 ft below and instead saw a very bright planet Venus which he interpreted as the Globemaster at an equal attitude.

Knowing he only had moments to react with a combined closure rate of 1,000 feet per second, he made the snap judgement to execute an evasive maneuver which briefly put a couple of extra unexpected g's on the airframe.

This seems very cut and dry, people misidentify Venus all the time.

reply to post by Drunkenparrot

Thanks for the great info. STAR! However, just one question: why would a C-17 over the middle of the North Atlantic be flying with its *landing lights* on, mid-flight? Further, at night with absolutely no light pollution whatsoever, a plane's blinking red and green lights would easily identify it as... a plane. Venus has no blinking red/green lights.

Also, a plane with lights is easily distinguished as an independent light source that is not *fixed* to the starry background, of which *everything else* is fixed. A plane would deviate from the fixed coordinates of every single light source (stars, planets) that comprise the visual field. A pilot with thousands of hours of flight experience would know how to distinguish between a moving light cutting across a fixed starscape like the back of his hand. Experience would come into play.

Something else caused him to react in a defensive manuever. To use Venus as a cover story, to explain away a sighting of something... unique, bizarre and very strange... is highly questionable. Yes, there is a possibility that the official story is exactly as told, but it stretches my suspension of disbelief beyond normal bounds. Also keep in mind how long it took to release this report (almost 2 years) when 2 hours would have been enough time to get eyewitness accounts and release a report. This smells of a cover-up.

Originally posted by GhostLancer
reply to post by Drunkenparrot

 

why would a C-17 over the middle of the North Atlantic be flying with its *landing lights* on, mid-flight? Further, at night with absolutely no light pollution whatsoever, a plane's blinking red and green lights would easily identify it as... a plane. Venus has no blinking red/green lights.

Thanks for the star.

Regarding the landing lights, from the report linked in your op...

Over the next minute or so, the captain adjusted the map scale on the ND in order to view the TCAS target 5 and occasionally looked out the forward windscreen to acquire the aircraft visually.

The FO initially mistook the planet Venus for an aircraft but the captain advised again that the target was at the 12 o'clock position and 1000 feet below.

The captain of ACA878 and the oncoming aircraft crew flashed their landing lights.

The FO continued to scan visually for the aircraft. When the FO saw the oncoming aircraft, the FO interpreted its position as being above and descending towards them.

Regarding the nav lights, they are drowned out by the intensity of the much brighter landing light. Take another look at the C-17 video from 1:42, the nav lights don't resolve until the aircraft is quite close.

Originally posted by Drunkenparrot

Originally posted by GhostLancer
reply to post by Drunkenparrot

 

why would a C-17 over the middle of the North Atlantic be flying with its *landing lights* on, mid-flight? Further, at night with absolutely no light pollution whatsoever, a plane's blinking red and green lights would easily identify it as... a plane. Venus has no blinking red/green lights.

Thanks for the star.

Regarding the landing lights, from the report linked in your op...

Over the next minute or so, the captain adjusted the map scale on the ND in order to view the TCAS target 5 and occasionally looked out the forward windscreen to acquire the aircraft visually.

The FO initially mistook the planet Venus for an aircraft but the captain advised again that the target was at the 12 o'clock position and 1000 feet below.

The captain of ACA878 and the oncoming aircraft crew flashed their landing lights.

The FO continued to scan visually for the aircraft. When the FO saw the oncoming aircraft, the FO interpreted its position as being above and descending towards them.

Regarding the nav lights, they are drowned out by the intensity of the much brighter landing light. Take another look at the C-17 video from 1:42, the nav lights don't resolve until the aircraft is quite close.

edit on 20-4-2012 by Drunkenparrot because: syntax

Very well noted. However, the video shows the aircraft on FINAL APPROACH/LANDING. It also reveals the lights at the tip of each wing. Therefore, if the copilot had seen an approaching aircraft, he would expect red/green lights and wing-tip lights (as seen in the video). He would also be able to DISTINGUISH between lights in the foreground (like an aircraft) and the **fixed** lights of the skyscape beyond. Lights in the foreground will not be *fixed* to the starscape. Experienced pilots (by the time pilots are hired-on, they are usually experienced) will know the difference between moving, luminous objects and the *fixed* luminous objects that comprise the skyscape.

GhostLancer wrote: No experienced pilot worth his salt mistakens VENUS for an oncoming aircraft.

That statement only proves that you are not an experienced pilot. I know of many embarassing cases where airline pilots have requested numerous FL changes and taken evasive action on celestial bodies such as Venus. I think you underestimate just how bright Venus can look if the conditions are right. One such case spawned a running joke at Dublin ATC, "usually we provide five miles separation but 55 million miles is a bit beyond our capability".

If you want to talk to real pilots and real ATC I suggest you head over to PPRuNe. And switching on landing lights mid air is commonplace (such as wingroot lights, as lowering the gear at FL400 cruise is not advised), sometimes nav and strobes just don't cut it. Having separate strong lights appear as one single source at some distance is pretty common (these are not car headlights, we're talking hundreds of thousands of cd's, the angular diameter of the sources themselves and their separation quickly becomes impossible to determine to the naked eye). Therefore the illusion not as illogical as you try to make it sound, and as evidenced by other pilots it's actually pretty common.

EDIT: Here's a good one, thread discussing this particular event (I hope it's okay to link to an external forum):
www.pprune.org...

Some quotes:
"I had an old friend who was a Wop/Ag on Lockheed Hudsons in 1941/2. He actually opened fire on Venus off the coast of Holland one night. He missed."

"Lots of pilots have flashed the headlights at Venus "

"Years ago I had a Spanish crew refuse takeoff clearance until the "one on final has landed" .
Bit of a wait as it was Venus..."

"I have taken avoiding action of Venus several times in the early hours fly east across the Atlantic. It rises fairly quickly, but if it has been obscured by thin cloud, when it appears, it brightens very rapidly where a short time before there was absolutely nothing. With it rapidly brightening, it gives the impression it's a landing light approaching incredibly quickly. It's very easy to be fooled into taking avoiding action by a startled, tired pilot, and yes I have done it several times! "

"When I worked a abroad a biz jet with a British crew was flying at high level eastbound one evening above a layer of CS. A fairly scared voice announced that they had a UFO in sight! My supervisor, an ex-Canberra Nav, reached for the nautical almanac and checked the times for the moon... Yes, they'd seen just the top arc above the cirrus!! "

The captain, who was monitoring TCAS target on the ND, observed the control column moving forward and the altimeter beginning to show a decrease in altitude. The captain immediately disconnected the autopilot and pulled back on the control column to regain altitude. It was at this time the oncoming aircraft passed beneath ACA878. The TCAS did not produce a traffic or resolution advisory.

That damned Venus, it's always pulling stunts like this passing beneath or beside an aircraft, showing on radar as approaching. It just likes to fool with us some times.

Originally posted by entoman
GhostLancer wrote: No experienced pilot worth his salt mistakens VENUS for an oncoming aircraft.

That statement only proves that you are not an experienced pilot. I know of many embarassing cases where airline pilots have requested numerous FL changes and taken evasive action on celestial bodies such as Venus. I think you underestimate just how bright Venus can look if the conditions are right. One such case spawned a running joke at Dublin ATC, "usually we provide five miles separation but 55 million miles is a bit beyond our capability".

If you want to talk to real pilots and real ATC I suggest you head over to PPRuNe. And switching on landing lights mid air is commonplace (such as wingroot lights, as lowering the gear at FL400 cruise is not advised), sometimes nav and strobes just don't cut it. Having separate strong lights appear as one single source at some distance is pretty common (these are not car headlights, we're talking hundreds of thousands of cd's, the angular diameter of the sources themselves and their separation quickly becomes impossible to determine to the naked eye). Therefore the illusion not as illogical as you try to make it sound, and as evidenced by other pilots it's actually pretty common.

EDIT: Here's a good one, thread discussing this particular event (I hope it's okay to link to an external forum):
www.pprune.org...

Some quotes:
"I had an old friend who was a Wop/Ag on Lockheed Hudsons in 1941/2. He actually opened fire on Venus off the coast of Holland one night. He missed."

"Lots of pilots have flashed the headlights at Venus "

"Years ago I had a Spanish crew refuse takeoff clearance until the "one on final has landed" .
Bit of a wait as it was Venus..."

"I have taken avoiding action of Venus several times in the early hours fly east across the Atlantic. It rises fairly quickly, but if it has been obscured by thin cloud, when it appears, it brightens very rapidly where a short time before there was absolutely nothing. With it rapidly brightening, it gives the impression it's a landing light approaching incredibly quickly. It's very easy to be fooled into taking avoiding action by a startled, tired pilot, and yes I have done it several times! "

"When I worked a abroad a biz jet with a British crew was flying at high level eastbound one evening above a layer of CS. A fairly scared voice announced that they had a UFO in sight! My supervisor, an ex-Canberra Nav, reached for the nautical almanac and checked the times for the moon... Yes, they'd seen just the top arc above the cirrus!! "

edit on 22-4-2012 by entoman because: (no reason given)

If you read the entire thread, you would have read that I stated that I am not an experienced pilot. However, I have flown quite a bit, and have spent my career on Air Force bases, as I was active duty Air Force and have a lot of experience with how aircraft look both in the air and upon approach. Further, I have good friends who are/were Air Force pilots. Further, I am an experienced sky-gazer, for what that is worth.

Are there exceptions to the general "rule" that pilots worth their salt can distinguish between Venus and approaching aircraft? Sure. Is it common? No. In fact, it would be SAFE to venture that it is RARE especially considering that this is the fisrt time that most of us (if not all) have heard of such an outlandish scenario.

It is easily imagined that IF the copilot *thought* Venus was an oncoming aircraft that he would have consulted the Captain before taking such a dangerous and risky maneuver such as a dramatic dive. Keep in mind that the ENTIRE SKY is available here. Keep in mind that he could have swerved left or right (that's port or starboard). A dangerous dive that could injure anyone unstrapped was not the only course of action. This guy reacted to something he considered utterly strange and IMMEDIATE DANGER.

Realize that if an oncoming aircraft were the size of the VISUAL planet Venus that it would mean that the oncoming aircraft would still be a good distance away. This guy took action based on something that was perceived to be VERY CLOSE. --Lights of an oncoming aircraft the visual size of Venus would be small and thus indicating some distance away.

Read that article and knew off the bat there was somethin' funky about it. Made me stumble upon this website. Seems really interesting.

But on topic, I have to go with some of you guys. For an experienced pilot to go into a dive like that had to be somethin' severe. Fatigued and mistaking a planet for another aircraft with a room full of trained co-pilots? Not very likely.