THE ALITALIA AZ284 INCIDENT
THE RECENT NEWS reports regarding American Airlines Flight 2292 encountering what some commentators have suggested was a cruise or hypersonic missile test over New Mexico on 21st February 2021 took me back thirty years, to what sounded like a very similar case over southern England in April 1991. Although it received coverage in the mainstream media at the time, the “near miss” that involved an Alitalia MD-82 airliner over southern England appears to have been forgotten about during the coverage of the 2021 encounter. Let’s wind the clock back to 1991 to see what happened.
“Look out, look out!”
Alitalia McDonnell-Douglas MD-82 I-DAWC, operating Flight AZ284, departed Milan-Linate Airport on the afternoon of 21st April 1991 bound for Heathrow with 57 passengers onboard. Captain Achille Zaghetti was at the controls of the aircraft as it crossed the English coast near Lydd, at around 2000 hours. Zaghetti’s MD-82 was descending through 22,000 feet at a rate of 2,000 feet per minute and he had already established radio contact with London Control. The pilot was flying VMC (“visual meteorological conditions”), which meant he had enough visibility to maintain a safe separation distance from other aircraft and had sight of the ground. It was still light at that time of the evening, and Zaghetti reported his visibility at around 30 kilometres.
What happened next was listed on the “Near Collision – Air Traffic Incident Report Form” submitted by Captain Zaghetti after he landed at Heathrow. This was the established method of officially reporting so-called “near misses” (or “airproxes” in pilot jargon). According to the UK’s Airprox Board, “if the pilot or controller feels that the distance between aircraft as well as their relative positions and speed have been such that the safety of an aircraft involved was or may have been compromised, then a report can be filed.” Note that reports were not mandatory, but that it was up to the judgement of pilots and air traffic control staff whether a report should be made. In the case of Alitalia AZ284, the pilot definitely believed the safety of his airliner had been compromised. According to Zaghetti’s own hand-written account, as included on the report form available from the National Archives (available by clicking here) reads as follows:
“During descent, at FL222 [22,000 feet] I saw for about 3-4 seconds a flying object, very similar to a missile, light brown coloured, with a track opposite then mine which was 320° - it was higher than us about 1,000 feet.
At once I said, ‘look out, look out!’ to my co-pilot who looked out and saw what I had seen – as soon as the object crossed us I asked to the ACC/Operator if he saw something on his screen and he answered, ‘I see an unknown target 10 nm behind you.’”
Achille Zaghetti also gave details of the object that had flashed past his aircraft, around 1,000 feet above him. He stated it was “similar to a missile, without an exhaust flame”, and that it was light brown, almost “desert” in colour. The pilot estimated that it was around three metres across and round in shape. He had also ringed “Near Collision” when indicating what type of incident had occurred.
Zaghetti’s report was forwarded to the London Air Traffic Control Centre (LATCC, but now known as the London Area Control Centre) and presumably as a missile was cited as a potential explanation, a copy was then sent to the Ministry of Defence (MOD). By this stage, the CAA’s Safety Data & Analysis Unit (SDAU) appears to have assumed responsibility for the investigation. Enclosed with the copy was a hand-written note from the CAA’s SDAU, which apart from a request that the MOD inform them of the results of any investigation, included a view regarding the incident itself.
“Note that although near-collision was ringed (i. e. Airmiss), the airline agreed it was not strictly speaking an airmiss but also it was more than just a routine incident.”
Clearly, Zaghetti’s superiors at Alitalia had been approached as part of LATCC’s response to his Airprox report. The airline would also have interviewed the pilot about the encounter over Kent. This would have been standard procedure but it demonstrates that, strictly speaking, under the terms of the guidance for safe distance between aircraft, the object was in all likelihood just outside minimum safe vertical separation. For flight between ground level and 29,000 feet, this is set at 1,000 feet. The rules for both latitudinal and longitudinal separation are governed by a multitude of different factors.
Was it a missile?
Southern TV ran a news story on 1st May 1991 about the incident, reporting that a 14 year-old boy had claimed he witnessed “a missile on the same evening flying at low level before climbing through cloud and disappearing out of sight.” An air traffic controller saw the news item and subsequently telephoned LATCC’s Information & Investigation Section, who passed on the information to the CAA’s SDAU. On 6th May 1991, the Independent newspaper ran a story entitled “Enquiry into pilot’s sighting of missile”. The article gave a brief rundown of the facts as they were known at the time, stating that the object Zaghetti saw was “consistent with a target missile used for artillery or air defence practice, but the Ministry of Defence insisted yesterday that none were in use on 21 April.” The newspaper also quoted an MOD spokesman, who had provided a statement on 5th May 1991:
“Whatever he [Zaghetti] might have seen, might have been something that was flying, but was certainly not anything that was fired. It was a Sunday. The only ranges we have in the Kent area are Lydd and Hythe, and they are concerned with small arms only. (…) It’s absolutely in the middle of the busiest air traffic area. People just don’t fire missiles there, but of course, we do have quite a few UFO reports and often people who see these things describe them as missile or cigar-shaped, or else round, and sometimes they do appear to be travelling with no means of propulsion.”
The Independent’s story also claimed that the UK Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) “attempted to imply he had seen a drifting object, perhaps a stray balloon.” They also confirmed that no other air traffic had been detected in the area, although a “faint radar trace” had been observed 10 nautical miles behind the Alitalia aircraft. The CAA’s SDAU could not determine what the mysterious object was. A copy of LATCC’s Air Occurrence Report (M40/91) is contained in the same file released by the National Archives in October 2008. It holds more information on the encounter and the subsequent civilian investigation:
“At approx. 2000 the BIG [Biggin] controller advised the [redacted] reported sighting a missile at FL220 about 6 miles west of LYD [the Lydd beacon]. In conjunction with EROR, the following people were contacted to see if anyone had any information:- DoD [Department of Defence], MAS [Military Air Service radar], EROR, Dover Coastguards, Police, and via DoD, the Army helicopters which were operating between Lydd and Dover. At the time of the incident, a primary response was indicated behind the [redacted] tracking NE but no positive information was available from any source. I spoke to the crew via AZA OPS [Alitalia operations] and Captain [Zaghetti, redacted] said the missile which was about 5 metres long and brown in colour was at FL230 and passed him in an opposite direction and he had visual contact for about 5 seconds. A replay of the radar was arranged thro’ DoD at 2130 Zulu.”
From the Air Occurrence Report, it appears that LATCC/SDAU were thorough in the list of organisations they contacted in order to obtain details of the object that the Alitalia pilot had reported. It also confirmed the primary radar contact detected 10 nautical miles from the airliner, and given the short period of time between the encounter and the request from the pilot, whatever had flown by must have been travelling very fast to cover that distance in so short a period of time. Although the incident was initially filed by Zaghetti as an “air miss” or Airprox, it appears that as a result of the airline’s statement that the object fell outside the legal separation minima, plus LATCC’s initial enquiries drawing a complete blank, a formal Airprox Board enquiry was never instigated.
The MOD takes over
DI55 was certainly aware of the incident, as they were copied into the receipt of a loose minute from D/Sec (AS) 2a to GE3(RAF) and Sec (AS) 1A on 9th May 1991. A hand-written note in the National Archives file confirms the request from Sec (AS) 2a to GE3(RAF), asking them to examine the CAA’s Incident Report. The original minute included a copy of a letter dated 6th May that they had received from a member of the public, asking for more details regarding the encounter, the Independent’s article of the same day plus the original CAA Incident Report. The minute mentioned the MOD spokesman’s comments and also referred to a copy of the radar evidence attached to the CAA report, “which shows an object in the vicinity of the Alitalia aircraft”. Nine images of the radar plot that evening can be found in the National Archive files. “5724 240” is the Alitalia jet, which was assigned the “squawk” (identification code) 5724, and was at 24,000 feet when the first of the images was captured. From the poor copies of the radar plots held in the National Archives, it is not entirely clear which contact was the suspected object, but the annotations on the margin of the first image are revealing.
“Possible slow-moving target – Cruise Missile??”
On 10th May 1991, the CAA handed over executive control of its investigation to Headquarters Military Air Traffic Operations (MATO), based at RAF Uxbridge, Middlesex. Eleven days later, MATO sent a memo to Sec (AS) 2a as they believed that the latter had already “undertaken detailed enquiries on behalf of the MOD”. On 23rd May 1991, D/Sec (NS) confirmed that the only Royal Navy missile capable of reaching the altitude of the Alitalia jet was the Sea Dart, but there were no test firings on that date. Sea Dart launchers were only fitted to the Navy’s Type 42 and 82 destroyers, plus its Invincible-class “Harrier-carriers”.
The radar unit at RAF Neatishead in Norfolk had been unable to assist, as according to a telex sent on 14th May 1991, they reported that Vinten Radar’s recording camera was unserviceable on the date of the incident. In addition, Alitalia’s own report seemed to have been retained “in-house”, as a note from the CAA to the MOD indicated. The Italian counterpart of the CAA was compiling its own report, as a telex had been sent to Heathrow on 7th May 1991, asking for “a copy of the results of your investigation”.
Treating it like any other UFO sighting
However, despite the enquiries, the MOD was looking to steer its investigation away from the subject of UFOs. According to the loose minute from D/Sec (AS) 2a to GE3(RAF) and Sec (AS) 1A on 9th May 1991, its author suggested that the incident should be examined as “an air defence/air safety matter rather than as a UFO report.” MATO at RAF Uxbridge finally sent its findings to the CAA’s SDAU on 16th July 1991, which was entitled “Air Occurrence Report – Report of Missile Type Object – 21 April 91”. Responding to the CAA’s SDAU request for “military comment” on the incident, MATO replied with the following points:
“All of the information was passed to the MOD and was examined by the departments responsible for the air defence of the UK. We are advised that those departments have not been able to confirm the identity of the object sighted by the Alitalia MD80 crew.
The MOD were able to rule out the possibility that the object was a missile from the Army firing ranges in the Lydd area. Additionally, MOD has no report of any space related activity which could provide an explanation, and the description does not correspond with that expected if the object had been a meteorological balloon.
In the absence of any clear evidence which could be used to identify the object, we are informed that the MOD will treat this sighting like any other Unidentified Flying Object and therefore will not be able to undertake any further investigation into the sighting. We now propose that this Occurrence Report is closed.”
Further enquiries from the public regarding the incident would have elicited the same response, as the MOD stated it had no idea what the mysterious object was. Missile test firings had been ruled out, both by the Royal Navy and other branches of the military. Testing ranges were located at Aberporth in Wales and on South Uist in the Outer Hebrides, neither of which was anywhere near Kent. In addition, so-called “smoky SAMs” (small rockets that simulated surface-to-air missiles) were also occasionally launched at the Spadeadam Electronic Warfare Ranges on the Cumbrian/Northumberland border. No missile fired from any of these sites could have been responsible for what Captain Achille Zaghetti saw. Thirty years later, the incident is still a complete mystery.
The aircraft involved in this encounter is often referred to in UFO/UAP literature as an MD-80, and Zaghetti himself listed the type as such in his Airprox report. However, that was just a generic name for the aircraft and it was in fact an MD-82 (DC-9-82), construction number 49198, manufacturer’s serial number 1142.
Similarities with the 2021 American Airlines encounter
The two reports of airline crews sighting mysterious objects, devoid of wings and obvious methods of propulsion, and in close, if not dangerously close proximity to their aircraft are certainly similar on many levels. The enquiries made by both pilots to their respective air traffic control units are almost identical, and it now appears as though an official investigation will be carried out in the United States as the Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI) is now involved. Although AAL2292 passed within 200 miles of the White Sands missile range in New Mexico, no link has yet been established with the facility.
However, there are some subtle differences between the two cases. According to a statement issued to The Drive’s Tyler Rogoway by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on 24th February 2021, “FAA air traffic controllers did not see any object in the area on their radarscopes.” This would appear to rule out any suggestion that a Learjet 60 was the culprit, as was proposed by the noted sceptic Mick West.
Commentators and researchers across America and the rest of the world will no doubt be eagerly awaiting future announcements from the FAA and FBI regarding this encounter. Bear in mind that this isn’t the first time such an event has occurred. Given the result of the MOD’s investigation into the April 1991 incident, it might be worthwhile managing your expectations in advance.
