Eglin
AI Summary
The Eglin UAP case involved a military pilot's report of a potential unidentified aerial phenomenon near Eglin Air Force Base, Florida, on January 26, 2023. The object was assessed to likely be a lighter-than-air balloon, with no confirmed anomalous behavior observed.
Key Findings
- The reported object was likely a lighter-than-air (LTA) object, such as a large balloon. - No anomalous flight characteristics or behaviors were confirmed. - The pilot described the object as gray with a paneled surface and orange-red coloring. - The radar malfunction during the observation was likely coincidental and not caused by the object. - AARO and its partners assessed the object with high confidence as not exhibiting anomalous characteristics.
OCR Text
UNCLASSIFIED 1 UNCLASSIFIED All-domain Anomaly Resolution Office U.S. Department of Defense (U)Case: “Eglin UAP” Case Resolution | 14 October 2023 (U)Case Essentials (U)A military pilot reported the object due to its potential as a flight safety hazard and an incursion into a sensitive training range (U)Location: Near Eglin Air Force Base, Florida (U)Date: 26 January 2023 (U)Altitude: 16,000 feet (U)Shape: Rounded, cone (U)Reporter: Military personnel (U)Sensor: Electro-optical, infrared, visual identification, and radar (U)Behavior: No confirmed anomalous behavior (U)Case Status: Resolved; very likely a lighter-than-air object, such as a large commercial lighting balloon (U) Confidence Level: Moderate (U)Case Background (U)On 26 January 2023, a military pilot reported four potential unidentified anomalous phenomena (UAP) while operating in the Eglin Air Force Base training range off the coast of Florida. Through the onboard radar system, the pilot initially observed that the four objects were aloft between 16,000 – 18,000 feet and appeared to be flying in formation. However the pilot observed only one of the four objects visually and captured two images of the single object via the aircraft’s electro-optical/infrared (EO/IR) sensor (see Figures 1A and 1B). The pilot could not record video of the event because the aircraft’s video recording equipment was inoperable prior to and during the aircraft’s flight. The pilot observed this single object aloft at 16,000 feet. The following case information is based on the pilot’s initial report and a subsequent discussion that AARO held with the pilot to seek additional details about the pilot’s observation of the reported object. •(U) The pilot described the object as gray with a paneled surface and orange-red coloring at the center. The initial report did not provide the object’s size and speed, but in the subsequent discussion with AARO, the pilot reported the object was about 12 feet in diameter and that it either moved very slowly or was potentially stationary. •(U) In the initial report, the pilot described the bottom half of the object as being rounded, and the top half as a rounded, three-dimensional cone shape, similar to the shape of the 018 Page determined to be Unclassified Review by Chief of Staff, AARO IAW FY24 NDAA, Section 1841 (a)(1)(C) Date: 02/06/2025 All-Domain Anomaly Resolution Office Chief of Staff, AARO Authority: FY24 NDAA, now codified at 44 U.S.C. 2107 Date: 02/06/2025 Released in Full: ____X___; Released in Part ______ Case Number: 330UAP000018 UNCLASSIFIED 2 UNCLASSIFIED “Apollo spacecraft” (see Figure 2). The pilot visually perceived a heat signature emanating from the rounded bottom portion, which they described as “blurry air.” •(U) During AARO’s discussion with the pilot, the pilot stated that they thought they saw a vertically oriented engine affixed to the side of the object that was nearly the height of the object. This feature is not visible in the two still images taken by the EO/IR sensor, and the pilot did not include this description in the initial report. AARO has no additional data to corroborate whether the object may have had an engine. •(U) The pilot reported that upon closing to within 4,000 feet of the object, the radar on the aircraft malfunctioned and remained disabled for the remainder of the training exercise. Post-mission review determined that a circuit breaker had tripped; technicians reported that the same circuit breaker on this particular aircraft had tripped three times in the prior months, but technicians could not conclusively diagnose the cause of the fault for this incident. Based on the previous tripping of this circuit, AARO assesses the malfunction likely was not caused by or associated with the object. •(U) During the discussion with the pilot, they recounted that after the radar malfunctioned, the object descended into the cloud deck. •(U) There was no EO/IR data for the other three reported objects initially observed on radar; therefore, AARO could not analyze those reported objects. (U)Key Findings (U)AARO assesses the reported UAP very likely was an ordinary object and was not exhibiting anomalous or exceptional characteristics or flight behaviors. AARO has moderate confidence in this assessment due to the limited data provided. •(U) AARO assesses the object was a lighter-than-air (LTA) object, such as a large form- factor balloon; a meteorological balloon; a large Mylar balloon; or a large, commercial, outdoor, helium-filled, lighting balloon. AARO has moderate confidence in its identification of the object. AARO bases this assessment on a thorough review of the data collected, official pilot accounts of the object’s description and behavior, laboratory testing of a commercial lighting balloon determined to have similar physical characteristics to the object described in the pilot’s report, a reconstruction of the flight geometry, and the sun angle …
Metadata
- Agency
- —
- Classification
- UNCLASSIFIED
- Department
- NARA
- Catalog source
- View NARA catalog record