Isaac Koi

This website was the first generated by my self-improving AI system (Skynet), to summarise the top 100 UFO cases.

The Japan Airlines Flight 1628 incident stands as one of the most significant and well-documented UFO encounters in aviation history, involving experienced pilots, radar corroboration, and substantial government investigation. This case continues to be referenced in discussions about unidentified aerial phenomena more than three decades after it occurred, appearing in numerous documentaries, research papers, and official investigations.

Historical Background and Event Timeline

On November 17, 1986, Japan Airlines flight 1628, a Boeing 747-200F cargo aircraft carrying French wine from Paris to Tokyo, encountered what the crew described as unidentified flying objects over Alaska. The three-person crew consisted of Captain Kenju Terauchi (a veteran pilot with 29 years of experience), First Officer Takanori Tamefuji, and Flight Engineer Yoshio Tsukuba12.

At approximately 5:11 PM Alaska time, while cruising at 35,000 feet over northeastern Alaska, Captain Terauchi first noticed unusual lights through his side window, approximately 104 miles northeast of Fort Yukon. Initially dismissing them as military aircraft, he became concerned when the lights appeared to be pacing his aircraft34.

The incident escalated dramatically when, according to Terauchi, “two spaceships appeared directly in front of the plane shooting off lights. The inside cockpit shined brightly and I felt the warmth of the UFO’s thrusters on my face”3. During radio communications with Anchorage Air Route Traffic Control Center (ARTCC), JAL1628 asked: “Do you have any traffic in front of us?” Shortly afterward, they reported: “we [have] in sight, ah, two traffic (sic), ah, in front of us one mile about”5.

Terauchi described seeing three distinct objects which he called “two small ships and the mothership,” with the largest object reportedly being “twice the size of an aircraft carrier”26. The encounter continued as the aircraft headed toward Anchorage, with objects reportedly following the plane for approximately 400 miles during a 50-minute period67.

What elevates this case above many other UFO reports is that it wasn’t limited to visual observations. Both the FAA controller at Anchorage ARTCC and military radar operators at the Regional Operations Command Center (ROCC) reported detecting unidentified returns on radar near the JAL flight58. At one point, the ROCC controller stated: “On some other equipment here we have confirmed there is a flight size of two around,” suggesting their radar was showing JAL1628 plus another unidentified object5.

During the encounter, ARTCC asked a United Airlines flight (Flight 69) that was in the area to make a visual confirmation of the objects. However, by the time the United flight arrived, Terauchi reported that “when the United plane came by our side the spaceship disappeared suddenly”34. The JAL flight safely landed in Anchorage shortly thereafter.

The JAL 1628 UFO Incident: A Critical Analysis of the 1986 Alaska Case - Full-Text (SVG)

Witness Credibility and Evidence Assessment

The credibility of this case rests primarily on three pillars: the professional standing of the witnesses, radar evidence, and the subsequent FAA investigation.

Pilot and Crew Testimony

Captain Kenju Terauchi was a 47-year-old pilot with 20 years of flying experience at the time of the incident and had previously served as a fighter pilot. His extensive aviation background lends weight to his observations, as he would presumably be familiar with conventional aircraft and atmospheric phenomena98.

FAA investigator James Derry interviewed the crew immediately after landing, noting they “were shook up but professional.” Another FAA report concluded that “the crew were rational and professional and showed no evidence of drug or alcohol use”8. These initial assessments suggest the witnesses were in a sound mental state when reporting their experience.

However, further investigation revealed factors that potentially undermine Terauchi’s credibility. The FAA investigation later characterized him as a “UFO repeater,” indicating he had reported multiple UFO sightings throughout his career210. According to one report: “The FAA data package reveals Terauchi to be a ‘UFO repeater,’ with two other UFO sightings prior to November 17, and two more this past January”10. This characterization suggests a possible predisposition to interpret unusual phenomena as extraordinary.

Additionally, when crew members were interviewed separately by the FAA in January 1987, “some significant differences emerged”9. For instance, Flight Engineer Tsukuba’s description differed from Terauchi’s. Tsukuba described the initial UFO as a “cluster of lights… undulating” that were “different from town lights,” but unlike the captain, said he was “unable to describe any particular shape for either UFO”9. Tsukuba also stated that when first interviewed by the FAA immediately after the incident, he “was not sure whether the object was a UFO or not. My mind has not changed since then”9.

Radar Evidence

The radar evidence represents both the strongest corroborating element and the most contested aspect of this case.

During the encounter, FAA controllers observed what appeared to be unknown targets near JAL1628. At one point, an FAA controller told Terauchi: “I’m picking up a hit on the radar approximately five miles in trail of your six o’clock position”5. The ROCC (military radar) also reported: “we have confirmed there is a flight size of two around”58.

John Callahan, who in 1986 was FAA Division Chief of the Accidents and Investigations Branch in Washington DC, has claimed that the radar evidence was compelling. In testimony presented at the National Press Club in 2001, Callahan stated that he assembled all available data from Anchorage, including radar recordings and voice communications11. According to Callahan, when the tapes were played, they revealed “three-way conversation between Anchorage Air Traffic Control, Elmendorf’s NORAD Regional Operations Control Center, and Captain Terauchi of JAL1628”4. Callahan has claimed that “military radar clearly indicated that the UFO had tucked in out of sight behind the United flight and had begun following it”3.

However, the FAA’s official analysis contradicts these claims. In March 1987, the FAA released a statement explaining that experts at their Technical Center in Atlantic City had analyzed the radar data and determined that what appeared to be an unidentified object was actually an “uncorrelated primary and beacon target,” essentially concluding that the radar was showing a split image of the JAL plane itself, not a separate object8. The statement noted: “The review of radar data indicates that no second object was present and represents a reversal of earlier FAA statements that a second object was confirmed on radar”10.

Skeptical Perspectives and Alternative Explanations

Several logical explanations have been proposed for the JAL 1628 incident:

Astronomical Misidentification

Philip J. Klass, a prominent UFO skeptic, investigated the case and concluded through CSICOP (now CSI) that Terauchi likely misidentified celestial objects. According to this analysis: “At the time the UFO incident began near Ft. Yukon, the JAL airliner was flying south in twilight conditions so that an extremely bright Jupiter (-2.6 magnitude) would have been visible on the pilot’s left-hand side, where he first reported seeing the UFO”10. Both Jupiter and Mars were exceptionally bright during this period and positioned in the part of the sky where Terauchi reported seeing the objects2.

Radar Anomalies

The FAA’s technical explanation for the radar returns—that they represented split images of the JAL aircraft itself rather than separate objects—is consistent with known radar phenomena. Such “uncorrelated primary and beacon targets” are not uncommon in radar operations and can result from various technical factors8.

Perceptual and Psychological Factors

The characterization of Terauchi as a “UFO repeater” suggests the possibility that his interpretation of events was influenced by predisposition or expectation. Research in cognitive psychology has demonstrated that prior beliefs can significantly affect perception and interpretation of ambiguous stimuli.

Furthermore, the discrepancies between crew members’ accounts suggest that personal interpretation played a significant role in how each individual processed the experience. While Terauchi was absolutely certain about what he saw, Flight Engineer Tsukuba expressed significant uncertainty, stating he was “not sure whether the object was a UFO or not”9.

The JAL 1628 UFO Incident: A Critical Analysis of the 1986 Alaska Case - P1 (SVG)

Lack of Corroboration from Other Aircraft

The United Airlines flight that was vectored to the area specifically to observe the reported objects did not see anything unusual5. This lack of independent visual confirmation from another professional flight crew significantly weakens the case for an extraordinary encounter.

Influence and Impact on UFO Discourse

The JAL 1628 incident has had lasting significance in several domains:

Public and Media Attention

The case received substantial media coverage at the time and has been featured in numerous television programs, documentaries, and books about UFOs, cementing its place as one of the most widely discussed UFO incidents in aviation history1. Its prominence is partly due to the involvement of professional pilots and the alleged radar confirmation, which gave it more credibility than many other reported UFO encounters.

Government Investigation Procedures

The JAL 1628 case prompted a formal FAA investigation that generated approximately 1,000 pages of documentation, including “recorded interviews with the crew, written statements from the crew and controllers, accumulation of radar data, transcription of the original live radio communications, and an analysis of the radar images”8. This substantial documentation provides researchers with valuable insights into how government agencies approached UFO reports in the 1980s.

More recently, the case has been suggested as a model for current UAP investigations. According to a 2023 discussion by aviation safety experts, the JAL Flight 1628 UAP event “could serve as a model for how the U.S. government could systematically examine current UAP events”12, suggesting its continuing relevance to contemporary discussions about unidentified phenomena.

Government Transparency Issues

The case also highlights issues of government transparency in UFO/UAP investigations. John Greenewald of The Black Vault spent 17 years attempting to obtain the full package of FAA records related to this investigation, many of which had reportedly been destroyed. His persistent FOIA requests finally led to the release of these documents in recent years13.

John Callahan has made claims about government handling of the case that suggest deliberate suppression of information. According to Callahan, after reviewing the evidence, a meeting was held with representatives from various agencies including the CIA, and they were sworn to secrecy about the incident. Callahan claims a CIA representative stated: “We don’t tell the public about credible UFO incidents it would panic the public”11.

Primary Sources and Avenues for Further Research

Key Documentation

The most comprehensive collection of primary sources for this case includes:

  1. FAA Investigation Files: The complete documentation is housed at the National Archives in Anchorage, Alaska, totaling approximately 1,000 pages8.
  2. The Black Vault Collection: John Greenewald’s FOIA-obtained documents provide significant insights into the official investigation and can be accessed at The Black Vault website13.
  3. MUFON Analysis: Contains technical analysis from the FAA of the “uncorrelated primary return” on the radar10.
  4. FAA Transcripts: Complete radio communications between JAL1628, Anchorage ARTCC, ROCC, and other aircraft provide a real-time record of the event as it unfolded514.
  5. Video Testimony: John Callahan’s testimony at the National Press Club (available at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=79C3S0hmyLc) offers his perspective as a former FAA Division Chief11.
  6. Podcast Analysis: The JAL 1628 incident has been examined in detail by the Supernatural Japan Podcast (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RHC_pfTXY-w) and others, providing accessible summaries of the case4.

Future Research Directions

Several avenues warrant further investigation:

  1. Independent Technical Analysis of Radar Data: Modern radar experts could re-examine the original data to determine whether the FAA’s explanation of split images adequately accounts for all observations.
  2. Witness Psychology Studies: Research comparing multiple witnesses’ accounts of the same UAP events could help establish patterns in how different observers interpret ambiguous aerial phenomena.
  3. Military Records: FOIA requests specifically targeting military radar records from Elmendorf Air Force Base might yield additional data not included in the FAA files.
  4. Japanese Documentation: Investigation into any independent investigation conducted by Japan Airlines or Japanese authorities might provide additional perspectives not reflected in U.S. documentation.
  5. Cross-comparison with Other Pilot Cases: Systematic comparison with other well-documented aviation UFO encounters might reveal patterns that could help explain the JAL 1628 incident.

Conclusion

The JAL 1628 incident remains one of the most thoroughly documented and intriguing cases in UFO history. The professional standing of the primary witness, Captain Terauchi, combined with initial radar detections and the extensive FAA investigation, give the case substantial weight.

However, critical examination reveals significant contradictory evidence, including the FAA’s technical explanation for the radar returns, the lack of visual confirmation from other aircraft, inconsistencies between crew members’ accounts, and plausible astronomical explanations. The characterization of Terauchi as a “UFO repeater” further complicates assessment of his testimony.

What makes the JAL 1628 case valuable is the relative abundance of documentation it generated. The FAA’s investigation provides a rare glimpse into how government agencies have approached UFO reports, and the case continues to serve as a reference point in discussions about systematic investigation of unidentified aerial phenomena.

Whether one views the JAL 1628 incident as evidence of extraordinary technology, a misidentification of natural phenomena, or something in between, it remains a significant case that has contributed substantially to the discourse on unidentified aerial phenomena and exemplifies the challenges inherent in investigating such reports.

⁂

The JAL 1628 UFO Incident: A Critical Analysis of the 1986 Alaska Case - P2 (SVG)

123413109671151281415161718192021222324252627282930

  1. https://thedebrief.org/what-really-happened-to-japan-airlines-flight-1628-in-1986/ ↩ ↩2 ↩3

  2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japan_Air_Lines_Cargo_Flight_1628 ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4 ↩5

  3. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ekykrn0h7ZE ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4 ↩5

  4. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RHC_pfTXY-w ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4 ↩5

  5. http://www.ufoevidence.org/documents/doc1316.htm ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4 ↩5 ↩6 ↩7 ↩8

  6. https://www.upi.com/Archives/1986/12/31/JAL-pilot-describes-UFO/6559536389200/ ↩ ↩2 ↩3

  7. https://www.thinkaboutitdocs.com/1986-japan-air-lines-flight-1628/ ↩ ↩2

  8. http://www.nicap.org/docs/861117_flight1628.pdf ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4 ↩5 ↩6 ↩7 ↩8 ↩9

  9. https://centerforinquiry.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/29/1987/07/22165315/p04.pdf ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4 ↩5 ↩6

  10. https://skepticalinquirer.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/29/2014/11/p19.pdf ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4 ↩5 ↩6

  11. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=79C3S0hmyLc ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4

  12. https://flightsafetydetectives.com/a-model-for-investigating-uap-events-episode-182/ ↩ ↩2

  13. https://www.theblackvault.com/documentarchive/ufo-case-japanese-airlines-jal1628-november-17-1986/ ↩ ↩2 ↩3

  14. https://documents.theblackvault.com/documents/ufos/jal1628/733667-001-015.pdf ↩ ↩2

  15. https://documents.theblackvault.com/documents/ufos/jal1628/733667-001-012.pdf ↩

  16. https://dp.la/item/301600e98f73bf844005231b6b321d40 ↩

  17. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oz-oYFX-3cs ↩

  18. https://open.spotify.com/episode/7AIcySUpxyeXquOY154HR5 ↩

  19. https://www.bu.edu/articles/2025/ufo-news-government-cover-up/ ↩

  20. https://documents.theblackvault.com/documents/ufos/jal1628/733667-001-007.pdf ↩

  21. https://skepticalinquirer.org/1987/07/faa-data-sheds-new-light-on-jal-pilots-ufo-report/ ↩

  22. https://www.archives.gov/news/articles/do-records-show-proof-of-ufos ↩

  23. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h4wK6LTERss ↩

  24. https://documents.theblackvault.com/documents/ufos/jal1628/733667-001-003.pdf ↩

  25. https://documents.theblackvault.com/documents/ufos/jal1628/733667-001-005.pdf ↩

  26. https://documents.theblackvault.com/documents/ufos/jal1628/733667-001-024.pdf ↩

  27. https://archive.org/details/jal1628 ↩

  28. https://documents.theblackvault.com/documents/ufos/jal1628/733667-001-014.pdf ↩

  29. https://centerforinquiry.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/29/1987/07/22165315/p04.pdf?ms=FIfacebook ↩

  30. https://www.spreaker.com/episode/faa-john-callahan-and-jal-flight-1628–61008169 ↩