THINK ABOUTIT UFO SIGHTINGS REPORT
On January 28, 1994, the crew of an Air France Airbus A320 witnessed a massive, dark red lens-shaped craft estimated at 300 meters in diameter while flying over Paris at 11,700 meters. The object demonstrated extraordinary characteristics, appearing to become translucent and “dilute into space” before vanishing, a phenomenon later corroborated by independent military radar data showing a near-collision trajectory. This case remains a cornerstone of aviation ufology and a primary feature of the prestigious COMETA Report due to its rare combination of high-credibility pilot testimony and technical validation.
Date: January 28, 1994
Sighting Time: Approximately 1:14 PM UT (01:14 PM)
Day/Night: Day
Location: Over Paris, France (near Coulommiers)
Urban or Rural: Urban (High altitude over Paris area)
No. of Entity(‘s): 0
Entity Type: n/a
Entity Description: n/a
Hynek Classification: CE-I (Close Encounter of the First Kind)
Duration: Approximately one minute
No. of Object(s): 1
Appearance / Description of the Object(s): Massive, dark red object with fuzzy edges; described as a “gigantic lens”
Distance to Object(s): 45 km (25 Nm) from aircraft; object was at 10,500 meters altitude
Height & Speed:
Shape of Object(s):
Size of Object(s): Estimated at 300 meters (approx. 1,000 feet) in diameter
Color of Object(s):
Number of Witnesses: Captain Jean-Charles Duboc, Copilot Valerie Chauffour, and a steward
Special Features/Characteristics: The object became translucent and “diluted into space” until it vanished; radar later confirmed a trajectory that nearly coincided with the flight path
Source: Interview with Commandant Duboc
Summary/Description:
Full Report
On January 28, 1994, at the beginning of the afternoon, the crew of Air-France flight AF-3532 (Nice to London) observed an unusual phenomenon. UFOCOM asked some questions to the pilot and commander of the flight, Jean-Charles Duboc.
INTERVIEW OF COMMANDANT DUBOC:
You were a flight commanding officer at AIR France and on January 28, 1994, you have encountered an unusual phenomenon as you were doing the Nice to London flight 3532. Could you tell me what you witnessed?
I was indeed commander of flight AF-3532 of January 28, 1994, with copilot Valerie Chauffour, and 24 passengers on board.
I have kept a copy of the “OCTAVE”, which is the data-processing follow-up of the flight and I can specify that above the Paris area at the altitude of 11700 meters (FL 390), the outside temperature was of minus 59 Celsius degrees, and with a wind from the North-West had a speed of1 80 km/h (311°/101 kts). The visibility was of more than 300 km (150 Nm) and the cloud cover consisted of altocumulus. The flight encountered no air shakes. The navigation was under excellent weather conditions, in spite of the facing wind of almost 130 km/h (70 kts). That gave us a ground speed of 650 km/h (350 kts). The takeoff hour in Nice was 00h56PM UT and the arrival hour in London 02:13 PM UT.
It was a particularly calm flight, without a particular problem. We arrived above Coulommiers when a steward who was in the cockpit noticed an object which he thought could be a weather balloon. This object was then seen by the copilot and myself a few moments afterward.
According to their description, it seemed to have a variable form and to come very quickly across our road. I first identified it like an aircraft facing us, at approximately 45 km (25 Nm), at an altitude of approximately 10500 meters (25 Nm) and at an angle close to 45°. I found this slope absolutely abnormal because aircraft are not inclined at this altitude beyond 30 degrees without risking to fall down. This object seemed to us then absolutely abnormal by its size which seemed immense, its dark red color and of the fuzzy edges. I had the impression to observe a gigantic lens in evolution. It did not resemble anything we had seen in our flying careers.
This object, this phenomenon, remained motionless while we left it on our left side, still at an approximate distance of 45 km. We observed it during a good minute, conscious that we were seeing something utterly anomalous. We continued to observe it when it gradually merged with the environment. We saw it becoming translucent, transparent, diluted in space. That was absolutely amazing.
After some interrogations, we contacted the control center of Rheims to announce this unidentified object to them, as we are required by air transportation regulation.
Was this “object” tracked by your instruments? What about the black box of flight 3532? Were the communications between your aircraft and the control center in Rheims recorded?
Our ONBOARD instruments are not intended to locate other aircraft.
The airborne radar is only intended to locate storms in order to be able to avoid the air movements ascending and descending, associated with them, characteristic of these clouds, the cumulonimbus. During this event, the radar was not in operation, as it is only necessary for instrument flying (IFR).
In the same way, the black box cannot in any case detect aircraft or phenomena far away from the plane. On Airbus 320 there is a first recorder which is the Quick Access Recorder (QAR). It records only flight parameters, speed, altitude, mechanics, engines, electric, etc. It is analyzed by the maintenance service.
The second recorder, the DFDR, has the same recordings but must support the constraints of an accident. This recorder is analyzed only if a crash occurs or at the request of the crew. As no parameter of our flight has been modified, the tapes were not analyzed because it would have been pointless. The UFO was at nearly 45 km of our aircraft, and there have been no electric or magnetic disturbances.
On the other hand, this UFO was approximately 10 km above Paris, and the Parisian people, under a layer of clouds, were much closer to the UFO than we were. If there had been electromagnetic disturbances, a few million people would have noticed it.
The communications were always preserved, and it is the same for the main TV and radio shows!
Which were the continuations of this affair, at a professional and personal level? Have you been interviewed by the civilian or military authorities?
In the immediate, the continuations were non-existent, because I did not submit a written report to avoid being ridiculed. It was three years later, as I read an article from Paris Match, which described how a UFO has been detected above Paris, that I made the connection between this UFO and that what I had seen.
I then submitted a report to the Gendarmerie Nationale (French police, having an SOP for collection of UFO reports).
Was your testimony transmitted to the SEPRA? Which were the continuations brought by this branch of the CNES?
My report was transmitted by the Gendarmerie to the SEPRA, and the UFO Committee was created within the framework of the Association of the Former Auditors of the Institute for the High Studies of National Defense (IHEDN). I was heard for nearly one hour and a half by the group chaired by General Denis Letty. After discussing the observation, we concluded that the object was approximately 300 meters in diameter.
I took note of the radar recordings by the CODED (Operational Center of Air Defense). There is a very curious characteristic for the trajectory of the UFO, as it shows that it would have almost collided with us. The minimal distance on the recording is less than 1 Nm, which is to say 10 seconds of flight.
This kind of observation is traditional in electronic war. The modern military aircraft are furtive, and at the same time able to synthesize a virtual image of themselves by delaying the radar echo. If a missile had been drawn on this UFO, which was above Paris, it would be our A320 which would probably have been hit by the missile.
I think that it is not desirable to shoot fire at this kind of phenomenon.
Did you speak again of your observation with your colleagues on flight 3532? Which is, now, their feeling about this affair?
I never found the steward who was in the cockpit. My various requests to find the list of the crew for this flight were left unanswered by the of the commercial flight crew personal management (PNC). I had indeed four crew in two days, and I did not keep the lists of the members with me, because they are on the onboard documentation.
On the other hand, I have reexamined the case several times with the copilot who has a very precise memory of the event, and who wrote a report for the gendarmerie (police) of the Charles De Gaulle Airport.
I can only suggest you ask them about their feeling now.
During your pilot career, have you heard from colleagues or other air personal, of similar phenomena?
I barely speak about this encounter, and I had the surprise to note that about one out of ten pilots had observed an unidentified flying phenomenon.
Your testimony appears in the COMETA Report, page 11, which has been published in a special edition of the VSD magazine, this summer 1999. Were you interviewed by this association? What do you think of this report, from a general point of view?
As I said, I was actually auditioned by the above mentioned UFO Committee, which took shape in an association named COMETA. I have recently met Mr. Denis Letty along with a friend who is flight commander on the Concorde, responsible for the training of pilots at the General Management of Civil Aviation (DGAC), in order to study a regulatory possibility to have a reports form for UFO observations on the board of all French airliners.
Their report seemed to me extremely well-conceived, written by high-level personalities, and constitutes a reference for UFO question. It still has some restricted diffusion because this subject is still one of the three great taboos of aeronautics.
The first taboo is the cosmic radiation on aircraft. From May 2000 on, the flying personal will have to carry a dosimeter and the amount of radiation received each year will be measured and calculated according to the recommendations of the project SIEVERT which is developed by the General Management of Civil Aviation, the Institute of Protection and Nuclear Safety (IPSN), the Office of Protection against radiation Ionizing (OPRI), and the Observatory of Paris-Meudon.
The flight crew of aeronautics, as well as astronauts, will be soon classified among the people who receive amounts of radiation in their workplace. The amount of cosmic radiation received by passengers or members of the flight crew during a Europe to US trip and a return trip is similar to a lung radioscopy, and this fact is carefully hidden to the crews and the passengers for nearly 35 years. Indeed, a recommendation of the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), back in 1964, requested that the airlines take measurements of onboard radiations on airliners. A modification of the European regulation in May 2000, European directive 96/29 of May 13, 1996, divided by five the maximum amount of radiation applied to the public, which will be able to take only 1 millisievert per year, instead of five. The airline pilots, hostesses, steward receive between two and five MVS per year, which is more than the majority of the workers in nuclear power plants.
This taboo will disappear when the information circulates in the general public.
The second taboo is the suicide of the airline pilots as they fly, and it will be shattered by the accident of the EGYPTAIR 990 flight if the assumption of the suicide of the copilot is to be confirmed.
The third taboo is the UFO phenomenon UFO, and in particular, the 220 visual observations confirmed by radar, among them is mine. We can thank the COMETA team which, by the quality of its members, its knowledge, its overview, its hypothesis, makes it possible to start to discuss seriously about the sightings from all points of the planet.
On December 7, 1999, TV viewers have an occasion to see you in the “Why? How?” show, animated by Sylvain Augier and Julie Bhaud, for the France3 channel. As I took part myself in the recording of this show, I had a pleasant impression that the questions were not “oriented.” The “And CO” team (producing the show) seemed opened, although skeptic, and very sympathetic. If the editing does not suppress it, do you think that this kind of show can have some utility for general public? What do you think about the attitude of the media, in general, as for their editing of UFO-related information?
As I wrote above, there are several taboos in aeronautics and the reporters who dare to face these interdict risk to be ridiculed, but also to have trouble finding a job. This type of show requires curiosity and courage, and the journalists know that they risk negative reactions, or aggressive reactions, and derision.
This type of emission is very important for it makes it possible to give previously confidential information to the public. The information must pass gradually, whereas we must know that there will be all sorts of reactions.
The bottom line of this problem is the maturity of the public.
Is the public ready to receive the information?
The social psychologists can consider the consequences which an official meeting with an extraterrestrial civilization would have if they have several million years of technological advance. Which upheavals would be induced? Will there be panic in the population? Which disappointed hopes? Will we find the best, the worst, or both? Which information should be given to the public?
Today, do you think that the origin of the UFO phenomenon is not our planet?
The immensity of the universe, its beauty, its unknown features, the current technological progress, the space travels, the orbiting stations, and what I saw, can only convince me that we are not alone in the universe and that we will take part, if we do not destroy ourselves, in the community of the species which travel across the galaxy.
The true current problem of our planet is not the existence, or not, of extraterrestrial civilizations but all the problems caused by pollution, the accumulation of the weapons of destruction, fanaticism, totalitarianism, the overcrowding of our planet.
Source & References:
UFOCOM CG), November 22, 1999
http://www.ufologie.net/htm/duboc01.htm
Researcher’s Notes
The January 28, 1994, encounter involving Air France Flight AF-3532 is a cornerstone of aviation ufology, specifically cited in the prestigious COMETA Report due to its rare combination of high-credibility visual testimony and independent military radar confirmation.
Key technical anomalies include:
Physical Scale and Morphology: Captain Jean-Charles Duboc and his crew described a “gigantic lens” estimated at 300 meters (approx. 1,000 feet) in diameter. The object’s “fuzzy edges” and dark red color distinguish it from conventional aerodynamic structures.
Radar-Visual Correlation: While the crew observed the object visually at a distance of 45 km, military radar from the Operational Center of Air Defense (CODED) recorded a track that nearly intersected the Airbus A320’s path. The recorded minimal distance was less than 1 nautical mile, suggesting a potential electronic warfare capability where the craft could “synthesize” a virtual image or delay its radar echo.
Translucent De-materialization: Unlike objects that depart at high velocity, this craft became “translucent” and “diluted into space” until it vanished. This suggests an advanced optical cloaking mechanism or a transition between physical states rather than standard propulsion.
The Air France Flight AF-3532 encounter remains one of the most significant cases in the Aircraft Encounters archive because it bridges the gap between subjective pilot experience and objective military data. The professionalism of Captain Duboc and his crew, combined with the subsequent validation by the SEPRA and COMETA investigative bodies, elevates this incident from a simple sighting to a high-priority matter of national air defense. The fact that a 1,000-foot wide object could maneuver within one nautical mile of a commercial airliner over a major metropolitan area like Paris without causing physical turbulence highlights a profound technological disparity.
Ultimately, this report serves as a critical record of the “three great taboos” of aeronautics—specifically the enduring mystery of the UFO phenomenon. By documenting the object’s ability to remain stationary at high altitudes before effectively “dissolving” into the atmosphere, this case provides vital data for researchers studying non-conventional propulsion and stealth technologies. Preserving this testimony in the 1994 Sightings and France Sightings archives ensures that the technical realities of this encounter are available for future comparative analysis.
