The Fantastic Flight Of JAL 1628

. He referred to the dark side. After passing Fairbanks area he requested to fly parallel to course and this was granted. When he turned to the right and flew parallel, the object was gone. (In all cases weather radar was also used to identify the object and the five-to-seven nm distance was taken from the radar dislay - 20 nm range.) They returned to course and the captain said "There it was, as if it was waiting for me."

At approximately the Talkeetna area the object took off to the east and was gone. A United flight departed from Anchorage and was requested to check if they could see anything but it was gone before United got there. Nothing different with the cargo except some expensive wine. The captain and crew were shook-up but professional. James Derry interviewed the crew at JAL operations. Capt. Terauchi had asked AARTCC if they were picking up two targets and was told "just one." The total time was approximately 55 minutes. A new crew took the flight on to Tokyo. Capt. Terauchi and the crew were to be in Anchorage a few days before any additional flights. James Derry requested that the tapes and any other information be saved [10].

The sparse amount of information contained in this initial report indicates that Wright did not carry out an extensive interview of the pilot and crew. It also indicates that he did not learn exactly what happened, probably because of one or more of the following reasons: (a) he may have failed to ask for a minute-by-minute history of the flight; (b) Terauchi may not have been able to recall the events accurately and in the correct order, and (c) it may have been difficult to communicate (Japanese-English translation). Special Agents James Derry and Ronald Mickle also participated in the interview. However, as will be seen, they did obtain more information. Both Derry and Mickle made notes. Agent Derry recorded the second interview as follows [14]:

On November 17 I responded to a call from the ROC reference an incident involving unidentified air traffic (UAT) following JAL flight 1628 into Anchorage. I asked Agent Mickle to meet me at Anchorage Airport. Upon arriving at the ANC I met Agent Mickle and Inspector Wright who had been at the aircraft. All three of us then proceeded to JAL operations to interview the crew. At JAL operations we met with [the crew] and Mr. Shibashi, JAL operations manager at Anchorage. The three crewmen stated that just after passing POTAT intersection inbound to Anchorage on J529 (an air route) they observed strange lights ahead of the B747. These lights changed position after two minutes but remained in front of the aircraft for another 10 minutes, then moved to the left side of the aircraft. They stated that all they could see were the lights and at no time could they see the craft. However, they did show an object on their WX radar at 7 miles. The lights were yellow, amber and green, but no red. The lights were in two separate sets which changed position relative to one another. The crew said that they contacted AARTCC (and the AARTCC) confirmed that they also had it on radar.

Near Fairbanks the crew executed a 360 turn and the lights stayed with them off their left side. They then proceeded to Anchorage and the lights were still visible around 40 mies north of Talkeetna when they moved away to the east. The crew reported their speed as 0.84 Mach and their altitude between FL390 (flight level 39,000 ft) and 310 as assigned along their course. The only problem with their systems was some static in the VHF receiver. The navigations system in use was INS with no apparent problems. Upon completion of my discussion with the crew I called Capt. Stevens, Duty Officer to NORAD, and asked if he had any questions other than what I had asked. He said he had no other questions, but they also showed two targets on radar (one was JAL). He stated that they would give all data to Intelligence in the morning. I then asked Bobby Lamkin by phone if the Air Force was holding the data and he said yes [10].

Special Agent Ronald Mickle recorded the interview as follows [14]:

As per telephonic request from (Wright), the following are the events which took place on November 17, 1986 and were taken from my personal notes during the interview. I went to the Japan Airlines station office as instructed by the Manager (Derry). Myself (sic) and Jim Derry interviewed the crew of JAL Flight 1628, which reported the sighting of unidentified air traffic. The flight crew consisted of (Terauchi, Tamefuji and Tsukuba). Captain Terauchi stated he first sited (visually) the unidentified air traffic (UAT) in the vicinity of POTAT intersection and the ADIZ. The aircraft he was piloting (B747) was at flight level 390, airspeed 0.84 Mach. Captain Terauchi indicated that the UAT was in front of his aircraft at a distance of approximately seven to eight nautical miles for approximatey 12 minutes. Captain Terauchi stated that while he had a visual on the UAT he spotted yellow, amber and green lights and a rotating beacon but no red lights. The captain said there were two distinct sets of lights, but appeared to be joined together (as fixed to one object). Captain Terauchi ascertained through visual sighting and radar that the UAT was equal in size to a B747, possibly larger.

Captain Terauchi stated that during the visual sighting the lights of the UAT changed from a horizontal position to a vertical position and had positioned itself in front of the B747 to the port side. The UAT stayed on the port side for approximately 35 minutes. Captain Terauchi said he was communicating with the AARTCC personnel during the sighting. The captain stated he requested and received persmission to perform a 360 degee turn while in the vicinity of Fairbanks which he had a visual on. Captain Terauchi stated the UAT maintained its position on the port side during the turn. Captain Terauchi stated that visual sight of the UAT was completely lost approximately 40 nm north of Talkeetna, while continuing to Anchorage. The captain stated that there was static during VHF communications with the AARTCC, that there was erratic movement with lights of the UAT during the visual contact, that navigation was being performed by coupling of the onboard INS's, and that the AARTCC had indicated to him the presence of a primary target in addition to his aircraft. Through a confidential source at JAL it was stated to me that this is not the first sighting of an unidentified aircraft by Captain Terauchi [10].

A comparison of the above versions of the second interview shows that the full and accurate story that I have previously presented, as based on the transcripts of the AARTCC audio tape and the detailed testimony of the crew, did not come through in the initial interviews. Furthermore, the interviewers had somewhat divergent opinions on what the captain told them. Part of this problem may have been, literally, in the translation (Japanese to English), but part of the problem also is that different people react to and remember different elements of any story. It is interesting to note Derry's reference to NORAD being contacted and NORAD reporting that "they also had two targets on radar." Derry also indicated that Air Force Intelligence would get a report on the sighting.

It is unfortunate that the interviewers did not think to tape-record the conversations for later analysis but instead simply relied upon their recollections and brief notes.

Nevertheless, the basic core of the story is clearly expressed in these early interviews and thus they support the captain's subsequent more detailed testimony, written about a month and a half later. Particularly supportive of the captain's later testimony were the drawings made during the interview with Derry and Mickle. They show how the lights appeared in front of the aircraft and beside the aircraft and how the radar target appeared. These sketches, made only hours after the events, are consistent with the more elaborate drawings that the captain made a month and a half later. These latter drawings were publicized widely in the news media.

The air traffic controller who was responsible for guiding the JAL flight recorded his recollections the next day, evidently without first listening to the AARTCC tape recording of the conversations with the plane. He wrote as follows [13]:

During the period of 2030 UTC (universal time coordinated), November 17, 1986, to 0430 UTC, November 18, 1986 I was on duty in the Anchorage ARTCC. I was working the D15 position from 0156 UTC to 0230 UTC, November 18, 1986. (This corresponds to 4:56 to 5:30 PM Alaska Standard Time, November 17, 1986.) At approximately 0225Z (5:25 PM) while monitoring JL1628 on Sector 15 radar the aircraft requested traffic information. I advised no traffic in his vicinity. The aircraft advised he had traffic 12 o'clock, same altitude. I asked JL1628 if he would like high/lower altitude and the pilot replied negative. I checked with ROCC to see if they had military traffic in the area and to see if they had primary targets in the area. ROCC did have a primary target in the same position JL1628 reported. Several times I had primary returns where JL1628 reported the traffic. JL later requested a turn to heading 210. I approved JL1628 to make deviations as necessary for traffic. The traffic stayed with JL1628 through turns and descent.

In the vicinity of Fairbanks I requested JL1628 to make a right 360 turn to see if he could identify the aircraft. He lost contact momentarily at which I time observed a primary target in the six o'clock position, five miles. I then vectored UA69 northbound to Fairbanks from Anchorage with his approval to see if he could identify the aircraft. He had contact with the JL1628 flight but reported no other traffic. By this time JL1628 had lost contact with the traffic. Also a military C-130 southbound to Elmendorf AFB from Eielson AFB advised he had plenty of fuel and would take a look. I vectored him toward the flight and climbed him to Flight Level 240 (24,000 ft). He also had no contact. I requested JL1628 to identify the type or markings of the aircraft. He could not identify but reported white and yellow strobes. I requested the JL1628 to say flight conditions. He reported clear and no clouds. The phrase "single primary returns" (used above) is in reference to a target other than JAL and "the traffic" is in reference to the unidentified object [10].

Although the Anchorage FAA alerted the FAA Security Office in Washington, D.C., no further action regarding the reported traffic was taken. This is unfortunate since careful debriefing at the time of the event possibly could have uncovered details which had been forgotten by the time the crew was interviewed again in January 1987.

The FAA "Sleeps" While The Presses Roll

It is quite likely that the JAL sighting would never have been known to the general public, nor would it have been investigated, if it hadn't been for the interest by the American newsmedia in an odd story out of Japan. On December 29, 1986, the Kyoda Press in Japan published a news story about a Japan Airlines crew that had seen a UFO while flying over Alaska and that the UFO had been picked up by military radar. The Kyoda press got the story as a result of the air crew talking to their friends, etc., and someone alerted the press. On December 24 the Kyoda Press contacted the Public Information Officer at Anchorage, Paul Steucke. According to Steucke, as told to Walter Andrus of MUFON, "The first thing I got was a phone call from Kyoda News Service out of Japan. That was the day before Christmas, December 24. They sent a correspondent over and the correspondent said to me - you know that we've got some information on 'such and such'. Is it true? I said, well, yeah, and here's what we've got. On the 29th after the Christmas holidays that story must have been printed somewhere in Japan because United Press International picked it up. Then the United press reporter over here asked me the same question and I told him the same thing."

UPI reporter Jeff Berliner broke the story in the United States on December 29. Numerous newspapers reprinted the story and the FAA headquarters in Washington, D.C. learned about it from the press reports, especially the January 1 report in the staid (never report a UFO story, and, if you must, be sure it is unfavorable!) Washington Post. When the FAA headquarters called Anchorage for the full story, it learned that the radar data tape had been saved (which was unusual since the tapes were generally reused after 30 days).

The FAA Wakes Up And Investigates

This information about the sighting must have come as a compete surprise to the FAA headquarters. On January 1 the FAA reopened its inquiry into the sighting. Capt. Terauchi was interviewed on January 2 [1], at which time he supplied his written testimony [2]. On January 4 the national press reported that the FAA had reopened the inquiry and numerous news stories followed.

The FAA released portions of the information through Mr. Steucke as the information became available. Unfortunately the FAA did not have a complete and accurate story to report and consequently the early news stories contained errors. The most amusing of these was in the reported time of the sightings. For some reason someone had handwritten a a note on the master copy of the first FAA release, which was a summary of the AARTCC tape recording. The note indicated that the events had begun at 6:19 PM, even though the summary itself clearly said 0219 UTC which translated to 5:19 PM Alaska Standard Time. This time error was perpetuated in news reports even though the captain recalled the correct time and stated it during an interview with Larry King on January 2.

While the press was having fun with the story the FAA continued its inquiry. The copilot was interviewed on January 5 [9] and the flight engineer on January 15 [10]. A complete transcript of the AARTCC tape recording, although with some errors, was completed on January 9 and the radar data tape recording was sent to a special FAA facility for analysis. The FAA announced that it would release the material it had collected after it complete the inquiry.

CSICOP Leaps Into The Breach

The initial press stories in January treated this sighting as real news. No one contradicted the captain when he made his "outlandish" claims, the most outlandish being that he was followed by a UFO larger than his 747 jumbo jet. The press was yearning for an explanation, but there was none to be had as long as the FAA was still investigating. It was at this point that CSICOP decided it was necessary to fill the vacuum. On the 22nd of January CSICOP published a press release entitled "UFO Mystery Solved" [14]. The cover letter of the press release announced the "findings of the (CSICOP) investigation into the Japan Air Lines Flight 1628 UFO incident of November 18, 1986." The release itself stated that "according to a leading UFO investigator" (Philip J. Klass) "at least one extraterrestrial object was involved - the planet Jupiter, and possibly another - Mars." The press release asserted that at the time of the sighting (incorrectly given as one hour earlier than it actually occurred) Jupiter was "extremely bright" at a -2.6 magnitude and would have been about 10 degrees above the horizon on the left side of the aircraft where the pilot first reported seeing the UFO. Mars would have been slightly lower and about 20 degrees to the right of Jupiter. The press release stated that "Although the very bright Jupiter and less bright Mars had to be visible to JAL Capt. Kenjyu Terauchi, the pilot never once reported seeing either - only a UFO that he described as being a "white and yellow" light in his initial radio report to the Federal Aviation Administration controllers at Anchorage" [14]. The press release could have mentioned, but did not, that Terauchi did report seeing numerous stars in the sky, city lights and a glow of sunset in the west.

The CSICOP explanation was based mostly on Phil Klass' analysis of an early version of the transcript of the audio tape. The radar tracking data were not made available at that time and so he could not have known the precise locations and flight directions of the plane at the times of the various sightings. Apparently he completely ignored the pictorial information (drawings by the captain) which had been widely publicized. Mr. Klass made a major error in not waiting for the release of the complete information package by the FAA because, if he had waited, he would have found that the publicized versions of the sighting were actually quite accurate in their descriptions of the lights. These descriptions, of course, rule out Jupiter and Mars as possible causes of the sighting. Without the FAA data package he did not know that initial drawings were made only about 2 hours after the event. Nor did he know that the other crew members, in separate interviews, supported the captain's report of the groups of lights that appeared in front of the plane. Nor did he know about the sudden rearrangement of the relative positions of the groups of lights from one above the other to one beside the other, a maneuver that Jupiter and Mars would have difficulty carrying out during the time of the sighting. Nor did he know that at the end of the sighting, while the plane was flying southward, roughly toward Jupiter and Mars, the pilot reported the "gigantic spacecraft" was behind and to the left, in a direction nearly opposite to the planets.

The CSICOP press release discussed and rejected the FAA and Air Force radar detections. Curiously, however, it completely ignored the claim by the pilot that the airplane radar did detect a radar-reflective object at 7 to 8 miles in the direction of the UFO. Perhaps Mr. Klass rejected this claim, but if he had waited for the data package from the FAA he would have learned that the other two members of the crew confirmed the pilot's statement about the radar detection.

In summary, the Jupiter-Mars explanation is contradicted by the sighting directions to the UFO at various times, by the descriptions of the crew members and by the airplane radar detection. However, the "gullible" press did not know that at the time. The explanation was widely publicized. The explanation made the captain look like an idiot, but that's OK. Only idiots report UFOs. Having done their duty the newsmedia promptly forget about the sighting.

In retrospect it appears that the CSICOP press release which was marked "FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE" should have been marked "FOR PREMATURE RELEASE."

The Press Sleeps While The FAA Analyzes

January went by and then February with still no word from the FAA. But then, on March 5, the FAA announced the results of the inquiry. According to the FAA press release the FAA "was unable to confirm the event" [15]. The event was unconfirmed because "a second radar target near the JAL flight at the time of the reported sighting was not another aircraft but rather a split radar return from the JAL Boeing 747." In other words, the FAA couldn't confirm the sighting on radar because the "traffic" or "primary return" reported by the AARTCC controller at the time of the sighting was merely an artifact of the radar set. Or so said the FAA! (Recall that the transponder return or "blip" is separate from the primary return blip. These two should be immediately adjacent or one-on-top of the other under ordinary conditions. What the FAA was saying was that because of a minor and temporary malfunction of the radar the primary return was separated in position on the radar screen from the transponder return, thus making look as if there were two separate radar-reflective objects in the sky.) The press release did not mention that the "split return effect" was contradicted by the fact that the extra echo did not come back with every sweep of the radar and by a statement by an airtraffic controller who said that they rarely, if ever, get a split image in the area where the JAL jet was flying. The press release did NOT offer an explanation for the visual sighting, nor did it dispute the crew's claim that something unusual was seen. The press release just did not address the issue of the visual sighting.

The March FAA release made a smaller splash in the press than had the original January stories about the FAA involvement. This may have been because the press misinterpreted the FAA statement combined with the "fact" that the sighting had already been "explained" by CSICOP. The general newsmedia concentrated on the FAA statement that it could not confirm the radar sighting and ignored the failure of the FAA to even mention the visual sighting. For example, NBC News incorrectly reported that "Terauchi's crewmates were not sure that they had seen a UFO" and that the FAA "concluded a three-month investigation saying there is nothing to substantiate the pilot's story." From this sort of press reporting one would get the impression that the whole sighting revolved around the Captain's story, which was not supported by the crew members. The NBS story failed to mention, probably because the NBC reporter didn't know, what you, dear reader, know: that the copilot and flight engineer had independently confirmed the pilot's report of seeing numerous lights appear in front and to the left of the aircraft and that the airplane radar had picked up a large target in the same direction as the UFO.

After March 5 the press interest in this story essentially died, leaving the general public with the impression that once again an experienced air crew had failed to identify normal phenomena. (Capt. Kenjyu Terauchi was subsequently "grounded" for a couple of years, evidently for his boldness in reporting what he and the others had seen.)

Postscripts:

There are two postscripts to this story. One is that the Philadelphia Inquirer evidently took this sighting seriously because several months later in the Sunday Magazine they published a very detailed report on the sighting. The author did not support the conclusion that the lights could be explained.

The second postscript is that CSICOP was not finished with the case. Evidently even Phil Klass could see that his Jupiter-Mars explanation had failed. In the Summer, 1987 issue of the Skeptical Inquirer he published a new analysis [16]. This time the lights were explained as reflections of moonlight from the clouds and "turbulent ice crystals." (Recall that the air crew reported thin clouds below them.) According to Klass the turbulent ice crystals "could have generated flame-colored lights" and "this would also explain why the undulating lights would periodically and suddenly disappear and then reapper as cloud conditions ahead changed. When the aircrft finally outflew the ice clouds and the initial "UFO" disappeared for good (the Captain) would search the sky for it, spot Jupiter further to the left and conclude it was the initial UFO."

Klass attributed the airplane radar sighting to "an echo from thin clouds of ice crystals." KLASS's clever explanation would not explain the heat which Terauchi felt on his face. Nor would it explain the distinct arrays of flames or lights associated with two independently flying objects that appeared ahead of the plane and above for many minutes (the clouds were reported to be below the plane). Nor would it explain the sudden rearranging of these arrays of lights. He says this could explain the colors, but this woud occur only if the moonlight were "broken" into its spectrum by refraction. But the spectrum of white light contains more than just the yellow, amber and green which were reported. Blue and red should also have been noted if the air crew was looking at what would essentially be a "rainbow."

The lights ahead of the aircraft were described as bright. The copilot compared them to headlights of oncoming aircraft. A reflection of the moon from thin clouds would cover broad areas of cloud and would be dim, rather than bright and point-like.

Klass explanation for the radar target is total conjecture on his part since the clouds were reported by the plane to be thin. Would there be any return at all from such clouds? One might ask, if there were so many clouds, why the radar didn't pick up numerous "blobby" returns on the right side and ahead of the aircraft as well as on the left where the "mothership" appeared to be. And, of course, Klass' explanation does not account for the "silhouette of a gigantic spaceship."

SIC TRANSIT GLORIA CSICOP.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Footnotes/References:

Interview of Capt. Kenjyu Terauchi, January 2, 1987. During the interview Capt. Terauchi reported two previous UFO sightings. About five years before the present sighting he saw a "mothership" shortly after taking off from Taipai, south of Formosa, but it was "so weird I ignored it." Then he saw, from his home during the daytime, bright lights that continued for about ten minutes. Although this was not Terauchi's first UFO, it was the first sighing of unidentified phenomena by the other two crew members. In January 1987 Capt. Terauchi had another sighting of a strange pheno- menon which he reported. He subsequently offered a satisfactory explanation for it. (From the FAA file on the JAL sighting)

Written (in Japanese, with translation) testimony of Capt. Kenjyu Terauchi as received by the FAA on January 2, 1987. A comparison of the transcript of the conversation with the air traffic controller (ref. 4 below) with Terauchi's testimony shows that, a month and a half after the sighting, he recalled the individual events quite but not perfectly accurately and that he confused the order of some of the events. The order of events in Terauchi's testimony has been modified somewhat in this presentation to place them in the order that is found on the AARTCC audio tape.

Flight path as constructed from the radar data package supplied by the FAA.

Information obtained from the tape recording and transcript of the tape recording of conversations between the plane and the AARTCC.

Writing somewhat more than a month after the event the pilot recalled [2] that the plane first communicated with Anchorage at 5:05 PM. He correctly recalled that the plane was asked to fly directly to Talkeetna and then take air route J-125 to Anchorage.

The order of events as presented here follows the order in the AARTCC tape [ref. 11]. The order of events in the captain's testimony is somewhat different. It appears that he accurately recalled most of the events which make up the total sighting, but he did not always present them in the proper order. His presentation seems to jump forward and back in time occasionally. The order of events as presented here seems, to this author, to be the most consistent with the testimony of the copilot and the flight engineer and the ARTCC tape. It should be noted that the lights were first seen by the captain in a location to the left and below the plane where neither the copilot nor the flight engineer would be likely to look. Whether or not the captain mentioned them at that time is not known. But all three witnesses recalled seeing the lights remaining in front and somewhat to the left of the aircraft for a number of minutes and then seeing
the light return to the left side as far back as the 9 o'clock position. After the lights dropped back farther than that, only the pilot was easily able to see them because of his position on the left side of the cockpit. Thus the total event consisted of a single witness sighting at the beginning, a multiple witness sighting in the middle and a single witness sighting at the end.

Notes made by Special Agents Jack Wright, James Derry and Ronald Mickle after the crew was interviewed just after the plane landed at Anchorage on November 17.

Interview of Captain Kenjyu Terauchi by Dr. Richard Haines (private communication).

Information found in the January 5, 1987 interview of Copilot Takanori Tamefuji.

The difficulty in communicating through an interpreter is evident in the transcript of this interview. At one point the interviewer asked Tamefuji, referring to the arrays of lights ahead and to the left, "And you could distinguish these lights as being different from the star...?" Tamefuji's reponse is transcribed as "NNNooo...," which some might interpret as meaning that Tamefuji couldn't distinguish the lights from stars. But the interviewer immediately continued "...from the stars?" to which Tamefuji replied, "Different is fine." Subsequently Tamefuji made it quite clear that the lights were very different from stars.

Information found in the January 15, 1987 interview of the flight engineer, Yoshio Tsukuba.

Transcript of the conversations between the airplane and the AARTCC and between the AARTCC and the Air Force Regional Operations Command Centter (ROCC).

Interview with Capt. Terauchi published in PEOPLE magazine, January 12, 1987.

Personal statement by Carl Henley of the AARTCC, released by the FAA office on December 29, 1986.

"UFO Mystery Solved," press release by the Committee for Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal (CSICOP), January 22, 1987 (Buffalo, NY).

"FAA Releases Documents on Reported UFO Sighting Last November," by Paul Steucke, Office of Public Affairs, Alaskan Region, Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), U.S. Department of Transport, March 5, 1987 (Anchorage, AK).

Klass, P.J., "FAA Data Sheds New Light on JAL Pilot's UFO Report," The
Skeptical Inquirer, Summer, 1987 (Buffalo, NY).