A story has been reported involving an Airbus encountering a blue and yellow small object as it flew over Baillieston.
The plane was was nearing the Glasgow Airport and the UFO reportedly nearly hit the Airbus flying about 300' under it. The pilot informed the control tower, saying:
Pilot Of Flight A320:We just had something pass underneath us quite close. Have you got anything on in our area?
The radar showed nothing and the officials in the control tower responded with:
Tower:Negative. We've got nothing on radar and we're not talking to any traffic either.
Once on the ground, the pilot explained:
Pilot Of Flight A320: We seemed to only miss it by a couple of hundred feet it went directly beneath us, wherever we were when we called it in it was within about ten seconds, couldn't tell what direction it was going but it went right underneath us.
He was then asked if he had thought the object to be a glider but responded:
Pilot Of Flight A320:Well maybe a microlight, it just looked too big for a balloon.
The report about the incident says:
The controller stated that he was not talking to anyone else in that area and that nothing was seen on radar. Search action was taken with no result and the A320 pilot stated his intention to file an Airprox. Additionally, a further detailed review of individual radar sources did not yield any conclusive radar data that matched the A320 pilot's description of the encounter. The Air Traffic Control unit's own radar replay also showed no surveillance traces in the immediate vicinity of the A320 at the time.
The board also seems to have questions that remain unanswered.
The board initially considered likely candidates for the untraced aircraft. The A320 crew had not been able to assimilate any information regarding the form of the untraced aircraft in the fleeting glimpse they had, reporting only a likely color.
Members were of the opinion that, in the absence of a primary radar return, it was unlikely that the untraced aircraft was a fixed wing or rotary wing aircraft or man carrying balloon. It was considered that a meteorological balloon would be radar significant and unlikely to be released in the area of the Airprox.
A glider could not be discounted but it was felt unlikely that one would be operating in that area, both due to the constrained airspace and the lack of thermal activity due to the low temperature. Similarly, The board considered that a hangglider or paramotor would be radar significant and that conditions precluded them, as they did paragliders or parascenders.
Members were unable to reach a conclusion as to a likely candidate for the conflicting aircraft and it was therefore felt that the Board had insufficient information to determine a cause or risk.
The pilot of the aircraft said the risk of collision with the object, which did not show up on radar, had been high.
A report by the UK Airprox Board said investigators were unable to establish what the object had been.
The A320 was flying with its landing lights on, in clear conditions and at an altitude of about 4,000' above the Baillieston area of Glasgow, when the pilot and non flying pilot saw an object loom ahead at a range of about 300'.
The Airprox report included a transcript of the conversation that took place between the aircraft and the controller at 12:55 p.m.:
A320: Glasgow Approach.
Tower: Pass your message.
A320: Er yeah we just had something pass underneath us quite close, and nothing on TCAS have you got anything on in our area?
Tower: Er negative er we've got nothing on er radar and we're not talking to any traffic either.
A320: Er not quite sure what it was but it definitely er quite large, and it's blue and yellow.
Tower: OK that's understood, er do you have a an estimate for the height?
A320: Maybe, er yeah we were probably about erm 400' to 500' above it so it's probably about 3,500'.
The object passed directly beneath the aircraft before either of the crew members had time to take avoiding action or had really registered it.
But they both agreed that it appeared to have been blue and yellow or silver in color with a small frontal area, but bigger than a balloon.
The pilot asked the controller at Glasgow Airport if he was talking to anything in the area as he had got quite close to a blue and yellow aircraft, travelling in the opposite direction, which had passed just below him.
The controller stated that he was not talking to anyone else in that area and that nothing was seen on radar.
Search action was taken with no result and the A320 pilot stated his intention to file a report to Airprox, which investigates near misses.
Air traffic control said they had no trace of any other objects in the area at the time of the incident, although the radar at Prestwick did spot an unidentified track history 1.3 nautical miles east of the A320's position 28 seconds earlier.
Once the aircraft had landed, the pilot told the Glasgow Aerodrome Controller:
Pilot Of Flight A320:We seemed to only miss it by a couple of hundred feet, it went directly beneath us. Wherever we were when we called it in it was within about 10 seconds. Couldn't tell what direction it was going but it went right underneath us.
Members were unable to reach a conclusion as to a likely candidate for the conflicting aircraft Airprox Board report.
When asked if he thought it may have been a glider or something like that the pilot replied:
Pilot Of Flight A320:Well maybe a microlight. It just looked too big for a balloon.
The Airprox report concluded:
Investigation of the available surveillance sources was unable to trace any activity matching that described by the A320 pilot. Additionally there was no other information to indicate the presence or otherwise of activity in the area.
The report said the Airprox board had been of the opinion that the object was unlikely to have been a fixed wing aircraft, helicopter or hot air balloon, given that it had not shown up on radar.
It was also thought that a meteorological balloon would be radar significant and unlikely to be released in the area.
A glider could not be discounted, the report said, but it was unlikely that one would be operating in the area because of the constrained airspace and the lack of thermal activity because of the low temperature.
Similarly, the board believed that a hang glider or paramotor would be radar significant and that conditions precluded them, as they did paragliders or parascenders.
The report stated:
Members were unable to reach a conclusion as to a likely candidate for the conflicting aircraft and it was therefore felt that the board had insufficient information to determine a Cause or Risk.