Introduction
It was a dark, clear winter's
evening, around 6 p.m.. A lady, alone in her car,
was driving along Columbia Street (a main
thoroughfare) towards and close to the Patullo
Bridge that crosses the Fraser River in the city
of New Westminster. Through her windshield, about
60-70° up and to her right, she noticed seven
equally spaced lights in "V" formation; they were
moving away from her in a direct line towards the
west or south west. Each light was constant in
intensity and white in colour.
Computer
generated image submitted by the witness, a
graphics artist.
"There
were seven lights lined up like geese with
an angle between the two rows of
approximately 90 degrees".
The duration of the sighting was
considered to be from a few seconds to one minute;
the lady was concentrating on her driving at the
time, reported the event some 9 months after
experiencing it (when she discovered the UFO*BC
web site), and she cannot be certain as to the
duration and the date of the observation.
The lady was familiar with
aircraft passing by - Vancouver International
Airport is nearby - but this was different:
"I
thought it was interesting but thought it
was just some plane I'd never noticed
before. When I got home my son who works for
Air Canada and my husband who also works at
the airport were in the kitchen and I asked
them if they knew what kind of plane had
those kind of lights and they both said at
the same time, "None."".
I too know of no aircraft that
displays this "V7" (my term) light arrangement and
I have spent literally hundreds of hours observing
and photographing aircraft. Naturally, when this
incident came to my attention it aroused my
curiosity and I investigated it further; in so
doing I discovered other factors that add to the
degree of strangeness of this event. The salient
points are noted below:
Unknown light arrangement
The lady did not observe any
structure, just the seven white lights in the
pattern of a "V":
"The
speed was similar to a landing plane
approaching the airport [Vancouver
International, CYVR] although it
was rather low but not so low that I felt
it was strange. I saw nothing at all
holding them [the lights]
in place and they
moved as though they were attached to a
single vehicle".
"They
[the lights]
did
not light up anything [on the ground] at all.
They did not separate but remained at a
constant distance apart from one another".
No known aircraft has this
arrangement of lights.
The close and constant distance
of the lights from each other would appear to
eliminate formation flying by seven separate
aircraft with spotlights (as too would the lack of
navigation and anti-collision lights; see later
notes).
Location of the lights
In normal operations, which are
highly proceduralised, commercial aircraft do not
fly their approaches into Vancouver International
Airport over the city of New Westminster; rather,
they fly south of it and above Annacis Island
which is in the Fraser River.
An example
of part of an Approach Plate used by pilots
when approaching to land on Runway 26R
at Vancouver International Airport. The red box depicts the approximate position
of the V7 lights.
Vancouver International bound
traffic would be expected in the New Westminster
area only if they were making a west-bound landing
on the north-most of Vancouver International's two
parallel runways (Runway 26R; "runway two six
right"); all other approaches would take the
aircraft away from the city.
If, as the lady assumed, this
was an aircraft landing at Vancouver International
Airport then the low-level pass over the city was
unusual; the observed position of the lights was
some 6 km (4 miles) north of the final approach
track on which a west-bound landing aircraft
should have been positioned at that stage in it's
approach. Air Traffic Control radar vectoring of
pass-through (none landing) traffic may possibly
result in such traffic passing over New
Westminster, but usually it would not.
The regulatory airspace in which
the Vancouver International bound traffic pass
through in the New Westminster area has a minimum
height above sea level of 2,500 feet; air traffic
should not be lower than this.
Underside lighting
The white lighting was on the
'underside' of the structure if it is assumed that
the "V7" lighting was part of one structure.
"The
lights were in front of me and moving away
from me. Now that you mention aircraft
lights shining forward [the landing
lights] the lights had to have been
beneath the craft, like [the] bottom
side of a boomerang ...".
What use a conventional aircraft
can make of seven bright lights pointing downwards
remains open to question.
Lack of mandatory aircraft
lighting
The lady has confirmed that
there were no flashing white anti-collision lights
nor fixed intensity red (port) and green
(starboard) navigation lights. Such lighting would
have been obvious if present and it is something
that all aircraft must display; it is a mandatory
requirement (exceptions apply for military
aircraft but most certainly NOT when they are
operating at low level in peacetime over major
cities in civilian Air Traffic Control Zones with
dense air traffic).
Relative size of the lights
The lady reported that:
"...
EACH light was as big as a dime or almost as
big held at arms length (I found a dime and
tried it out [this was during my
investigation] ). It was quite close to
the ground as it was landing (?) I think.
Such as a large plane would look as you
stand on No. 3 Road in Richmond near the
airport. I only hope my memory is not making
this larger than it really was".
As further guidance she also
gave the analogy:
"See if
this helps. The lights were the size of
headlights on a car as you stand about 20
feet away from the car".
The size of a dime at the lady's
arm length and a typical car headlight at 20 feet
are actually very close to being the same relative
size. The "No. 3 Road" analogy implies something
smaller for the light diameter; however, given
that any aircraft at No. 3 Road would be about 360
feet above the ground with just over 2 km to go
until landing, clearly something was amiss if it
had been over the city of New Westminster, some
18.5 km / 11.5 mile from the airport runway and
above a hill with a high point of around 400 feet.
Whatever the lady's
recollections of this event, her descriptions of
what she saw imply something large indeed.
The lady further judged the
distance between one light and the next to be 5 to
6 times the diameter of each light. This would
prove useful in my calculation of the span
distance of the lights (see later).
Relative size of the structure
 |
The lady reported that:
"...
From what I thought as I watched it
I thought it was the same size as I
think it's called the "Stealth
Bomber" that I saw when I drove with
my sister to Texas a few years ago
... This is starting to sound
weirder than I first thought".
The Northrop B-2
"Spirit" stealth bomber has a wingspan of
52.5 metre or 172 feet (the size of a
large commercial jet aircraft), so this
gives a starting approximation as to the
size of structure that was observed; we
appear to be talking large commercial jet
size.
|
Determining the actual size of
the lights and their span
What particularly interested me
from this was devising a means to assess
(estimating via calculation) as objectively as
possible the minimum diameter that each light
could have been and then, following from this, the
minimum span of the lights (the distance between
the outer parts of the two lights at the open end
of the V) . I could then compare these results to
known aircraft types.
Such calculations are relatively
easy to do with a basic knowledge of trigonometry;
indeed, it intrigued me somewhat to be calculating
the height of a 'flying triangle' by using the
mathematics of triangular geometry!. However, what
makes the results of these calculations 'fuzzy' is
the building in of error margins for the
observations and the need to make some
assumptions, particularly that of the height of
the lights above the ground and a value to
compensate for the real size of a light as opposed
to it's 'glare size' (ie with a corona). A number
of approaches can be taken to address these issues
but the end result will always be subjective to a
degree; I therefore prefer to look upon the
calculated results as 'feel factors' and I present
them only as examples in this context.
Judging the size of something is
never an easy task when faced with the unfamiliar
(and difficult enough even for the familiar; how
many people can, for example, judge the height of
an aircraft or a tree to within, say, 80-100% of
it's true value?). I asked the witness to apply an
error margin to her judgment: Given that she may
have over-estimated the size, what would be the
smallest size she would accept in her opinion?.
The answer was 50% of the size of a dime at arm's
length (90% of the size of a dime at arms length
was considered to be the most likely size by the
witness). I have therefore taken these range
limits into consideration for my calculations, but
I have also calculated the sizes on the basis that
the real size of each light was 5x SMALLER than
even the smallest the witness considered it could
have been. Even when this very large margin for
error is put into the calculations, the figures
reveal some remarkable results (see following).
As for the height of the lights,
the witnesses description suggests something on
par with the height of the usual commercial air
traffic than, say, a small aircraft flying very
low. My approach, therefore, has been to assume
that the lights were around the height of a
commercial aircraft inbound to Vancouver
International; by so doing it is then known that
they would not have been below 2,500 feet above
sea level (Air Traffic Control regulations) and
more typically would have been around 3,000 feet
if it was to intersect the "Glide Slope" radio
beam that guides the aircraft down to the runway
at Vancouver. As I am interested in calculating
only the minimum possible sizes for comparison
with known aircraft I can base my calculations on
these lower heights; I have also included
calculations for 1000 feet even though this would
be irregulalrly low for a conventional aircraft.
If the lights were lower than 1,000 feet then they
will be smaller than the calculations suggest;
however, they would need to be around 250 feet or
lower (at an error margin of 1/9th the size the
witness thought them to be) to be the size of a
conventional light on an aircraft (that is
dangerously low for any aircraft to be in this
area; indeed it is practically impossible as the
aircraft would be IN the hill).
Based upon the above factors the
following results arise:
|
If the
height of the lights was:
|
If the
error margin for the
relative size of each light is:
|
The
diameter
of each light was:
|
The
span across the
outer two lights was:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,000
ft
|
Observer's
maximum size.
|
9
metre / 29 ft
|
231
metre / 756 ft
|
|
1,000
ft
|
Observer's
minimum size.
|
5
metre / 16 ft
|
128
metre / 420 ft
|
|
1,000
ft
|
Half
observers minimum size.
|
2.5
metre / 8 ft
|
64
metre / 210 ft
|
|
1,000
ft
|
One
fifth observers minimum size.
|
1
metre / 3 ft
|
26
metre / 84 ft
|
| |
|
|
|
|
2,500
ft
|
Observer's
maximum size.
|
22
metre / 72 ft
|
576
metre / 1890 ft
|
|
2,500
ft
|
Observer's
minimum size.
|
12
metre / 40 ft
|
320
metre / 1050 ft
|
|
2,500
ft
|
Half
observers minimum size.
|
6
metre / 20 ft
|
160
metre / 525 ft
|
|
2,500
ft
|
One
fifth observers minimum size.
|
2.5
metre / 8 ft
|
64
metre / 210 ft
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3,000
ft
|
Observer's
maximum size.
|
26
metre / 87 ft
|
691
metre / 2269 ft
|
|
3,000
ft
|
Observer's
minimum size.
|
15
metre / 48 ft
|
384
metre / 1260 ft
|
|
3,000
ft
|
Half
observers minimum size.
|
7
metre / 24 ft
|
192
metre / 640 ft
|
|
3,000
ft
|
One
fifth observers minimum size.
|
3
metre / 10 ft
|
77
metre / 252 ft
|
Taking the scenario with the
smallest result for the mimimum regulatory
height of a commercial airliner inbound to
Vancouver International, which assumes
that the actual light size was just 1/5th (20%) of
the MINIMUM size that the observer judged they
could have been (and 1/9th the size of what the
observer judged they were more likely to have
been), the result is still a staggering 2.5 metre
(8 feet) for the diameter of each light. This is
far larger than any light on any known aircraft.
The resulting span between such
lights becomes 64 metre (210 feet), assuming a
distance between each light of 5 light diameters.
This interestingly is the wingspan of a Boeing
747-400 (Jumbo Jet) passenger aircraft (64 metre /
211 feet).
If the error margin is reduced,
but still assuming a light half the size of the
smallest the observer thought it could be, the
resulting span calculations far exceed that of any
known flying aircraft by at least a factor of 2 at
2,500 feet. Examples:
Aircraft with the largest
known wingspan: Antonov 124 transporter (Russia)
73.0 metre = 239.51
feet
Lockheed C-5A Galaxy military
transporter (USA)
67.9 metre = 222.71
feet
Largest commercial passenger
jet wingspan: Boeing 747-400
64.4 metre = 211.30
feet
Another large, locally common,
commercial jet: Airbus A340-300
60.3 metre = 197.84
feet
Military 'bat wing': Northrop
B-2 Spirit Stealth Bomber (USA)
52.4 metre = 172.00
feet
Other strange activity in this
area
Two independent witnesses
reported to UFO*BC a "V3" (my term) event that
occurred around 10pm on the night of Wednesday
1998 March 18, this being 2-3 months after the
event detailed in this report. This later event
was reported from witnesses living near the
Patullo Bridge which is just 2.5 km / 1.5 mile
from where the "V7" light formation appears to
have been.
Witness one reported:
"Earlier
this evening I was visiting in the Patullo
Bridge area of Surrey. My boyfriend and I
were watching TV and were at a commercial
break. He was half asleep and I was eagerly
awaiting the beginning of Primetime. My eye
caught a bright light out the window which
faces the bridge looking towards the
Coquitlam area. It was three round bright
white lights in the shape of triangle with
bluish rims around each. They were in a
stealth bomber like shape where two of the
lights are a little wider apart at the
bottom. It was not directly above me but
seemed to be tilted slightly so I could see
the formation. It paused for only a second
and then shot off to the west and down,
leaving a stream of bright light. My first
thought was a plane had crashed. I jumped up
with a sick feeling in my stomach an got a
little closer to the window waiting to see
an explosion of light. However, nothing
happened. The time was between 9:57 and
9:59pm."
When I asked if there had been
any structure between the lights that the witness
could determine, the witness reported that:
There
was "Definitely substance. It really
looked like a stealth bomber shaped
aircraft with a sleek smooth look".
As for the lights, they were
said to be:
"Just a
little smaller than a dime at arms length
and really bright".
A UFO*BC investigator who
contacted the second witness described:
"I
talked to the witness ... and he told me
last night at 10:01 he was alerted to a
bright white-blue light seen descending in
the South-West sky. Although the object was
first observed through his venetian blinds
it was bright enough to bring him outside as
he was certain he was seeing a plane crash.
After being outside 5 minutes and content
that he was going to see no more of the
prior lightshow he was surprised to observe
a orange fireball type light moving much
slower than a comet once again heading South
West. It then just "faded out" according to
the witness".
These observations came just two
days after a UFO*BC member had reported seeing a
flying triangle over the city of Surrey, this to
the south side of the Fraser River and not far
from the area discussed in this report:
"...
to-night about 11:15, I saw a triangular
object moving at a really good clip in a
s.e. direction. Didn't appear to be at a
great altitude, not a sound heard. Definite
triangle shape, with 3 (I think) very faint
whitish coloured lights in a definite
triangle shape. This would not have been
noticed had I not been looking up at the
precise moment it went by. Hard to imagine
any one else seeing this unless they were
looking at that part of the sky. I just
popped out onto the back steps to look at
the stars, and it went whizzing by.
Fantastic! ... ".
Corroboration
The witness contacted UFO*BC on
discovering it's web site, and did so in the hope
that others had reported the event that she had
experienced and which has been described in this
report. They had not, and to this day this is the
only eyewitness account that has been received
about this event.
RETURN TO HISTORY
INDEX