Japan Airlines Flight JAL1628 (1986)

On November 17, 1986 (local Alaska Standard Time), Japan Air Lines cargo flight JAL1628, a Boeing 747-200F, reported a prolonged encounter with unidentified aerial phenomena (UAP) over central Alaska while en-route from Reykjavík to Anchorage. Captain Kenju (Kenji) Terauchi, First Officer Takanori Tamefuji, and Flight Engineer Yoshio Tsukuda described two intensely luminous objects that maneuvered close to the aircraft, followed by a much larger, walnut/Saturn-shaped craft they believed trailed the jet for dozens of minutes. Anchorage Air Route Traffic Control Center (ARTCC) coordinated with military radar at Elmendorf AFB’s Regional Operations Control Center (ROCC) and with nearby aircraft, including United Airlines Flight 69 and a U.S. Air Force C-130. FAA logs show ROCC briefly reported primary-only returns near JAL1628, while the FAA’s recorded radar later analyzed at the agency’s Technical Center could not confirm a second aircraft; the FAA attributed ambiguous returns to an “uncorrelated primary and beacon target”, a type of radar split/ghost produced by timing differences between skin paint and transponder replies. 

The event triggered a rare FAA press briefing in Anchorage on March 5, 1987, and the agency assembled an unusually rich public data package: controller transcripts, pilot interviews, controller statements, flight path charts, and more than 150 pages of raw radar printouts. The Washington Post and other outlets covered the case prominently in early January 1987. Subsequent years saw vigorous debate: some analysts (e.g., Bruce Maccabee) argued that at least part of the encounter reflected genuine anomalous traffic, while skeptics (e.g., Philip J. Klass) argued that bright planets (Jupiter/Mars), ice-crystal reflections, and radar artifacts could account for the reports. 

This dossier reconstructs the timeline, documents the radar-visual interplay, and assesses the main interpretive claims using declassified FAA materials and contemporaneous reporting.

Flight & Airspace Context

Aircraft & crew: JAL1628, a Boeing 747-200F freighter, crewed by Capt. Kenju Terauchi, FO Takanori Tamefuji, and FE Yoshio Tsukuda, was flying Keflavík → Anchorage on the Paris → Tokyo route. The encounter occurred roughly between 5:19 p.m. and 5:53 p.m. AST (corresponding to 0219–0253 UTC on November 18). Anchorage ARTCC sector controllers (“ZAN”) and Elmendorf ROCC provided traffic services and air defense coordination. 

Sensors available: Anchorage ARTCC’s en-route system recorded radar data (EARTS Continuous Data Recordings). The military’s ROCC had long-range radar coverage in Alaska; the FAA Technical Center later regenerated and analyzed the FAA radar using identical equipment for post-incident study. 

Near-coincident traffic: ANC Center sought visual/radar cross-checks from United Airlines Flight 69 (northbound ANC→FAI along an opposite course), and a USAF C-130 transiting the area; both later reported they failed to confirm visual of additional traffic besides the JAL 747.

Reconstructed Timeline (selected entries)

Times below are from the Anchorage ARTCC chronology (all UTC, with local AST = UTC−9). The chronology summarizes controller-pilot exchanges and inter-facility calls, including ROCC inputs. 

• 0219 UTC (≈ 5:19 p.m. AST): JAL1628 requests traffic information. Controller advises no known traffic; JAL1628 reports same-direction “traffic ~1 mile in front” at their altitude, visible as white and yellow strobes. 
• 0225 UTC: JAL1628 reports target on their airborne radar, 11 o’clock at 8 NM (Nautical Miles). 
• 0226 UTC: Anchorage contacts Elmendorf ROCC; ROCC is receiving a primary radar return 10 o’clock at 8 NM from JAL1628. 
• 0227 UTC: ROCC calls back, no longer receiving returns in the vicinity. 
• 0231 UTC: JAL1628 states the “plane” is “quite big.” Controller clears any deviation needed to avoid. JAL requests descent FL350 → FL310; pilot says the traffic is descending “in formation.” 
• 0235 UTC: Heading change to 210° approved. Fairbanks Approach reports no radar returns near JAL1628. 
• 0236 UTC: Anchorage issues a 360° turn; JAL is asked to report if the traffic remains with them. (Capt. Terauchi later states the object stayed on the port side through the turn; visual was ultimately lost roughly 40 NM north of Talkeetna.) 
• 0238 UTC: ROCC reports “flight of two” at JAL1628’s position; one is primary-only; mentions “other equipment watching this.” 
• 0240–0242 UTC: ROCC says a primary return dropped back and to the right of JAL1628, then no longer tracked. Anchorage offers to scramble military; JAL declines.
• 0244-0248 UTC: JAL updates 9 o’clock then 7 o’clock at 8 NM. Anchorage vectors United 69 to pass nearby for visual check. 
• 0250 UTC: United 69 reports they see JAL1628 against the sky but no other traffic. 
• 0253 UTC: JAL1628 reports no longer in contact with the traffic. Post-event review of Anchorage ARTCC radar tracking data failed to confirm targets in close proximity to JAL1628. 

Note on the larger object: Separately from the controller chronology, Capt. Terauchi’s later statements and sketches describe a massive, walnut/Saturn-shaped craft trailing the 747 and at one point back-lighting it near Fairbanks, creating the impression of an object “twice the size of an aircraft carrier.” These descriptions derive from post-flight interviews and written statements compiled by the FAA in early January 1987. 

What the Crew Reported

Initial phase (two luminous objects): The crew’s first visuals were two clusters of bright, amber-white lights “like exhaust nozzles,” ahead/left of the 747, sometimes one above the other. The lights at one point illuminated the cockpit, and Capt. Terauchi said he felt heat on his face, a detail not corroborated by the other two crew members. The aircraft’s weather radar briefly showed a weak green return ~8 NM ahead, indicating a low-intensity echo rather than a strong target. 

Later phase (the “mothership”): After the initial lights departed, Terauchi reported a much larger object to the left/rear quadrant that appeared to pace the 747 for a considerable time. He drew the object as a giant, walnut-like form with peripheral lighting; in interviews he speculated it intentionally kept to the darker easterly sky while silhouetting the JAL jet against the western glow. FO Tamefuji and FE Tsukuda acknowledged lights but were less certain about a definitive structured craft. 

Post-flight interviews & statements: The FAA recorded separate interviews with each crewmember on Jan 2, 5, and 15, 1987 and accepted written statements and sketches (Japanese originals with English translations). These materials, together with the ATC audio transcript (≈ 23 pages), were made available to the public in the FAA’s 1987 data package.

What the Radars and Controllers Reported

During the event:

• Anchorage ARTCC: No confirmed secondary target close to JAL1628 during the key period, though controllers took the pilot’s reports seriously and sought multi-source confirmation (United 69 and C-130) while coordinating with ROCC. 
• Elmendorf ROCC: Brief intermittent primary-only returns at ~8 NM and later aft-right of JAL1628, even reporting (momentarily) a “flight of two.” ROCC then lost the target(s). 

After the event:

• FAA Radar Data & Analysis: The FAA retained the EARTS radar recordings and reproduced the tracks on identical equipment at the FAA Technical Center (Atlantic City). Their formal conclusion: the secondary target(s) were “uncorrelated primary and beacon target” phenomena – a well-understood split/ghost produced when a skin-return and a transponder reply do not time-align into the same ¼-mile radar cell. Analyst Dennis R. Simantel reported that 72% of returns were correlated radar+beacon (normal for the Murphy Dome system), ~25% were beacon-only, and 90% of those had a nearby primary within ⅛ mile, consistent with common uncorrelated returns. The review “did not show any abnormalities” consistent with an unknown craft. 
• Controller/Facility statements: ARTCC personnel filed signed statements; one specialist later clarified that what he initially thought were several primary returns were, upon review, among the mixture of tentative/uncorrelated returns typical of the system. (See controller statements referenced in the FAA package.) 

Press Coverage and Public Reaction

The case broke widely in late December 1986 and early January 1987. The Washington Post ran “UFO Sighting Confirmed by FAA, Air Force Radar; Japanese Crew Tells of Encounter Over Alaska” on Jan. 1–2, 1987, citing the pilot’s account and officials’ acknowledgement that intermittent radar had appeared near the 747. Other major outlets followed suit. The coverage helped propel JAL1628 into one of the decade’s most publicized airline UAP cases. (The Washington Post)

In response to intense interest, the FAA Alaskan Region conducted an unprecedented public release on March 5, 1987, issuing transcripts, interviews, radar charts, and internal memos, and explaining the uncorrelated primary/beacon result. The agency emphasized it lacked a scientific mandate to model stars, planets, or atmospheric optics and had pursued the case solely as a potential air-safety issue. (NARA Report)

Two “Follow-On” Alaska Cases (January 1987)

1. JAL again (Jan. 11, 1987): Capt. Terauchi (on a subsequent flight) reported irregular pulsating lights in roughly the same region. With no confirming radar, the FAA and the pilot later concluded these were likely village lights diffused by thin ice-crystal clouds (as summarized in FAA-released material and skeptic analyses). 
2. Alaska Airlines flight (Jan. 29, 1987): An Alaska Airlines crew (FAA news release identifies it as Flight 153) reported a fast-moving weather-radar target west of McGrath that rapidly moved off-scope; ATC had no corroborating radar or visual. FAA noted it would release material alongside the JAL1628 package in early March 1987. (The Black Vault Documents)

The Radar–Visual Problem at the Heart of JAL1628

Why the case endures is the simultaneity of:
(1) detailed pilot and officers narratives, of extraordinary kinematics and a gargantuan object;
(2) ROCC’s brief primary-only returns; and
(3) the lack of durable multi-sensor corroboration (FAA center radar review; no confirming visual by United 69 and the C-130).

Anchorage ARTCC contemporaneous timeline entries, meticulous and neutral, document an earnest effort to verify and to vector third-party witnesses. Yet the post-event radar analysis found a pattern consistent with normal system artifacts, not an additional aircraft. This leaves a residual: strong pilot conviction vs. negative controls (no independent visual/radar verification persisting beyond fleeting ROCC primaries). 

Interpretations

1) Anomalous Traffic Hypothesis

Proponents argue that (a) crew testimony is consistent and detailed; (b) the 360° turn with a claimed constant relative bearing suggests co-maneuvering; and (c) ROCC primaries are suggestive of a solid intruder with no transponder. They note that ARTCC initially offered to scramble an intercept and that FAA public affairs in late 1986/early 1987 acknowledged radar contacts in press interactions before the Technical Center study reframed them. Some analysts (e.g., Bruce Maccabee) view JAL1628 as at least partly genuine UAP. (See FAA chronology and IUR summaries as preserved by NICAP.) 

2) Celestial/Atmospheric + Radar Artifact Hypothesis

Skeptical analyses (notably Philip J. Klass) point out that Jupiter (very bright) and Mars were positioned in sectors consistent with crew bearings at times; the green weather-radar blip (weak return) is inconsistent with a close solid object; ice-crystal reflections and mountain/backscatter can produce unusual lights; and the FAA’s Technical Center concluded the double-target behavior was an uncorrelated primary/beacon artifact (a split image), common in Alaska’s radar environment. United 69 and the C-130 saw no extra object at the key moments. 

Institutional Handling & Records

Public release (1987): The FAA’s Alaskan Region assembled a comprehensive orderable dossier in early 1987: ATC audio/transcripts (~23 pp), personnel statements, flight path chart, EARTS printouts (~151 pp), press releases, captain’s written/diagrammatic statements (Japanese originals plus translation), and simulated/regenerated radar imagery. This level of transparency is rare in UAP airline cases and remains a major reason JAL1628 is so deeply studied. 

Later records retention: In a 2009 FOIA reply, the FAA explained that regional records for the case had been destroyed per records schedules (with an ASIAS brief remaining in an electronic repository, noting “unidentified traffic noted on radar by crew and ATC for an extended period”). This underscores the importance of the 1987 public release and subsequent private archiving for historical scholarship. 

FAA’s Official Position as of March 5, 1987

At the Anchorage press briefing, FAA Public Affairs summarized the Technical Center’s finding of uncorrelated primary and beacon returns, i.e., no confirmed second aircraft, and stated the agency “does not have the resources or congressional mandate” to conduct scientific analysis of astronomical or optical explanations. The FAA closed the matter as unsolved from a regulatory standpoint (no violation, no confirmed intruder). Their technical memo contains a diagram of the radar cell correlation logic and describes expected rates of correlated vs. uncorrelated returns (with examples from the Murphy Dome radar). 

Assessment

What is firmly established:

• Pilot narrative(s) of unusual lights and a large trailing object persisted over ~30–40 minutes with proactive ATC management (vectors, altitude, a full 360° turn, and third-party cross-checks). 
• ROCC briefly reported primary-only blips near JAL1628; Anchorage ARTCC later concluded its recorded radar did not confirm a second target in close proximity after post-event analysis. 
• United 69 (and C-130) saw no traffic besides JAL1628 when asked to corroborate visually at close range. 
• The FAA Technical Center offered a prosaic radar explanation (uncorrelated/“split” returns), and FAA Public Affairs communicated this in a public release.

Balanced view: JAL1628 remains a benchmark UAP case precisely because it transcends simplistic buckets. The air-safety response was exemplary; the document base is robust; yet the physics claims in the pilot narrative exceed what the hard data will support on their own. Even though the most conservative reading is what a few of the crew had perceived could be celestial/atmospheric artifacts, it is an unlikely explanation given the duration and maneuver trajectory of the flight. A more probable reading, held by some researchers, is that one or more genuine UAP were intermittently present but eluded enduring multi-sensor lock. Both readings are logically consistent with the record; neither can claim finality.

Timeline Annex

• Offer to scramble and United 69 vectoring appear in the ATC transcript; the United crew reports no other traffic.
• “Flight of two” ROCC call and primary-only characterization are recorded in the ARTCC chronology. 
• Pilot’s 360° turn with UAP holding port-side reported in personnel/interview notes; final visual loss ~40 NM north of Talkeetna. (The Black Vault Documents)

Bottom Line

JAL1628 is a foundational modern airline-UAP case with exceptionally rich documentation.

• Operational handling (vectors, descent, 360° turn, third-party checks) was robust and transparent; the data package set a precedent for public access.
• Interpretation remains contested: the pilot’s vivid account and brief ROCC primaries confront a negative result from FAA radar playback and no third-party visual, a classic radar-visual paradox.
• For policy and science, the case argues for: (1) standardized multi-sensor capture, (2) rapid scientific augmentation for high-strangeness reports (astronomy, atmospherics, human factors), and (3) a non-punitive reporting culture.

References

• FAA, Anchorage ARTCC “Chronology of Events” memo (Dec. 18, 1986) summarizing ATC actions, ROCC calls, and the post-event note that recorded radar data did not confirm a second target near JAL1628. 
• FAA Technical Center / Alaskan Region “Uncorrelated Primary and Beacon Target” explanation and Dennis R. Simantel’s analysis; includes radar-cell diagram and Murphy Dome references; released publicly March 5, 1987. 
• FAA Alaskan Region Public Affairs 1987 order list and press materials describing available tapes, transcripts, interviews, radar printouts, and simulated images (NTIS PB87-184206). 
• Washington Post (Jan. 1–2, 1987): national coverage acknowledging the pilot reports and initial radar claims. (The Washington Post)
• FAA News Releases (Feb. 1987): Alaska Airlines Jan. 29 radar report (Flight 153), noting no ATC radar confirmation and planned release with the JAL1628 materials.
• Skeptical Inquirer (Summer 1987): Philip J. Klass, “FAA Data Sheds New Light on JAL Pilot’s UFO Report,” summarizing FAA materials; also notes United 69 and C-130 did not confirm a second object; discusses Jupiter/Mars geometry and ice-crystal reflections. 
• FAA FOIA correspondence (2001–2009): regional files later destroyed per retention schedules; surviving ASIAS brief summarizes event as unidentified traffic noted on radar by crew and ATC. 

Source Citations 

• FAA Anchorage ARTCC chronology & transcript excerpts. 
• FAA Technical Center/Alaskan Region: “Uncorrelated Primary & Beacon” (split-image) analysis; Simantel memo; diagram; public release. 
• FAA 1987 public package order list; contents (ATC audio, interviews, radar printouts, simulated radar imagery). 
• Washington Post early coverage (Jan. 1–2, 1987). (The Washington Post)
• FAA news releases re: Alaska Airlines radar report (Jan. 29, 1987). (The Black Vault Documents)
• Klass, Skeptical Inquirer (1987) summary of FAA package and skeptical analysis; later discussions. 
• FAA FOIA correspondence (2001–2009) noting later destruction of some regional files; ASIAS brief summary. 

All declassified federal documents and press materials cited above are publicly accessible via the FAA, National Archives channels, or reputable archival sites that mirror the 1987 FAA release.

Claims Taxonomy

• Verified
  ATC communications & timeline (FAA chronology; controller transcripts; vectors; altitude changes; offer to scramble; United 69 involvement). Sources: FAA Anchorage ARTCC memo (Dec. 18, 1986) and ATC transcript excerpts. 
  FAA radar post-analysis concluding uncorrelated primary/beacon returns (Technical Center memo; public explanation; diagram), even if unlikely. 
• Probable
  Brief ROCC primary-only returns near JAL1628, as relayed to ARTCC (contemporaneous logs; not replicated in FAA playback). 
  Pilot’s initial luminous pair associated with weak green radar echo on the 747’s weather radar (crew interviews). 
• Disputed
  Presence of a huge structure object (“mothership”) trailing the 747. (Crew conviction vs. lack of third-party visual/radar confirmation.) 
  Meaning of intermittent radar hits (ROCC primaries): physical intruder vs. clutter/artifact. 
• Misidentification (for related January 1987 reports)
  Jan. 11 JAL lights → village lights through thin ice crystals (consensus of pilot + FAA after review). 
• Legend
  Claims of high-level suppression/“this event never happened.” While former FAA official John Callahan later described a dramatic inter-agency meeting, the document trail shows a public FAA release with extensive materials; no independent records substantiate long-term suppression beyond routine records retention. (Center for Inquiry)

Speculation Labels

• Hypothesis: At least one non-cooperative, non-transponder object intermittently occupied airspace near JAL1628 but evaded sustained radar correlation due to geometry, cross-section fluctuations, and Alaska’s challenging radar environment; the ROCC primaries may have sampled this intruder.
• Witness Interpretation: The size and proximity of the “mothership” may reflect perceptual scaling against a dark sky with complex light sources (city glow, moonlight, aurora, and stars/planets), integrated with stress and task load.
• Researcher Opinion: A minimal-assumption model attributes the encounter to (1) dramatic luminous phenomena (ice crystals, sunlight/moonlight angle, and bright planets) producing salient visuals; (2) uncorrelated radar artifacts misread as separate objects; (3) normal human pattern-completion in a high-stakes cockpit, yet with enough anomaly to justify further study of radar-visual fusion in polar environments. 

SEO Keywords

JAL1628, Japan Airlines 1628, Alaska UAP, Elmendorf ROCC, Anchorage ARTCC, uncorrelated primary and beacon, radar split image, Bruce Maccabee JAL, Philip Klass JAL, United 69, FAA Technical Center, Murphy Dome radar, 1986 Alaska UAP case