Human-world claims below are kept separate from Fred and Visitor editorial/lore. Translation changes language, not evidence status.
Witness typesflight crew, two observers
Sensor typesaircraft TCAS, air-traffic-control radar
Evidence typeseyewitness report, aircraft instrument detection, official investigation
On 2019-03-29, during EASYJET flight EZY926L between Lille and Nice, the pilot contacted air traffic control about wake turbulence and possible heavy traffic 1,000 feet below.
Claim #8184 // FACTUAL CLAIM // SOURCED // 99% extraction confidence
“On 29 March 2019, during an EASYJET flight (EZY926L) between Lille (59) and Nice (06), the pilot called air traffic control regarding wake turbulence and possible "heavy" traffic (wide-body aircraft) 1,000 ft below.”
Source: [AERO EZY] DROME (26) 29.03.2019
// [[T0001]] paragraph beginning "On 29 March 2019"
The pilot said that a heavy aircraft had crossed from right to left a few minutes earlier and that its switched-on lights were quite unusual.
Claim #8185 // ATTRIBUTED CLAIM // SOURCED // 98% extraction confidence
“The pilot confirmed to the controller that a "heavy" had crossed from right to left a few minutes earlier and wondered what type of aircraft it might have been because "the lights that were switched on were 'quite unusual.'"”
Source: [AERO EZY] DROME (26) 29.03.2019
// [[T0001]] paragraph beginning "The pilot confirmed"
Two people saw the unusual lights, and the UAP appeared on the aircraft's TCAS instrument.
Claim #8186 // FACTUAL CLAIM // SOURCED // 99% extraction confidence
“Two people saw these lights. In addition, this UAP appeared on the TCAS instrument on board.”
Source: [AERO EZY] DROME (26) 29.03.2019
// [[T0001]] sentence beginning "Two people saw these lights"
No aircraft matching the reported trajectory and altitude was visible on the radars of the Aix-en-Provence control center.
Claim #8187 // FACTUAL CLAIM // SOURCED // 99% extraction confidence
“However, no aircraft corresponding to the trajectory and altitude described by the pilot is visible on the radars of the Aix-en-Provence control center.”
Source: [AERO EZY] DROME (26) 29.03.2019
// [[T0002]] paragraph beginning "However, no aircraft"
The crew reportedly observed an aircraft with unusual lights from the cockpit a few minutes before reaching the NISAR reporting point; the object appeared on TCAS approximately 10 to 15 nautical miles ahead and 1,000 feet lower, traveling from right to left.
Claim #8188 // ATTRIBUTED CLAIM // SOURCED // 98% extraction confidence
“a few minutes before arriving at this point, the crew observed an aircraft with unusual lights from the cockpit.”
Source: [AERO EZY] DROME (26) 29.03.2019
// [[T0002]] numbered analysis list, second bullet
GEIPAN's analysis found that the atmospheric conditions were not favorable to persistent wake turbulence from another aircraft.
Claim #8189 // ASSESSMENT // SOURCED // 98% extraction confidence
“the atmospheric conditions that day were not favorable to the persistence of wake turbulence from another aircraft.”
Source: [AERO EZY] DROME (26) 29.03.2019
// [[T0003]] analysis list, first bullet
GEIPAN assessed that the UAP was probably the plot visible on TCAS because it appeared to correspond to what the crew saw from the cockpit.
Claim #8190 // ASSESSMENT // SOURCED // 98% extraction confidence
“the UAP observed by the crew was probably the plot visible on the TCAS because it appears to correspond to what they saw from the cockpit.”
Source: [AERO EZY] DROME (26) 29.03.2019
// [[T0003]] analysis list, third bullet
Under the hypothesis that the UAP was the TCAS plot, GEIPAN concluded that it was equipped with a transponder, but noted that it should then also have been identifiable by air-traffic-control radar.
Claim #8191 // ASSESSMENT // SOURCED // 96% extraction confidence
“under this hypothesis, we can conclude that the UAP was equipped with a transponder, but in that case it should also have been identifiable by air traffic control's radars.”
Source: [AERO EZY] DROME (26) 29.03.2019
// [[T0003]] analysis list, fourth bullet
Because there was no description of the UAP, GEIPAN could not determine why the cockpit lights appeared unusual to the pilot.
Claim #8192 // ASSESSMENT // SOURCED // 99% extraction confidence
“having no description of the UAP, we cannot determine why the lights seen from the cockpit were unusual to the pilot.”
Source: [AERO EZY] DROME (26) 29.03.2019
// [[T0003]] analysis list, fifth bullet
The absence of the pilot's testimony prevented GEIPAN from proposing a precise hypothesis.
Claim #8193 // ASSESSMENT // SOURCED // 99% extraction confidence
“The lack of information (no testimony from the pilot) does not allow us to put forward a precise hypothesis.”
Source: [AERO EZY] DROME (26) 29.03.2019
// [[T0003]] paragraph beginning "The lack of information"
GEIPAN classified the observation as C because of a lack of usable information.
Claim #8194 // FACTUAL CLAIM // SOURCED // 99% extraction confidence
“GEIPAN classifies this observation as C due to a lack of usable information.”
Source: [AERO EZY] DROME (26) 29.03.2019
// [[T0003]] paragraph beginning "GEIPAN classifies this observation"
