Within Berkshire UFOs
Berkshire's Most Serious Unresolved Pilot Report
A Heathrow-bound aviation safety case gives Berkshire its strongest unresolved report: a pilot's close encounter with a bright metallic object at altitude.
On this page
- The pilot's account at flight level 340
- Radar, TCAS and Airprox checks
- What investigators ruled out and left open
Page outline Jump by section
Introduction
Berkshire’s most serious unresolved pilot report is the 19 July 2013 Airprox in which an Airbus A320 captain, flying at flight level 340 — about 34,000 ft — reported a bright silver, metallic, cigar- or rugby-ball-shaped object passing within a few feet above the aircraft. The incident was logged by the UK Airprox Board as report 2013086, at 18:35 UTC, around 19.5 nautical miles west of London Heathrow, over the Berkshire area. Investigators checked radar, TCAS, air traffic control information, balloon releases and nearby aircraft, but could not identify the object or determine the risk with confidence. The result is not proof of an exotic craft. It is stronger, and more limited, than that: a well-documented aviation safety report that remained unresolved after formal checks. [Airprox Board]airproxboard.org.ukAirprox Board
The case matters within Berkshire UFO history because it is not a casual ground sighting, a newspaper rumour or a retrospective anecdote. It came from a commercial airline pilot, entered the UK’s Airprox investigation system, and was assessed using radar recordings and air traffic evidence. That gives it more evidential weight than most local UFO reports, while also showing the limits of such evidence when the reported object leaves no radar track, no second visual witness and no recoverable physical trace. [Airprox Board]airproxboard.org.ukAirprox Board
Why this case belongs in Berkshire’s UFO history
The Airprox report gives the position as 51°26’N, 000°58’W, 19.5 nautical miles west of Heathrow, in the London Upper Information Region, Class C controlled airspace. In local terms, that places the event west of the airport reference point and within the broad Berkshire airspace story: a county crossed by busy London-route traffic, close to Heathrow, White Waltham and the Thames Valley’s aviation infrastructure. [Airprox Board]airproxboard.org.ukAirprox Board
It is easy to misread the case as a “Heathrow landing” incident. The official report is more precise: the A320 was in northbound level cruise at FL340 and receiving a Radar Control Service from London Control, not descending on final approach. Heathrow appears in the record as the nearest major aviation reference point, not necessarily as the aircraft’s destination. That distinction matters, because an object at 34,000 ft raises different questions from a drone or model aircraft near an airport boundary. [Airprox Board]airproxboard.org.ukAirprox Board
The case also sits apart from Berkshire’s better-known 1967 “landed saucer” hoax. The 1967 saucers were physical prank objects quickly explained; the 2013 Airprox was a brief airborne observation that could not be pinned down after technical review. One is useful as a lesson in public reaction and hoaxing; the other is useful as a lesson in what formal aviation investigation can and cannot resolve. [CAA]caa.co.ukOpen source on caa.co.uk.
The pilot’s account at flight level 340
The key witness was the A320 captain in the left-hand seat. According to the UK Airprox Board report, the first officer was looking down at the flight log when the captain looked west through the left-hand Direct Vision window, then turned to look ahead and perceived an object travelling towards the aircraft at roughly the same level, slightly above the flight deck windscreen. The captain reported having very little time to focus and believed the aircraft was on a collision course. [Airprox Board]airproxboard.org.ukAirprox Board
The report records a striking human detail: the captain’s immediate reaction was to duck to the right and reach across to alert the first officer, with no time to speak. He was expecting an impact with what he thought was a conflicting aircraft. The first officer did not see the object and initially thought something was wrong with the aircraft or the captain. [Airprox Board]airproxboard.org.ukAirprox Board
The description that made the story travel through the press was concise and memorable. The captain described the object as “cigar/rugby ball like” in shape, bright silver, and metallic in appearance, and believed it passed within a few feet above the aircraft. Later newspaper and magazine accounts repeated the rugby-ball image, often under “UFO near miss” headlines, but the official report’s careful wording is more important than the sensational framing: the captain perceived a rapidly closing object, but its actual size, distance, speed and altitude could not be verified. [Airprox Board+2The Week]airproxboard.org.ukAirprox BoardAirprox Board
This is the central tension in the case. A trained pilot’s immediate danger response deserves attention, especially in controlled airspace at airline cruising altitude. At the same time, a very brief sighting from a moving cockpit is vulnerable to judgement errors in range, scale and closure rate, particularly when there is no corroborating radar return or second visual confirmation. The UKAB’s final assessment reflects both sides: the pilot experienced a “powerful impression of immediate danger”, but the board did not have enough information to make a meaningful finding about the object itself. [Airprox Board]airproxboard.org.ukAirprox Board
Radar, TCAS and Airprox checks
The investigation had more to work with than most UFO reports, but less than would be needed for a firm identification. CAA Air Traffic Standards Investigation had access to area radar recordings, the written pilot report and a NATS investigation report. The radar recording was filtered to show aircraft between FL320 and FL390, along with unknown primary contacts, at the reported time of 18:35:22. [Airprox Board]airproxboard.org.ukAirprox Board
One initially interesting radar return was an unknown primary contact in the A320’s 10 o’clock position at 2.2 nautical miles. The investigation traced that contact back to the vicinity of Eling, about 30 nautical miles west of Heathrow, and found that it routed west and landed at White Waltham at 18:46. It was identified as a low-level Tiger Moth aircraft and eliminated from the investigation. [Airprox Board]airproxboard.org.ukAirprox Board
The report also notes three other relevant aircraft in the wider picture: a Boeing 747 about 38.2 nautical miles west of the A320 at FL370, a Boeing 737 about 23.4 nautical miles north-west at FL358, and another Boeing 737 about 28.2 nautical miles ahead at the same level on a similar route. None was close enough on the evidence to be treated as the object, but their positions became important when investigators considered whether sunlight glint could have produced a misleading impression. [Airprox Board]airproxboard.org.ukAirprox Board
The absence of a TCAS return is significant but not decisive. TCAS, or more formally ACAS, detects nearby aircraft through transponder replies; it does not detect objects without a functioning transponder. A non-transponding aircraft, balloon, fragment, reflective object or other small target could therefore fail to appear on TCAS even if seen visually. The official report says no TCAS traffic was seen and no TCAS alerts or advisories were issued, but that alone does not prove there was no object. [Airprox Board+2Skybrary]airproxboard.org.ukAirprox BoardAirprox Board
The radar gap is harder to interpret. Primary radar can sometimes detect objects without transponders, but small, low-observable, short-lived or poorly placed targets may not be recorded in a useful way. In this case the UKAB report states that there were no radar traffic returns in the immediate vicinity of the A320 and that the Military Radar Analysis Cell was unable to trace the reported object. That leaves the case unresolved, not confirmed. [Airprox Board]airproxboard.org.ukAirprox Board
What investigators ruled out and left open
The strongest official conclusion is negative: investigators could not trace the object. The NATS investigation could not verify its origin, level or size; the Military Radar Analysis Cell could not find it; and the UK Airprox Board Secretariat was unable to trace the “other aircraft”. This is why the case survives as an unresolved report rather than a solved aviation encounter. [Airprox Board]airproxboard.org.ukAirprox Board
Meteorological balloons were checked directly. The NATS pre-flight bulletin for the London Flight Information Region contained three NOTAMs for meteorological and radiosonde balloon releases with unlimited upper levels, but the sponsors confirmed that no balloons had been released from the specified sites on the incident date. The board also calculated that a helium-filled envelope would need to be about one metre in diameter to reach FL340, ruling out commercially available toy balloons as a likely answer. [Airprox Board]airproxboard.org.ukAirprox Board
A modern reader may ask whether it could have been a drone. The official 2013 report did not identify it as a drone, and the altitude makes an ordinary consumer-drone explanation weak. Current CAA guidance for drones and model aircraft states that they must normally remain no more than 120 metres, or 400 ft, from the closest point of the earth’s surface, a very different regime from 34,000 ft airline cruise. That does not prove a drone was impossible in every technical sense, but it makes the familiar airport-drone explanation a poor fit for this specific report. [CAA]caa.co.ukOpen source on caa.co.uk.
The most plausible prosaic explanation considered by the board was not a hidden aircraft directly above the A320, but an optical misperception. The sun was calculated at a bearing of 278 degrees and an elevation of about 21 degrees at ground level, or about 24 degrees at FL340. Board members thought a reflection from the low sun off one of the aircraft to the west, combined with the captain’s head movement as he looked forward, might have created the impression of a rapidly closing object. [Airprox Board]airproxboard.org.ukAirprox Board
That explanation was not adopted as a finding. The report says the reflection theory “held some merit”, but that the lack of information made a meaningful finding impossible. For a balanced Berkshire UFO history, this is the most important line: the official investigators did not say “alien craft”, “drone”, “balloon” or “aircraft”; they said the evidence was too thin to decide. [Airprox Board]airproxboard.org.ukAirprox Board
What the Airprox rating actually means
The case was assessed as “Cause: Sighting report” and “Degree of Risk: D”. In UKAB language, Category D means the risk was not determined because there was insufficient information, or because inconclusive or conflicting evidence prevented a determination. It is not the same as Category A, where a serious risk of collision existed, nor Category B, where safety was not assured. [Airprox Board]airproxboard.org.ukAirprox Board
That can sound counter-intuitive because the pilot believed impact was imminent. The distinction is between perceived danger in the cockpit and independently assessable collision risk after the event. The captain’s reaction is part of the evidence, but without a traceable object, reliable separation, verified altitude, radar track or second sighting, the board could not calculate whether a collision risk actually existed. [Airprox Board]airproxboard.org.ukAirprox Board
The UKAB’s wider role also matters here. It is not a UFO investigation body and it is not there to apportion blame or liability. Its task is to establish what happened, assess risk and identify safety lessons from reported aircraft proximity events in UK airspace. The CAA describes Airprox review as focused on what happened, why it happened and what mitigations might reduce future risk, rather than on punishing individuals. [Airprox Board]airproxboard.org.ukOpen source on airproxboard.org.uk.
For UFO readers, that institutional setting is a strength and a limitation. It gives the report a disciplined aviation-safety frame, but it also means the investigation stops where aviation evidence stops. The board was not trying to solve every possible identity hypothesis; it was deciding whether an Airprox had occurred and what risk could be assessed from the available data. [Airprox Board]airproxboard.org.ukOpen source on airproxboard.org.uk.
How later reporting shaped the public story
The press coverage in January 2014 amplified the most dramatic elements: a pilot ducking, a rugby-ball-shaped UFO, and a near miss over the Berkshire countryside. The Week, The Independent, UPI and other outlets repeated the official description and turned the case into a widely shared “UFO near Heathrow” story. [The Week+2The Independent]theweek.comufo spotted berkshire skies leaves investigators baffledufo spotted berkshire skies leaves investigators baffled
This coverage helped preserve the case in public memory, but it also blurred some details. Headlines tended to emphasise Heathrow and “UFO” more than the Airprox context, the FL340 cruise altitude, the lack of a second witness and the board’s cautious Category D risk assessment. The word “UFO” is technically fair in its narrow sense — an unidentified flying object — but it can mislead if read as a claim of extraordinary origin. [The Week]theweek.comufo spotted berkshire skies leaves investigators baffledufo spotted berkshire skies leaves investigators baffled
Later Heathrow drone stories can also create confusion. For example, a separate 2014 Heathrow A320 Airprox involved a small object near final approach at about 700 ft and was treated as a suspected model aircraft or drone-type encounter. That is a different kind of case from the 2013 Berkshire report at 34,000 ft, and it should not be merged with it simply because both involved an Airbus and Heathrow-area airspace. [The Guardian]theguardian.comThe Guardian Investigators confirm Heathrow plane in near miss with droneThe Guardian Investigators confirm Heathrow plane in near miss with drone
The 2013 case has not been strengthened by later physical evidence, new radar disclosure or identified witnesses. Its status is therefore stable but narrow: a formally investigated, unresolved pilot sighting. Later retellings that make it sound more certain than that weaken the evidential quality of the story rather than improve it. [Airprox Board]airproxboard.org.ukAirprox Board
The most careful reading of the case
The best-supported version is this: at 18:35 UTC on 19 July 2013, an A320 captain in level cruise at FL340 west of Heathrow saw a bright metallic object that appeared to approach and pass extremely close above the aircraft. The first officer did not see it. TCAS showed no relevant traffic, ATC had no known aircraft in the immediate vicinity, radar review did not reveal a matching object, balloon releases were checked and excluded, and a nearby low-level Tiger Moth primary return was identified and ruled out. [Airprox Board+3Airprox Board+3Airprox Board]airproxboard.org.ukAirprox BoardAirprox Board
The strongest sceptical reading is that the captain may have seen a sun glint or reflection from one of the aircraft farther west, with head movement and the brief viewing angle creating a false impression of a close, fast-moving object. This is not a debunking in the strict sense, because the board did not prove it; it is an evidence-based possibility that the board explicitly considered. [Airprox Board]airproxboard.org.ukAirprox Board
The strongest unresolved reading is that the pilot saw something real that was not captured or identified by the available systems. That possibility cannot be dismissed outright, because TCAS does not detect non-transponder objects and radar did not provide a complete explanatory track. But the available record does not justify claims about origin, technology, intent or exotic nature. [Skybrary+2EUROCONTROL]skybrary.aeroOpen source on skybrary.aero.
For Berkshire, the case is valuable precisely because it resists both easy excitement and easy dismissal. It is one of the county’s few UFO-related reports with a formal aviation paper trail, yet the paper trail ends in uncertainty. The honest conclusion is not that a mysterious craft was confirmed over Berkshire, but that a credible pilot reported a startling close encounter and the official checks could not identify what caused it.
Amazon book picks
Further Reading
Books and field guides related to Berkshire's Most Serious Unresolved Pilot Report. Use these as the next step if you want deeper reading beyond the article.
UFOs
Centers on credible pilot reports and aviation incidents, closely matching an unresolved airline pilot sighting.
In Plain Sight: an Investigation Into UFOs and Impossible Sci...
Examines unresolved aerial-object cases and evidence assessment, fitting the investigative angle of the Airprox report.
The UFO Experience
Focuses on evaluating sighting reports and evidential standards rather than sensational claims.
eBay marketplace picks
Marketplace Samples
Example marketplace items related to this page. Use the search link to explore similar finds on eBay.
Endnotes
-
Source: airproxboard.org.uk
Title: Airprox Board
Link: https://www.airproxboard.org.uk/Documents/Download/1719/3e5acfa9-5e33-4c70-b68e-6fb0fcd77fe8/515 -
Source: caa.co.uk
Link: https://www.caa.co.uk/about-us/make-a-report-or-complaint/report-something/mor/airprox-investigation-and-the-occurrence-reporting-regulations/ -
Source: skybrary.aero
Link: https://skybrary.aero/articles/airborne-collision-avoidance-system-acas -
Source: eurocontrol.int
Link: https://www.eurocontrol.int/system/acas -
Source: caa.co.uk
Link: https://www.caa.co.uk/drones/open-category/drone-code/where-you-can-fly-points-3-to-9/ -
Source: upi.com
Title: Airline pilot reports near miss with UFO near Heathrow Airport
Link: https://www.upi.com/Odd_News/2014/01/06/Airline-pilot-reports-near-miss-with-UFO-near-Heathrow-Airport/1861389029196/ -
Source: eurocontrol.int
Link: https://www.eurocontrol.int/sites/default/files/2019-05/eam2-gui3-e1.0.pdf -
Source: skybrary.aero
Link: https://skybrary.aero/sites/default/files/bookshelf/423.pdf -
Source: skybrary.aero
Title: a320 vehicle london heathrow uk 2006
Link: https://skybrary.aero/accidents-and-incidents/a320-vehicle-london-heathrow-uk-2006 -
Source: skybrary.aero
Link: https://skybrary.aero/sites/default/files/bookshelf/908.pdf -
Source: skybrary.aero
Link: https://skybrary.aero/sites/default/files/bookshelf/4074.pdf -
Source: skybrary.aero
Title: AIRPROX C
Link: https://skybrary.aero/articles/airprox -
Source: skybrary.aero
Title: TCA S RA Not Followed (SKYclip)TCAS
Link: https://skybrary.aero/tcas-ra-not-followed-skyclip -
Source: aviation-safety.net
Link: https://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/156855 -
Source: heathrow.com
Title: HCNF To70 Departure Noise Optimisation 20210428
Link: https://www.heathrow.com/content/dam/heathrow/web/common/documents/company/local-community/noise/heathrow-community-noise-forum/forum-meeting-notes/2021/HCNF_To70_Departure_Noise_Optimisation_20210428.pdf -
Source: airproxboard.org.uk
Link: https://www.airproxboard.org.uk/learn-more/about-us/ -
Source: wikishire.co.uk
Link: https://wikishire.co.uk/wiki/Berkshire -
Source: theweek.com
Title: ufo spotted berkshire skies leaves investigators baffled
Link: https://theweek.com/uk-news/56717/ufo-spotted-berkshire-skies-leaves-investigators-baffled -
Source: independent.co.uk
Title: airbus pilot reveals near miss with ufo over berkshire countryside 9040010
Link: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/weird-news/airbus-pilot-reveals-near-miss-with-ufo-over-berkshire-countryside-9040010.html -
Source: airproxboard.org.uk
Link: https://www.airproxboard.org.uk/learn-more/contributory-factors-and-risk-ratings/ -
Source: airproxboard.org.uk
Link: https://www.airproxboard.org.uk/ -
Source: theguardian.com
Title: The Guardian Investigators confirm Heathrow plane in near miss with drone
Link: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/dec/12/heathrow-plane-near-miss-drone -
Source: airproxboard.org.uk
Link: https://www.airproxboard.org.uk/media/d4gln51l/bluebook28.pdf -
Source: airproxboard.org.uk
Link: https://www.airproxboard.org.uk/media/h5jpoqos/bluebook20.pdf -
Source: airproxboard.org.uk
Link: https://www.airproxboard.org.uk/reports-and-analysis/monthly-airprox-reviews/airprox-reports-2024/december/ -
Source: airproxboard.org.uk
Link: https://www.airproxboard.org.uk/reports-and-analysis/monthly-airprox-reviews/airprox-reports-2025/october/ -
Source: airproxboard.org.uk
Link: https://www.airproxboard.org.uk/media/w0rfsdx5/bluebook4.pdf -
Source: airproxboard.org.uk
Link: https://www.airproxboard.org.uk/media/42si3bcb/bluebook19.pdf -
Source: airproxboard.org.uk
Link: https://www.airproxboard.org.uk/learn-more/copyright/ -
Source: airproxboard.org.uk
Link: https://www.airproxboard.org.uk/learn-more/benefits-of-airprox-reporting/ -
Source: icao.int
Link: https://www.icao.int/filebrowser/download/61362?fid=61362 -
Source: Wikipedia
Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berkshire -
Source: Wikipedia
Title: UK Airprox Board
Link: https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/UK_Airprox_Board -
Source: caa.co.uk
Link: https://www.caa.co.uk/media/wamjwgew/f0001774replyletter.pdf -
Source: caa.co.uk
Title: CA P 760
Link: https://www.caa.co.uk/publication/download/13108 -
Source: caa.co.uk
Title: f0006923 board meeting notes regarding airprox
Link: https://www.caa.co.uk/media/txrj1vla/f0006923-board-meeting-notes-regarding-airprox.pdf -
Source: caa.co.uk
Title: Accessing information held by the CAAThe UK Airprox Board (UKAB)
Link: https://www.caa.co.uk/about-us/information-requests/accessing-information-held-by-the-caa/ -
Source: caa.co.uk
Link: https://www.caa.co.uk/drones/getting-started-with-drones-and-model-aircraft/drone-code/less-common-flying-points-37-to-39/
Additional References
-
Source: youtube.com
Link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FD_AQiW15nISource snippet
UFO's: Investigating the Unknown MEGA EPISODE | Secret Programs and Close Encounters | Nat Geo...
-
Source: youtube.com
Link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qopAfm_t1FgSource snippet
UFO pilot ducks Heathrow A320 2013 Proof that CHEMTRAILS do exist!!!??? #shorts Captain Joe...
-
Source: youtube.com
Link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1WwGGuQljl4Source snippet
Again Multiple UFO/UAP Reports by Pilots | "They moving at Extreme Speeds!"...
-
Source: youtube.com
Title: Again Multiple UFO/UAP Reports by Pilots | “They moving at Extreme Speeds!”
Link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SGtrOH2yXOESource snippet
Pilot Reports a UFO Just Flying By his Plane | "Creepy!"...
-
Source: youtube.com
Title: Pilot Reports a UFO Just Flying By his Plane | “Creepy!”
Link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X7AgcmoSecgSource snippet
Terrifying UFO Encounter Over the Pacific! Gulfstream Pilot Reports UAP at 47,000 ft...
-
Source: berksfhs.org
Link: https://berksfhs.org/info/research-guides/about-historic-berkshire/ -
Source: gbmaps.com
Link: https://www.gbmaps.com/free-county-maps/Berkshire.php -
Source: fpvuk.org
Link: https://fpvuk.org/caa-permission-for-flight-above-400ft/ -
Source: reddit.com
Link: https://www.reddit.com/r/flying/comments/4ecvin/does_tcas_detect_ga_aircraft/ -
Source: opentext.com
Link: https://www.opentext.com/customers/heathrow-airport
Topic Tree