EMERAINVILLE (77) 05.06.2017

On June 5, 2017 (not 2015 as the witness had mistakenly written in the free-text account) between 11:58 and 12:03, a witness observed in the clear sky a phenomenon that intrigued him. The witness saw in the north/west at moderate elevation, 2 lights projected side by side, as 2 headlight beams. He distinguished behind these two lights a sort of cylindrical fuselage, the whole moving horizontally eastward. “The craft-like object” progressed at low-altitude aircraft speed, then appeared to stop in midair for the first time before climbing almost vertically. A commercial aircraft at medium altitude came from the northeast and seemed to cut off the initial trajectory of the "vessel." The aircraft continued its course, the “craft” resumed its horizontal flight with its original heading; then seemed to stop a second time, to climb almost vertically again, until completely disappearing from the witness's sight. The witness believed he was seeing an unknown craft that would have been disturbed in its trajectory by the commercial aircraft and asked for an investigation of the GEIPAN. Only 1 account was collected. As indicated in the attached aeronautical traffic record, the witness is located in a high-activity area (at least that hour) with aeroplanes at all altitudes, including light aircraft flying circuits at low altitude. In these conditions, GEIPAN finds no feature in the description that requires an unusual explanation. An aeroplane at low or medium altitude is distinguishable by its headlights (which can also be switched on by day) and by its fuselage. The low-altitude aeroplane can make any kind of manoeuvres (e.g. training maneuvers) including speed reductions, changes in heading that can be interpreted by the witness in sharp speed reductions (as the heading moves from "transverse to sight" to “along the line of sight”) as well as sudden changes in altitude. The stationarity or vertical climb can hardly be appreciated from the ground, and the witness uses the words "it seems" or “almost”. GEIPAN considers the most unusual aspect to be the witness’s interpretation: an unknown craft changing course to avoid the commercial aircraft’s path, or perhaps its view. Once it is verified (here the aeronautical context analysis is sufficient) that the observation itself does not bring any strangeness, the GEIPAN does not devote more resources to exploring or invalidating the scenarios set up by the witness to interpret or explain a strangeness that is not warranted. If necessary, it should be noted that the observation is made in broad daylight, in an urbanized area, and that therefore a real strangeness would hardly have gone unnoticed by the large number of potential witnesses on the ground and in the air. Finally, the same witness gave similar testimony two months later (EMERAINVILLE (77) 04.08.2017). Consequently, the GEIPAN classifies the case as A: aircraft.