DOUAI (59) 27.03.2022

On 27 March 2022, at 21:30, while observing the sky from his garden in Douai (59) while letting his dogs out, the witness saw an unidentified aerial phenomenon (UAP) slightly to the right of the neighbour's roof antenna, moving along a straight path. After briefly lowering his eyes to the ground to reposition himself, he interrupted the observation for a moment. When he resumed it, the UAP had shifted a little more to the right, between the antenna of the neighbour and his, and took the form of an equilateral triangle with clear contours, with a luminous colour that was difficult to specify - pink, orange or coral. An undetermined number of small, paler lights were visible along the 2 sides adjoining the forward point. The UAP moved steadily and silently, apparently along the street behind the witness’s property, before disappearing, after an estimated time of 10 to 20 seconds, behind the line of tall fir trees marking the neighbouring property. No change in appearance or behaviour was observed throughout the sequence. The evidential strength* of this case is assessed as good. Despite a single witness and the absence of photos or videos of the UAP, the testimony is very detailed and was made the day after the observation. *Under GEIPAN’s criteria, evidential strength means the quantity of information collected for an account that is considered reliable and objectively supported. The investigation, conducted over a prolonged period of time and requiring numerous verifications (see investigation report), was first conducted remotely, then supplemented by field investigations during the year 2023. These steps clarified several elements of the testimony, ruled out an aircraft - with the exception of a possible small aircraft operating at very low altitude, silent and without transponder, a scenario deemed highly unlikely - and led to consideration of the hypothesis of a drone following a curved trajectory. This latter hypothesis was studied in relation to the following: - Compatible movement, both in the shape of the trajectory and in the apparent speed. - Close to the prison, which may evoke a surveillance or reconnaissance mission. However, several factors call this hypothesis into question: - No known visual correspondence with a civil drone model. It should be noted, however, that a user can modify his device by adding custom LED lights, as has already been observed. Nevertheless, the clear triangular shape described by the witness remains uncommon, even for a modified drone. The measurements taken on site and subsequent calculations showed that only large drone models (equal to or greater than about 1 m long) could have been observed at the minimum possible distance, i.e. about 28 m, thus placing the UAP at the height of the witness’s roof and its disappearance just above the fir trees bordering the road. Although this is possible, other inconsistencies appear and are related to these results: • The appearance of large drones is not consistent with that described by the witness. These devices, usually 4, 6 or 8 motor multi-copters, have a visual configuration unrelated to the observed triangular shape, except for a "customized" model as mentioned above. • The so-called "leisure" drones are usually small, with their overall size tending to decrease over the years. Models over one metre are generally intended for professional or military use. • The larger and closer a drone, the more noise it emits. At a distance of a few tens of meters, such a device should have been audible by the witness, even in the presence of a slight background noise (road traffic). Wind is not a relevant explanatory factor: it was unfavourable in the first part of the observation, then favorable in the second. - Regulatory aspects: a civilian drone flight under these conditions would be an offence (night flight and overflight of a prohibited area). Although some operators may violate these rules - for example, to conduct night-time reconnaissance over the Douai detention centre - this possibility remains unsubstantiated to date. The use of a drone by a public authority (prison administration, armed forces) cannot be totally excluded; however, in this case, the aircraft would be identified, authorized and equipped with statutory lighting devices for night flights as part of a monitoring mission. Several companies operating drones in a wide area around the observation site were contacted, with only one responding, indicating that they were not aware of such an operation or drone corresponding to the description. Drones used illegally in the vicinity of prisons, including Douai, are generally small recreational quadcopters, unrelated to the observed UAP. Finally, a drone instructor from the French Navy and its naval aviation branch was consulted regarding the light markings used on military drones. He said that no known light configuration was consistent with that reported. He also stated that military drones, particularly those engaged in exercises, were designed to minimise their acoustic and visual detectability, thus reducing the plausibility of the drone hypothesis in view of the observed brightness. After analysing the account and comparing the observation with hypotheses involving known phenomena, GEIPAN classifies the case D: phenomenon unidentified after investigation.