The Dan-Air incident of June 17, 1991, presents a credible, radar-confirmed aerial encounter that remains unexplained to this day. A dark, wingless object passed beneath a commercial Boeing 737 at 14,000 feet, was observed by both the flight crew and passengers, and was confirmed by Gatwick radar operators—yet it had no transponder, filed no flight plan, and moved in a controlled airspace at around 120 mph.
The Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) quickly attributed it to a weather balloon, but this explanation was rejected by the UK Met Office, which confirmed that balloons that day were lower in altitude, slower, and visibly colored—unlike the dark, fast object observed.
A similar incident occurred less than a month later involving another 737, with nearly identical descriptions and radar data, yet again dismissed as a balloon.
Despite multiple eyewitnesses, instrumental confirmation, and internal doubts, both events were quietly shelved, with no formal investigations by the Ministry of Defence and no physical evidence recovered.
In summary: These incidents remain unresolved, suggesting either an unknown aerial phenomenon, an unacknowledged military test, or something more anomalous. What’s clear is that the official explanations conflict with the data, and the lack of follow-up raises serious questions about institutional transparency and airspace security.
The Dan-Air incident of June 17, 1991, presents a credible, radar-confirmed aerial encounter that remains unexplained to this day. A dark, wingless object passed beneath a commercial Boeing 737 at 14,000 feet, was observed by both the flight crew and passengers, and was confirmed by Gatwick radar operators—yet it had no transponder, filed no flight plan, and moved in a controlled airspace at around 120 mph.
The Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) quickly attributed it to a weather balloon, but this explanation was rejected by the UK Met Office, which confirmed that balloons that day were lower in altitude, slower, and visibly colored—unlike the dark, fast object observed.
A similar incident occurred less than a month later involving another 737, with nearly identical descriptions and radar data, yet again dismissed as a balloon.
Despite multiple eyewitnesses, instrumental confirmation, and internal doubts, both events were quietly shelved, with no formal investigations by the Ministry of Defence and no physical evidence recovered.
In summary:
These incidents remain unresolved, suggesting either an unknown aerial phenomenon, an unacknowledged military test, or something more anomalous. What’s clear is that the official explanations conflict with the data, and the lack of follow-up raises serious questions about institutional transparency and airspace security.