The Vault Files: 1986 Alaska JAL Flight 1628

Note: The re-creation imagery used in this article to represent details of the case are visual interpretations created from Captain Terauchi’s sketches, crew testimony, and FAA documentation. While every effort was made to keep them as accurate and faithful as possible, certain details of the encounter – such as the precise appearance and scale of the objects – remain based on varying accounts. These visuals are intended to illustrate the incident, not to serve as exact photographic records. Imagery of government documents are legitimate and verified, and are not reproductions or mockups.

Executive Summary
Background
FOIA History and Rediscovery of the Records
Timeline of Events
Primary Documentation
Witness Accounts
Media and Public Coverage
Official Government Response
Skeptical and Debunking Arguments
Unresolved Questions
Impact and Legacy
Conclusion
Source List

Executive Summary

Captain Kenju Terauchi

Japan Air Lines (JAL) Flight 1628 – a Boeing 747 cargo freighter – was involved in one of the most noteworthy UFO encounters on record. On the evening of November 17, 1986, while flying over remote Alaska, the crew observed multiple unidentified objects with bright flashing lights maneuvering around their aircraft. The encounter lasted nearly 50 minutes and was tracked intermittently on both the plane’s onboard radar and by FAA air traffic control on the ground[1]. At one point the veteran captain, Kenju Terauchi, reported a huge unknown craft “twice the size of an aircraft carrier” pacing his 747[2]. Anchorage air traffic controllers scrambled to make sense of the situation, even enlisting a U.S. Air Force radar station and another commercial flight to help. Despite extensive official documentation – including FAA radar data analysis, recorded communications, and detailed crew interviews – no conventional explanation for the objects was confirmed. The incident became international news in early 1987 after the FAA initially acknowledged the encounter. In the years since, it has been scrutinized by investigators and skeptics alike. FAA records, pilot testimonies, and radar evidence make the JAL 1628 case uniquely well-documented, though its true nature remains unresolved. This Vault File assembles the primary evidence and analyses, presenting a factual account of the encounter and examining the official response, media coverage, skeptical explanations, and the enduring questions surrounding this famous UFO incident.

Background

JAL Flight 1628 was a scheduled cargo flight operated by Japan Air Lines, flying a Boeing 747-200F freighter from Paris to Tokyo with a stopover in Anchorage, Alaska. On November 17, 1986, the aircraft was en route from Reykjavík, Iceland to Anchorage, cruising at an altitude of 35,000 feet (Flight Level 350) over the interior of Alaska in the late afternoon local time[3]. The three crew members on board were Captain Kenju Terauchi (age 47, an ex-fighter pilot with 29 years of flying experience[4]), First Officer Takanori Tamefuji, and Flight Engineer Yoshio Tsukuba. The cargo jet was carrying a load of French wine (Beaujolais) bound for Tokyo. The flight was passing through crisp, darkening skies – with a red-orange glow from the setting sun on one horizon and a full moon rising on the other[5] – when the crew’s attention was drawn to some unusual lights in their vicinity.

At approximately 5:15–5:19 PM Alaska Standard Time, northeast of Fairbanks near Fort Yukon, Captain Terauchi first noticed odd lights to his left (port side). There were no other known aircraft in that remote sector, and Flight 1628 was in controlled airspace under the monitoring of FAA Anchorage Center. Moments later, what began as distant lights would escalate into a close encounter that the crew struggled to comprehend.

Continue scrolling for more...

FOIA History and Rediscovery of the Records

For years, the FAA maintained that the records of the JAL Flight 1628 incident had been destroyed.

In May 2001, The Black Vault filed a FOIA request with the FAA for UFO-related records in Alaska between 1981 and 1988, specifically including JAL 1628. The FAA responded that approximately 107 pages existed but classified the requester as “commercial,” which meant significant fees would be charged for search, review, and duplication. This was an erroneous classification, as The Black Vault has always been a “non-commercial” requester, and actually fits in as a “media” status, which nearly every agency has accepted in the past. During a June 5, 2001, phone call, FAA employee Jean Mahoney stated that the records could be released free of charge if the request was withdrawn from FOIA.

However, a follow-up letter dated June 27, 2001, declared that the withdrawal had not been received, the request was considered canceled, and that “all documents pertaining to this UFO sighting will be destroyed in 30 days from the date of this letter.” By the time that letter was reviewed by The Black Vault, the 30-day deadline had already expired. Although a letter was sent withdrawing the request, as requested, it was never received, at least, according to the FAA.

A new FOIA request also filed in 2009 by The Black Vault produced the same result: the FAA again stated that the records had been destroyed.

Yet, seventeen years after the initial request, The Black Vault located the records in the National Archives. They were preserved in Record Group 237 (Records of the Federal Aviation Administration), under local identifier 1203 and archival identifier 733667. And, instead of 107 pages, the file contained more than 1,500 pages of material, including radar data, transcripts, photographs, interviews, and internal FAA communications.

It remains unclear whether the FAA mistakenly believed the files had been destroyed or whether the transfer to the Archives was poorly documented. What is certain is that the records survived, and their rediscovery provided the public with a far more complete case file than was previously available. Today, the JAL 1628 incident is one of the most extensively documented UFO encounters in FAA history, largely because of this recovery.

FOIA Document Archive Listing

The following records were scanned at a very high resolution size for clarity.

(Download the entire set below as a .zip file: jal1628.zip [656.7MB])

Statement of course for records (NTIS) and Content of Package [8 Pages, 5.8MB]

FAA Form 8020-5, Aircraft Incident Record, Brief Summary Statement [3 Pages, 3MB]

Klass and Haines inquires and responses [40 Pages, 35.4MB]

FAA Form 3112, Inspection and Surveillance Record, Inspector Jack Wright [5 Pages, 4.2MB]

FAA form 1600-32-1 Notes of interviews with 3 crew members by Ron Mickle and James Derry [5 Pages, 6.13MB]

Written Statement by Capt. Terauchi [In Japanese] [18 Pages, 17.2MB]

Written Statement by Capt. Terauchi [English translation by Sakoyo Mimoto] [13 Pages, 11MB]

Transcript: Interview with Capt. Terauchi by Dick Gordon, 1/2/87 [19 Pages, 11MB]

Transcript of interview with First Officer Tamefugi by Peter Beckner 1/5/87 [23 Pages, 14.7MB]

Transcript of interview with Flight Engineer Tsukuba by Pete Beckner 1/15/87 [6 Pages, 4.1MB]

Modified Package for FAA Managers [121 Pages, 94.5MB]

Chronology of Events [4 Pages, 2.9MB]

Flight Path Chart [17 Pages, 17MB]

Selected portions of voice transcripts of JAL 1628 and controllers [9 Pages, 7.1MB]

Transcript of Communications between air traffic control and JAL 1628 [24 Pages, 13.6MB]

FAA form 7230-4 Daily record of Facility Operations, Anchorage Air Route Traffic Control Center [3 Pages, 5.5MB]

FAA form 7230-10 Position logs [2 Pages, 2.3MB]

Personnel Statement (Air Traffic Control Specialists) [16 Pages, 11.9MB]

Anchorage Air Route Traffic Control Center computer printout of continuous data recordings (RADAR tracking) [178 Pages, 7.21MB]

Color photos of simulated radar data [18 Pages, 25.8MB]

Color photos of simulated radar data with captions [5 Pages, 5.25MB]

Black and white photos of simulated radar data [13 Pages, 7.1MB]

Explanation of split beacon target [4 Pages, 3.7MB]

News releases, FAA public affairs [9 Pages, 7.8MB]

Record of Communication with FAA administrator, and with U.S. Air Force [6 Pages, 4.5MB]

Cassette tapes of interviews (Audio not digitized) [4 Pages, 4.76MB]

ATC transcripts; flight path chart; personnel statements [13 Pages, 14.3MB]

ATC Transcript; interview with crew; personnel statement; news release [8 Pages, 6.3MB]

News media contacts to FAA [43 Pages, 46.3MB]

News clippings [50 Pages, 4.61MB]

Miscellaneous [17 Pages, 15.8MB]

Letters about UFO (folder 1) [88 Pages, 38.3MB]

Letters about UFO (folder 2) [59 Pages, 27MB]

Letters about UFO (folder 3) [81 Pages, 31.1MB]

Letters about UFO (folder 4) [136 Pages, 81.6MB]

Letters about UFO (folder 5) [86 Pages, 39.6MB]

Letters about UFO (folder 6 and 7) [147 Pages, 52.8MB]

Letters about UFO (folder 8 and 9) [144 Pages, 64.9MB]

Letters about UFO (folder 10) [96 Pages, 35.6MB]

Original Letters Stating Records Destroyed

FAA Letters of Correspondence along with ASIAS report [6 Pages, 1.56MB]

✅ What we know

Three‑person JAL cargo crew reported multiple lights and a large dark object during cruise over Alaska.
FAA preserved extensive material: ATC audio/transcripts, controller statements, facility logs, radar printouts, internal memos.
Anchorage/Elmendorf noted intermittent primary‑only radar returns during parts of the event window.
Vectors, altitude changes, and a 360° turn were executed; another airline flight and a USAF tanker were vectored for possible visual confirmation.
Captain Terauchi submitted written statements and sketches; post‑flight interviews of all three crew were recorded.
Records later surfaced at the National Archives (RG 237, local ID 1203; series 733667)—~1,500+ pages now accessible.

❓ What we don’t know

The identity, origin, and propulsion of the objects described by the crew.
Whether radar returns indicate a discrete second target or artifacts (e.g., split‑beacon/processing effects).
Why vectored aircraft (United flight; USAF tanker) did not obtain independent visual confirmation.
Exact geometry, scale, and surface features of the large “Saturn/walnut‑shaped” object beyond sketches and narrative description.
Whether all pertinent raw data were archived or still exist beyond the released record set.

Timeline of Events

All times below are approximate Alaska Standard Time (UTC−9) on November 17, 1986. This timeline is reconstructed from FAA radar logs, radio transcripts, and crew statements[6][7]:

5:19 PM: The JAL 1628 crew contacts Anchorage Air Route Traffic Control Center (ARTCC) to inquire if there is any traffic at their altitude (FL350). The controller replies that no other aircraft are in the area, but at that same moment Captain Terauchi reports seeing “traffic” with bright lights about 1 mile in front of his 747, at the same altitude[8]. When asked for identifying markings, the pilot says they can only see white and yellow strobe lights on the unknown craft[8]. (Anchorage radar shows no transponder returns there.)

5:25 PM: The unidentified object’s lights now also register on JAL 1628’s onboard weather radar, prompting alarm. The crew reports the object at their 11 o’clock position, roughly 7–8 nautical miles ahead[9]. Anchorage Center still sees nothing on primary radar, so the FAA controller calls the Elmendorf Air Force Base Regional Operations Control Center (ROCC) and asks if they have any radar contact near JAL 1628’s position[9].
5:26 PM: Controllers at Elmendorf ROCC respond that their radar is picking up a “primary” target (uncorrelated echo with no transponder) in JAL 1628’s 10 o’clock position about 8 miles away[10]. In other words, military radar briefly detects something near the 747. Seconds later, the ROCC calls back to report the unknown target has disappeared from their scope[11].

5:31 PM: Captain Terauchi now gets a closer look at the object. He later describes the UFO’s size as enormous – “a very big one… two times bigger than an aircraft carrier”[2] when he glimpses its silhouette against the evening sky. At this point, concerned by the proximity of the unknown craft, Anchorage Center tells JAL 1628 it can take any evasive action needed. The pilot is promptly cleared to deviate from his assigned route[12] for safety.
5:32 PM: JAL 1628 requests permission to descend from 35,000 feet to 31,000 feet, which Anchorage approves. As the 747 begins dropping altitude, the controller asks if the UFO is descending too. The pilot replies that the object is indeed descending “in formation” with them, maintaining the same distance and relative altitude separation throughout the maneuver[13].
5:35 PM: The crew, growing nervous, asks for a heading change to get away from the intruder. Anchorage Center approves a turn to heading 210 (southwest). By now the flight is in the vicinity of Fairbanks. Center also queries FAA Fairbanks Approach control to see if they have any radar contact on the unknown. Fairbanks controllers report seeing nothing on their radar scope aside from JAL 1628’s blip[14].
5:36 PM: To further evaluate the situation, Anchorage instructs JAL 1628 to make a 360-degree turn. The idea is to see if the unknown object will continue to follow the Boeing 747 through a full circle or overshoot. Captain Terauchi executes a standard-rate full turn. During this turn, the object remains pinned at the 747’s left (port) side the entire time[15] – confirming it is not a stationary light or planet but actively maneuvering along with the aircraft. (Terauchi later noted that the UFO “maintained its position on the port side during the turn”[15].)

5:38 PM: Elmendorf ROCC radios back something startling – their radar now shows “a flight of two” targets in the vicinity of JAL 1628[16]. In other words, at this moment the military radar is briefly seeing two objects together (presumably one is JAL 1628 and one is an unknown). ROCC adds that one of the targets is a primary-only return (no transponder). This multi-target radar contact is fleeting; ROCC soon loses the unknown again. (Later, the Air Force would publicly characterize these radar returns as spurious “clutter.”)
5:39 PM: The JAL crew reports that they have lost visual contact with the object. For the first time since the encounter began, the UFO’s lights are no longer in sight.
5:42 PM: ROCC tells the FAA controller that their radar briefly picked up a primary target that “dropped back and to the right” of JAL 1628, and then disappeared[17]. After 5:42 PM, Elmendorf’s radar does not see the unknown again.
5:44 PM: Captain Terauchi announces that the UFO has reappeared in view – now off the 747’s left side (around the 9 o’clock position). It seems to be keeping pace alongside them once more.
5:45 PM: Anchorage Center, responding to the pilot’s report that the object is still present, decides to seek confirmation from another aircraft. The controller contacts a nearby United Airlines passenger flight (UA Flight 69) northbound from Anchorage to Fairbanks, which is coming toward JAL 1628’s location on an opposite course. Anchorage asks the United crew if they would deviate slightly and approach within a few miles of JAL 1628 to help observe. The United pilots agree, and they are given vectors that will bring them closer to JAL 1628’s flight path[18]. (At the same time, a USAF KC-135 tanker aircraft flying in the general area is also alerted to look for anything unusual.)

5:50 PM: As the United Airlines jet draws nearer, JAL 1628’s crew reports the object’s position is now behind them, at their 7 o’clock (aft-left) about 7–8 miles away[19]. Anchorage Center asks Captain Terauchi to flash his aircraft’s landing lights a few times, so that the United flight can visually identify the JAL 747 and perhaps spot the trailing object.
5:51 PM: The United Airlines Flight 69 crew reports visual contact with JAL 1628 (they can see the JAL 747 against the darkening sky), but they do not see any other object or traffic near it[20]. Similarly, the USAF tanker crew, upon flying past the area, reports nothing unusual in the vicinity besides the JAL cargo plane. Despite the JAL pilots still sensing something behind them, no one else can confirm the unidentified object by eye.
5:53 PM: JAL 1628 advises that the UFO’s lights have vanished. At this point – roughly 50 minutes after the initial sighting – the strange encounter finally seems to have ended[20]. JAL 1628 continues on without further incident as it begins its descent toward Anchorage.
~6:20 PM: JAL Flight 1628 lands safely at Anchorage International Airport. Upon arrival, the shaken crew is met by FAA personnel for an immediate debrief. The three men – Captain Terauchi, First Officer Tamefuji, and Flight Engineer Tsukuba – are each interviewed separately by FAA investigators on the night of the incident. They describe in detail what they saw and experienced, providing written statements and even sketches of the UFO. (Captain Terauchi’s drawing showed a huge Saturn-shaped craft with a bulging center and a ring-like rim – essentially a “mothership” that he inferred was behind the smaller lighted craft.) The crew is found to be perfectly sober, healthy, and professional by the investigators[21]. That same night, FAA officials quietly launch an inquiry into what exactly happened over Alaska’s skies.

(Note: The above chronology is based on an official FAA summary memo[6][22] corroborated by pilot and controller reports. Times are approximate; in FAA records the incident is logged between 0219–0253 UTC on Nov 18, 1986, corresponding to 5:19–5:53 PM AST Nov 17.)

Primary Documentation

The JAL 1628 incident generated a substantial body of official documentation. In early 1987, the FAA compiled all relevant records into a case file, much of which was later released under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)[23]. These primary sources include:

FAA Incident Reports and Memos: Immediately after the event, FAA personnel in the Alaskan Region documented the occurrence. An FAA Aircraft Incident Report (Form 8020-5) was filed, summarizing Flight 1628’s encounter as an “unidentified traffic” incident. Additionally, an internal “Alert Notice” memo was circulated by Alaskan regional director Franklin L. Cunningham (AAL-1) in November 1986, describing the sighting and the actions taken. This one-page summary provides a concise overview: the JAL crew reported “lighted air traffic, in close proximity,” with no known traffic on radar, though intermittent primary radar targets were noted[24]. It states the sighting continued for over 350 miles until the object departed to the east, and that the crew was considered “professional, rational” upon interview[25][26]. The memo also notes that the US Air Force at Elmendorf AFB had tracked occasional primary returns (which the Air Force later told the media were “clutter”)[27]. A follow-up memo in February 1987 routed to FAA headquarters summarized the case and media inquiries. These internal memos set the stage for FAA leadership’s awareness of the event.
ATC Logs and Radar Data Analysis: Anchorage Center preserved the radar track data from Flight 1628’s journey and conducted a detailed review. A chronological “Summary of Air Traffic Control communications” was written by Quentin J. Gates (Air Traffic Manager at Anchorage ARTCC) on December 18, 1986[6]. This official timeline lists each key event from 5:19 to 5:53 PM (0219–0253 UTC), confirming for instance the moments when the pilot reported the UFO’s position, when military radar picked up a “primary target,” and when other planes were enlisted to help[28][22]. The summary concludes that a subsequent review of Anchorage’s radar “failed to confirm any targets in close proximity to JAL 1628.”[29] In addition, over 150 pages of raw radar printout data were collected (to document the blips seen on the scopes). Computer plots of the radar returns were later generated for analysis. Anchorage Center’s daily operation log and controller shift logs were also archived, showing how controllers reacted in real time. The radar evidence, while intriguing in that moments of an unknown target were recorded, was ultimately inconclusive – it did not provide a consistent track for the UFO beyond the primary returns that could be interpreted as anomalies.
Pilot and Crew Interviews: Upon landing, the crew was interviewed on November 17, 1986 by FAA security and flight standards officials (including Security Agent Ronald E. Mickle and Security Manager James Derry). Written affidavits and interview notes document the crew’s first-hand descriptions. According to Agent Mickle’s report, Captain Terauchi stated that just after passing a navigational waypoint (near the Arctic Circle), they observed “strange lights ahead of their 747”[30]. These lights moved erratically: after a couple of minutes they shifted position but stayed in front of the aircraft for about 10 minutes, then moved to the left side[31]. The crew emphasized they saw only the lights and “at no time could they see any craft” structure[32]. However, the plane’s weather radar did detect an object about 7 miles ahead when the lights were visible[33]. The lights were described as yellow, amber, and green in color – notably, no red light was observed, which is unusual since aviation lights generally include red. The lights appeared in “two separate sets” that changed position relative to each other[34], suggesting two objects acting in tandem. The crew recounted how the lights reacted to the 747’s movements – pacing them through turns and altitude changes. Both Agent Mickle and Agent Derry found the crew to be credible and professional in demeanor. Their reports noted that the crew was cooperative, showed no sign of impairment or hysteria, and even maintained a sense of humor. (In fact, Captain Terauchi jokingly mused during the interview whether the UFO occupants might be interested in their cargo of French wine – a remark he later repeated to the press[35].) One addendum in the FAA file, gleaned via a confidential source at JAL, mentioned that this was not Captain Terauchi’s first UFO sighting – he had apparently reported seeing unusual aerial phenomena on at least two prior occasions[36]. This fact, kept in mind by investigators, would later be seized upon by skeptics (labeling Terauchi a “UFO repeater”).
Captain Terauchi’s Written Statement: A few weeks after the incident, as part of the investigation, Captain Terauchi submitted a detailed written report (with sketches) to the FAA, describing the encounter in his own words. In this report (written in Japanese and translated to English), Terauchi elaborated on the appearance and behavior of the UFOs. He described the largest craft – which he termed the “mothership” – as deliberately staying in darkness: it “positioned itself in the darkest easterly side of the sky” so that it would not be easily seen[37]. He wrote that when his flight was in front of the sunset, the UFO stayed in the dark background, possibly “not wanting to be seen.” Terauchi also expressed a personal hope that “we humans will meet them in the near future”[38], indicating he felt the objects might be some form of extraterrestrial craft. (His openness to the UFO’s extraordinary nature was clear – in interviews he even used words like “spaceship” and “mothership” to describe it[39].) In a later addendum dated January 11, 1987, Terauchi reported another sighting of similar lights in roughly the same area while flying from Paris to Anchorage – an event which, after military radar failed to corroborate it, was tentatively explained as distant city lights refracted through ice crystals[40][41]. Terauchi’s written account, combined with the earlier interviews, provides a vivid personal narrative to accompany the objective data.

In summary, the primary documentation for the JAL 1628 case is unusually rich. Few other UFO incidents have such a convergence of pilot testimony, radar records, audio transcripts, and official investigative reports. These sources allow a detailed reconstruction and analysis of the incident from multiple angles – even if they ultimately stopped short of identifying the phenomenon encountered.

Witness Accounts

Captain Terauchi’s sketch of the enormous “mothership” UFO that he and his crew reported, showing a walnut or Saturn-shaped craft roughly two times the length of an aircraft carrier. He drew this from memory as part of his FAA report. The Japanese annotations describe the object’s silhouette and the placement of its lights.

The first-hand accounts of the crew of JAL Flight 1628 are both fascinating and baffling. All three men were experienced airmen with military backgrounds and thousands of flight hours, not prone to exaggeration.

What they described during and after the flight was nothing short of astounding:

Initial Encounter – Small “Flying Lights”: The encounter began with two small UFOs that approached the 747. Terauchi and his crew first noticed two amber-colored lights off to the left, which suddenly rose from below and closed in to fly alongside their aircraft[42]. These objects had a peculiar array of lights. Terauchi described seeing what looked like two rectangular clusters of glowing nozzles or “thrusters,” though the craft’s bodies were obscured by darkness[43]. The pair of UFOs darted around the jumbo jet with high agility, at times demonstrating instantaneous acceleration. According to the crew, the objects would “shoot off lights” and move erratically, as if under intelligent control[44].At one point, the two objects abruptly positioned themselves directly in front of the 747, perhaps only a few hundred feet ahead of the nose. The glare was so intense that the 747’s cockpit “was lit up” brightly, and Captain Terauchi could feel heat on his face from the objects’ glow[45][46]. The lights were described as a “Christmas tree” of flashing white, orange, green, and amber colors[47]. Terauchi later emphasized that they were not stars or planets: “they were so luminous… blinking, blinking… moving in one close formation,” he said, stressing that these objects exhibited motion and characteristics unlike any distant celestial light[48]. During this phase, the crew got the impression the smaller craft might be “scouting” or inspecting their airplane – as Terauchi put it, the two UFOs seemed to be flying in “close formation” around the 747, almost playfully[48].
Appearance of the “Mothership”: After some minutes of this, the two smaller objects departed (or suddenly vanished from view). It was then that the crew became aware of a third object – a much larger presence – lurking in the darkness. Off to the left side of the aircraft, against the dim evening sky, Captain Terauchi saw a gigantic silhouette come into view[49]. Initially, it was just a large dark shape, but as his eyes adjusted he discerned a form he later described as resembling a “walnut” or shell-like shape. The object had a wide, flat bottom and top with a chubby, bulging center – very much like the planet Saturn with a thick ring around it. Terauchi estimated this craft was truly enormous, on the order of “two times bigger than an aircraft carrier” (aircraft carriers are ~300 meters long)[50]. In other words, the UFO was over half a kilometer in size. It had no visible wings or tail. The surface appeared dark gray or dull metallic, with some structural details: Terauchi noted panellike markings and what looked like turrets or circular indentations on the object’s surface[51]. Unlike the smaller brightly-lit UFOs, this large craft did not display an array of multicolor lights. The captain recalled only seeing some faint amber or pale white lights on it, possibly on each end of the “ring.” In his sketch, he marked the placement of these lights on the huge ellipse (see figure above). This “mothership” trailed JAL 1628 from a slight distance – mostly staying to the left of the 747, matching their speed and direction. Its sheer size and proximity are what prompted the crew to request course and altitude changes out of concern.
Crew’s Emotional State: Throughout the encounter, Captain Terauchi and his crew remained communicative with air traffic control, though they were certainly unnerved by what was happening. The cockpit voice recordings (per FAA transcripts) show Terauchi at times sounding excited but under control. He later admitted to feeling a mix of awe and worry. He was not panicked, but he was definitely concerned that these objects – especially the gigantic “mothership” – posed a mid-air collision risk if they got any closer[52]. The crew reported no loss of avionics or serious electromagnetic effects, though at one point they noted some mild static on the radio and a momentary loss of VHF communication clarity[53][54]. They did not report any feeling of turbulence or shock waves from the objects, just the visual phenomenon and the radar contacts. After landing, the FAA interviewers found the crew “normal, professional, rational” with no hint of hoax or hallucination[21]. All three firmly stood by their account of what they saw. In fact, both First Officer Tamefuji and Flight Engineer Tsukuba corroborated the presence of the two smaller UFOs with bright pulsating lights that maneuvered around their plane[55]. They also confirmed the outline of the larger object that lingered afterward (though Terauchi, as the pilot in command, had the clearest view and took the lead in descriptions).
Other Witnesses: Notably, during the incident the JAL crew were the only ones who saw the UFOs visually. When another aircraft (United 69) was vectored nearby to help, its pilots did not see any strange traffic, nor did a military KC-135 crew in the area. This lack of additional eyewitness confirmation could be due to timing and distance – by the time the United flight approached within a few miles, the unknown object was behind JAL 1628 and perhaps no longer illuminated or easily visible against the dark sky. The United crew only had JAL 1628 in sight “against a light background” of the twilight horizon and reported seeing no other lights or craft[19]. This frustrated Terauchi, who later commented that the other pilots “were looking at the wrong time and place” – essentially, he believed the UFO had either extinguished its lights or moved off by the time they came. On the ground, several FAA controllers in Anchorage did see unexplained blips on radar corresponding to JAL 1628’s position, which they found highly unusual. But visually, no one on the ground saw the objects (it was dark and the area was remote).

To this day, the crew of JAL 1628 maintains the validity of their experience. Captain Terauchi in later interviews reaffirmed that “the UFO was there” and that he “could not have been mistaken” about its extraordinary size and behavior[56][57]. His crew likewise stuck to their story (though they spoke less publicly). In summary, their accounts portray an encounter with structured, highly-active craft of unknown origin – something far beyond normal aircraft or natural phenomena. The vividness of their testimony is a big reason this case has become a modern legend in aviation circles.

Media and Public Coverage

The JAL Flight 1628 UFO encounter did not reach the public until several weeks after it happened. Initially, the incident was kept within official channels – the FAA and military – and the crew was not encouraged to speak publicly. However, in December 1986, word began to leak out. Captain Terauchi gave a brief account to two Japanese reporters from the Kyodo News Service in Japan, hoping to share his experience. This opened the floodgates. By the end of December 1986, news of an airline crew seeing a huge UFO over Alaska hit the wires.

On December 31, 1986 and January 1, 1987, major media outlets ran stories on the incident. The Los Angeles Times (via UPI) and other papers quoted Captain Terauchi describing an enormous object that dwarfed his 747, confirmed at least in part by FAA radar[58][59]. An article in the Washington Post on January 2, 1987 ran with the headline: “UFO Sighting Confirmed by FAA, Air Force Radar; Japanese Crew Tells of Encounter Over Alaska.”[60] The story went global, making headlines in Japan and around the world. Suddenly, JAL 1628’s encounter became one of the most famous UFO cases of the decade.

The FAA in Anchorage found itself besieged by media inquiries “mounting after inquiry by Kyodo News Service,” as one internal memo noted[61]. Paul Steucke, the FAA’s Alaska region public affairs officer, initially confirmed to reporters that something had been tracked on radar in the vicinity of the JAL flight[62]. He acknowledged that the crew reported a UFO and that the Air Force radar had picked up a target; essentially officials admitted the incident happened (which lent it credibility in the press). This was quite unusual – it’s one of the few times that a UFO encounter received tacit confirmation from government authorities in real-time.

Public interest in the story was intense. Alongside serious news coverage, the case spurred a frenzy of speculation. Late-night TV programs and newspapers debated: What did the Japanese pilots really see? With the Cold War still on, some wondered if it was a secret Soviet aircraft or military test. Others suspected an extraterrestrial spacecraft. The term “mothership” from Terauchi’s account made for tantalizing headlines.

Japan Air Lines’ corporate management took a conservative stance. They refrained from making any official comment supporting or denying the crew’s claims. Behind the scenes, however, JAL was not entirely pleased with the publicity. In fact, Captain Terauchi faced some professional fallout: after speaking to the press, JAL temporarily grounded him. According to later reports, in early 1987 Terauchi was removed from flight duty and assigned to an office job, ostensibly due to the unwanted attention his UFO report drew to the airline[63]. (Years later, JAL reinstated him as a pilot, quietly acknowledging that he hadn’t done anything wrong per se – he had followed procedures in reporting the UFO, but the airline preferred to downplay the incident.) This action by JAL underscores a common theme in aviation: pilots who report UFOs publicly can face career hindrances, not due to the veracity of their accounts but due to corporate and industry stigma around the topic.

The public reaction to the JAL 1628 story was mixed. Many were fascinated and took it as potential evidence of UFOs (the case was frequently cited by UFO organizations as a “best case” due to the radar confirmation). Skeptics and aviation experts, on the other hand, raised doubts (as discussed in the next section). Nonetheless, the incident stayed in the public eye for months. In March 1987, after the FAA completed its formal investigation, the agency held a press conference in Anchorage to share its findings. At that event, FAA officials revealed radar data plots and played audio recordings of the communications. The final FAA report, released later in 1987, stated that the investigators were “unable to support” the UFO hypothesis but also could not fully explain what the pilots saw[64][65]. This equivocal conclusion kept the mystery alive.

Over the years, Flight 1628’s encounter has been recounted in countless UFO books, documentaries, and articles. It was featured in a 1996 episode of Unsolved Mysteries and in 2006 on the History Channel special “Black Box UFOs,” which even played excerpts from the FAA control tower tapes[66]. The case remains one of the most widely publicized and discussed pilot-UFO encounters to date.

Official Government Response

Initially, the FAA appeared responsive to the JAL 1628 incident – even a bit caught off guard by the attention. As described, the FAA’s Alaskan regional office compiled an extensive data package on the case by early 1987 and shared it with headquarters and the public upon request. But officially, the U.S. government was careful in how it characterized the incident.

By January 1987, FAA spokesmen were already walking back the more sensational aspects. In Anchorage, public affairs officer Paul Steucke cautioned that the FAA was not in the UFO-investigation business. He famously said that the agency “does not have the resources or the Congressional mandate to investigate sightings of unidentified flying objects.”[67] He explained that the FAA’s role was simply to ensure aviation safety, and in this case they preserved the data but would not speculate on the UFO’s nature. In essence, the FAA treated the event as an air traffic incident, not as an extraterrestrial visitation to be researched.

The FAA’s official conclusion, delivered in a report in March 1987, was that no definite evidence of a second aircraft could be found. The unusual radar returns were tentatively explained as radar anomalies – specifically a possible “split radar image” of JAL 1628’s own transponder echo or other interference (clutter)[68][69]. In other words, the radar “double target” might have been a ghost caused by the radar signal itself. The FAA controllers involved weren’t entirely convinced by this, but that became the agency’s public line. The Air Force similarly stated that their radar contact was nothing substantial – just a momentary uncorrelated primary blip that could not be confirmed.

Crucially, the FAA did not accuse the crew of any wrongdoing. In fact, in internal memos they stressed the pilots were reliable and had really seen something. The final FAA report (summarized to the media) said the incident “could not be identified” as any known aircraft or phenomenon, but also that the agency had no evidence to prove the crew didn’t see something real[65]. Essentially it was labeled “unexplained” but with the caveat that no formal UFO investigation would follow.

Behind the scenes, there was at least one intriguing government meeting about the case. In late January 1987, FAA division chief John Callahan in Washington, DC, convened a briefing where the FAA’s radar data, voice tapes, and reports on JAL 1628 were shown to representatives from other agencies. According to Callahan (who spoke out years later), this meeting included personnel from the CIA and science advisors from the Reagan administration. The officials reviewed the case, and at the end a CIA representative supposedly instructed that “this event never happened” and that all participants were sworn to secrecy[70]. While Callahan’s dramatic account is unconfirmed by other sources, it suggests that parts of the U.S. government did take a keen interest in the incident – if only to understand whether it posed any defense or airspace concern. (Callahan kept copies of the data and later gave them to UFO researchers, ensuring the case files weren’t truly buried.)

Ultimately, the government’s official response to the JAL 1628 UFO encounter was to acknowledge that something occurred, provide the factual data, but offer no definitive explanation. The case was essentially filed away as an unsolved anomaly. Importantly, the FAA made no attempt to debunk the crew in an insulting way; they simply released the information and stated they couldn’t pursue it further. As Steucke explained: “We have not tried to determine what the crew of JAL Flight 1628 saw, based on scientific analysis of the stars, planets, etc.”[71] In other words, once it was clear no regulatory violation or safety hazard remained, the FAA closed the case.

For the record, in February 1987 the FAA did issue new guidance to its air traffic staff regarding UFO reports – essentially telling controllers how to log such incidents but also advising them not to speculate publicly. This was likely a reaction to the mini-frenzy JAL 1628 caused. The U.S. Air Force, for its part, had officially ceased investigating UFO sightings back in 1969 (with the end of Project Blue Book). So by 1986 the Air Force had no mandate to investigate civilian UFO reports. It treated the JAL radar contact as a one-off event with no national security significance (after determining it wasn’t a clandestine Soviet aircraft, presumably).

In summary, the official stance boiled down to: Crew saw lights; radar had blips; we don’t know what it was; we aren’t chasing it. The case highlights the cautious, often reluctant manner in which authorities handle UFO incidents – focusing on technical data and safety, but avoiding any suggestion of extraterrestrial conclusions.

Skeptical Explanations and Debunking Attempts

Almost as soon as the JAL 1628 story hit the news, skeptics and debunkers began analyzing the case to find a prosaic explanation. While the incident’s high strangeness attracted UFO believers, it also drew the attention of scientific skeptics who suspected there must be a mistake or misinterpretation at play.

Over the years, several key points have been raised to cast doubt on the “alien spacecraft” interpretation:

Radar “Ghost Targets”: One of the strongest skeptical arguments focused on the radar evidence. Philip J. Klass, a noted aerospace journalist and UFO skeptic, obtained the FAA’s data and consulted with radar experts. He reported that the intermittent second blip on radar could be explained by a known phenomenon called an “uncorrected primary and beacon target.” This occurs when a radar’s returns momentarily get out of sync with an aircraft’s transponder signal, creating a duplicate echo where there is in fact only one plane. According to an FAA radar specialist, Dennis R. Simantel, such uncorrected primary returns “are not uncommon” given the timing loops in radar equipment[72]. In other words, what appeared as a second object on the radar at times may well have been a false target – essentially a glitch overlapping JAL 1628’s own return. Indeed, a later FAA analysis determined that the radar track printouts did not show any unknown craft moving independently; they concluded the radar data “failed to confirm any other traffic” near the 747[29]. Skeptics cite this as evidence that nothing solid was actually there, and that the radar sightings were spurious artifacts rather than real objects.
Pilot Misperception – Planets and Stars: The visual aspect of the encounter has been the target of most skeptical scrutiny. The leading theory proposed is that Captain Terauchi and crew may have been misidentifying bright celestial bodies (planets or stars) and/or some unusual atmospheric lights. Klass was quick to point out that on the evening of November 17, 1986, the planet Jupiter was extremely bright in the southern sky – and in fact “precisely where the pilot reported that he saw the UFO.”[73] Jupiter would have been low on the horizon (about 10° above at that time[74]), but from the pilot’s perspective it might have appeared roughly level with the aircraft. Additionally, Mars was also in the vicinity (just below Jupiter), which Klass suggested could explain Terauchi’s initial report of two distant lights[75][76]. Could the “mothership” have simply been Jupiter? Klass argued that it’s not unheard of for even experienced pilots to mistake bright stars or planets for a UFO, especially when fatigued or if the object appears to “follow” their movements. In this case, the JAL crew did describe one light trailing them at a constant bearing – which is exactly how a bright celestial object would appear if the plane changes course (the light source would seem to maintain position). Supporting this, the FAA’s public summary noted a discrepancy: Terauchi told controllers during the flight that the object vanished when he completed the 360° turn, but in later interviews he claimed the object had stayed with him through the turn[77][78]. If the real stimulus had been Jupiter, initially he might not have seen it after turning (blocked by the plane’s fuselage or glare) but later, memory and assumption filled in that it “remained.” Skeptics also emphasize that the two other aircraft crews saw nothing – United 69 and the USAF tanker scanned the sky and reported no unusual lights[79]. This suggests that possibly the JAL crew’s eyes were playing tricks on them or that they were observing something not actually “out there.”
Terauchi’s UFO History and Psychology: Another point often raised is Captain Terauchi’s predisposition. During the investigation it came out that Terauchi had, on at least two occasions prior, reported seeing UFOs while flying[80][81]. Klass labeled him a “UFO repeater” – a pilot who has a track record of UFO sightings, which many UFO researchers themselves consider a red flag. The reasoning is that someone who strongly believes in or expects UFOs might interpret ambiguous sights as UFOs more readily than others. Terauchi was also quite outspoken about his belief that what he saw was extraterrestrial. He even mused about the “spaceships” hiding intentionally and hoped for a meeting with “them” one day[39][38]. To skeptics, this indicates a possible bias or anticipation on the captain’s part – essentially, that he wanted to see a UFO and thus, when confronted with perplexing lights, his imagination filled in details of a giant spaceship. Robert Sheaffer, another noted skeptic, argued that Terauchi was not an entirely objective observer; he may have embellished or misremembered details, and his crew (being junior) might have been influenced by his interpretation[82]. Indeed, when the three crew members were interviewed months later, there were inconsistencies in their recollections (e.g. how large the object was, exactly when it disappeared, etc.)[83]. While such inconsistencies are normal under stress, skeptics use them to suggest the event was less clear-cut than initially portrayed.
Alternative Explanations: Some have proposed that ice crystals or atmospheric optics could account for the lights. For instance, if there were thin clouds of ice crystals, bright stars or planets might appear to have halos or could even reflect lights from the ground. There was also the fact that the 747 was flying toward Fairbanks with a full moon rising behind – perhaps light conditions played tricks on depth perception. Another idea is that the crew could have seen the Aurora Borealis, which is common in Alaska. However, their descriptions of distinct craft with lights don’t match auroral displays well (and the FAA logs don’t note aurora that evening). Finally, could it have been some secret military aircraft or test? Skeptics usually doubt that, because nothing known (even experimental) would be as large as described or behave in that way in 1986. And if it were a military stealth or espionage craft, it seems unlikely it would put on such a light show around a civilian airliner.

In 1987, Philip Klass published his analysis in Skeptical Inquirer magazine, concluding that the case had a prosaic explanation. He leaned towards the Jupiter/stellar misidentification theory coupled with radar quirks and possibly the “psyche of a UFO-inclined pilot.” More recently, in 2020, researcher Brian Dunning reviewed all available evidence and came to a blunt conclusion: “There was nothing extraordinary or unusual on that evening… the Japan Air Lines Alaska UFO event turns out to have been just another unevidenced aerial anecdote.”[84]. In other words, without hard proof, it’s one more story of lights in the sky – impressive initially, but not supported by tangible corroboration.

It should be noted that not all experts agree with the hardcore skeptical view. Some radar analysts (including Dr. Bruce Maccabee) have argued that the radar data does show an unknown target at times, not explainable as mere split images[85]. And the JAL crew obviously refutes the idea they were misidentifying planets – they insist the objects moved with purposeful motion, in ways no planet would. Nonetheless, the skeptical explanations present a plausible scenario: a combination of optical illusion and instrumentation quirks leading to a false alarm. So far, no definitive refutation of those mundane explanations has been published in a scientific forum. The debate, therefore, continues: believers see a solid UFO encounter with corroborating data, skeptics see an over-hyped “nothing-burger” that was later debunked as misperception.

Unresolved Questions

Even decades later, the JAL 1628 incident leaves several key questions unanswered:

What exactly were the objects that the crew saw? If they were not conventional aircraft or astronomical objects, what could account for the structured shapes, maneuvering, and intense lights described?
Why were there no other visual confirmations? Despite the JAL pilots’ clear sighting, neither the nearby United Airlines crew nor the USAF crew saw the UFO. Was the phenomenon somehow only apparent to JAL 1628’s crew (and on radar) but invisible to others?
How could such a large object appear and disappear so suddenly? The “mothership” was reported to be enormous, yet it vanished from radar and view in an instant. If it was a physical craft, where did it go so quickly?
Did Captain Terauchi’s prior UFO experiences influence this encounter? Terauchi had reported UFOs before. Does this mean he was simply more attuned to noticing unusual things, or could it indicate a bias that colored his perception on this flight?
What do the radar anomalies truly represent? Were the radar contacts purely artifacts (split images/clutter), or did the radar momentarily capture a real second object? The truth of the radar data is central to validating or refuting the case.

These and other questions ensure that Flight 1628’s encounter remains a subject of lively discussion rather than a closed case. As of today, no single “prosaic” explanation has definitively accounted for all aspects of the incident – but neither is there concrete proof of an extraordinary craft. The JAL 1628 mystery thus embodies the classic “UFO enigma”: intriguing, well-documented, yet ultimately unresolved.

Impact and Legacy

The Japan Air Lines 1628 encounter has earned a prominent place in UFO lore and continues to be cited as one of the most compelling pilot-UFO sightings on record. In UFO research circles, it is often highlighted for its combination of eyewitness testimony and instrumented evidence. The case has been featured in numerous television documentaries, books, and articles. For example, it was profiled on Unsolved Mysteries and the History Channel’s “Black Box UFOs,” and it appears in many “Top UFO Cases” lists[86]. As journalist Jazz Shaw noted, “anyone with even a moderate interest in the UFO topic has likely heard of the incident,” which has become “the stuff of legends.”[87]

One reason for this enduring fame is that the incident forced authorities to grapple (albeit briefly) with the UFO question. The FAA’s handling of the case – collecting data, then ultimately declaring “we can’t explain it” – is frequently pointed to as an example of bureaucratic reluctance to engage with UAP (Unidentified Aerial Phenomena). In later years, John Callahan’s dramatic claims of a CIA cover-up at the 1987 meeting added a layer of conspiracy intrigue, though the core data did end up public. The case is sometimes brought up in calls for more serious official study of UFOs impacting aviation.

The JAL 1628 encounter also had a cautionary legacy for pilots. Captain Terauchi’s temporary grounding by JAL sent a message that openly reporting a UFO could jeopardize one’s career[63]. This, among other cases, has been cited in discussions about removing the stigma for pilots to report unexplained sightings. In recent years, with renewed attention to UAP by governments, the Flight 1628 case has been revisited as a well-documented historical example of a UAP encounter in commercial aviation.

Within the UFO researcher community, the case spurred deeper analysis of radar data and pilot testimony. Renowned optical physicist and UFO investigator Dr. Bruce Maccabee conducted an in-depth study of the FAA materials. Maccabee concluded that the multiple-witness sighting and radar contacts could not be easily dismissed as misperception or error[85]. He noted that the crew’s descriptions of the clustered lights were very specific and that the radar data, while not definitive, did show something anomalous. Maccabee ultimately opined that JAL 1628 was accompanied for part of its flight by at least two “true UFOs” – meaning real, physical objects of unknown origin[88]. His analysis gave weight to those in the UFO community who view the case as evidence of unconventional technology (or even extraterrestrial visitation).

On the flip side, skeptical researchers also use JAL 1628 as a case study – of how a compelling UFO report can unravel under scrutiny. In 2014, skeptic Robert Sheaffer revisited the case in Skeptical Inquirer, emphasizing the inconsistencies in the crew’s recollections and how the simplest explanation (Jupiter, stars, radar quirks) fits the data best[89][90]. Brian Dunning’s 2020 podcast on the case likewise framed it as an example of an incident hyped as a “classic” that, in his view, completely fell apart (he concluded it was essentially a non-event once mundane factors are considered)[91][92].

In popular culture, the Flight 1628 encounter remains one of those fascinating aviation mysteries. It’s not as famous as, say, Roswell or the Phoenix Lights, but within UFOlogy it’s a reference point whenever discussing pilot sightings or radar-visual cases. The term “mothership the size of an aircraft carrier” coming from a respected airline captain still captures people’s imagination. The case’s legacy is also evident in how it’s used in advocacy: proponents of more UFO transparency often mention that “even an FAA Division Chief and a 747 crew once dealt with a UFO” when arguing that the topic deserves serious attention.

Finally, on a personal level, Captain Terauchi eventually returned to flying for JAL and later retired quietly. In interviews years later, he stuck to his story, though he also mused that perhaps the times weren’t ready for the truth of what he saw. In a way, JAL 1628’s incident encapsulates the UFO issue’s impact on individuals: Terauchi had an extraordinary experience, reported it dutifully, and found himself both vindicated (by evidence) and professionally penalized (by skepticism). His case has inspired other pilots to come forward (some privately, some publicly) with their own UFO accounts, helping build the case that such incidents are more common than acknowledged.

Today, with renewed official interest in UAP by the Pentagon and other agencies, historical cases like JAL Flight 1628 are being looked at in a new light. It stands as an intriguing data point – an unsolved event at the intersection of aviation and the unknown. Whether one leans toward the skeptical explanation or the extraterrestrial, the Japan Air Lines 1628 encounter endures as a landmark case, reminding us of the mysteries that sometimes confront even the most routine of flights.

Conclusion

JAL Flight 1628’s brush with the unknown on that November evening in 1986 remains a singular event in aviation history. Here was a case of an experienced crew, flying a routine cargo route, encountering something truly extraordinary – an array of brilliant, maneuvering lights and a gargantuan dark craft – in the middle of the sky. They responded exactly as trained: communicating with ATC, attempting evasive maneuvers, and documenting everything they could. The subsequent investigation provided a wealth of information but no satisfying answers. Decades later, we are left with a well-documented mystery: one that continues to intrigue, inspire, and perplex.

For some, Flight 1628 is proof that there are things in our skies beyond current explanation, bolstered by radar and multiple witnesses. For others, it’s an example of how easily human perception can be fooled and technology can glitch, even for top-notch pilots and controllers. The truth might lie somewhere in between, or it might remain forever out of reach. As it stands, the JAL 1628 incident underscores the importance of following up on UAP encounters with open-minded rigor. It also highlights the need for an environment where pilots can report such incidents without fear of ridicule or reprisal – because whatever the crew of JAL 1628 saw, it was real to them and had potential flight safety implications.

In the end, the story of JAL Flight 1628 endures not because it proves aliens are real or because it was conclusively debunked – but because it asks us to grapple with the unknown. It invites us to take a closer look at our assumptions about what is and isn’t possible in our skies. And until that fateful flight’s mysteries are fully resolved (if ever), it will remain a touchstone case, prompting the aviation and scientific communities to keep an open mind about those rare, puzzling moments when the ordinary turns into the extraordinary at 35,000 feet.

Source List

[1] FAA Alaskan Region Internal Memos (Nov 1986 – Feb 1987): A collection of official FAA memoranda and correspondence regarding the “UFO Sighting, JAL Flight #1628, 11-17-86.” Includes the initial Alert Report summary by Franklin L. Cunningham (AAL-1) dated Nov. 18, 1986, which notes the crew’s sighting of a large unknown aircraft with bright lights (no known traffic; intermittent radar returns; crew deemed professional)[24][18]. Also includes a Feb 1987 follow-up memo. Source: FAA FOIA Release 733667 (via The Black Vault) – JAL1628/733667-001-025.pdf.

[2] FAA Chronology of JAL 1628 Event – Quentin J. Gates (Anchorage ARTCC): A detailed chronological summary of the incident, prepared Dec 18, 1986. Lists each communication and radar observation between 5:19 PM and 5:53 PM AST. Confirms key events: e.g., crew reports of “traffic” with white/yellow strobes at 1 mile[8], object on JAL’s radar at 8 nm[9], military radar picking up a primary target at 8 nm[10], pilot’s remark of a “quite big” plane and ATC clearing deviations[13], the 360° turn with UFO staying on port side[15], United flight involvement, and the final remark that a review of radar data “failed to confirm any targets” near JL1628[29]. Source: FAA FOIA Release – JAL1628/733667-001-012.pdf.

[3] FAA Security Incident Reports – Interviews of JAL 1628 Crew (R. E. Mickle & J. S. Derry): FAA Form 1600-32 reports documenting the agency’s security agents debriefing Captain Terauchi and his crew on Nov 17, 1986 (immediately post-flight). These include personal interview notes and summaries of the crew’s statements. For example, Agent Ronald Mickle’s report recounts how the crew saw two sets of lights “in front of the aircraft at a distance of ~7–8 nm” for 10 minutes, then moving to the left side; the lights were described as “yellow, amber and green” with no red, arranged in two distinct clusters that behaved as if joined[31]. It also notes the object showed on the plane’s radar at 7 miles ahead[33]. The crew’s credibility is emphasized, and an addendum mentions Terauchi had prior UFO sightings[36]. Source: FAA FOIA Release – JAL1628/733667-001-005.pdf.

[4] NICAP Case Summary: “Fantastic Flight of JAL 1628” – Fran Ridge (NICAP.org): A comprehensive summary of the incident by the National Investigations Committee on Aerial Phenomena. Updated July 21, 2014, it compiles details from FAA records and researcher reports. Describes the flight conditions (clear night, setting sun and rising moon), the two phases of the encounter – the small, high-energy objects with “glowing nozzles or thrusters” that even lit up the cockpit and heated the captain’s face[93], and the appearance of the huge Saturn-shaped “mothership” (estimated twice aircraft carrier size) that trailed the 747[94]. Confirms that the UFOs were tracked on both ground and airborne radar and that an FAA division chief (Paul Steucke) initially confirmed this to media[66]. Also references subsequent analyses and includes links to audio and documents. Source: NICAP website – nicap.org/861117alaska_dir.htm.

[5] “Plane Maneuvered to Avoid Object: Pilot Recounts Sighting Enormous UFO” – UPI / Los Angeles Times, Jan. 1, 1987: A news article by United Press International, published in the LA Times (and other papers). It features Capt. Terauchi’s first public statements. Key details: Terauchi described the UFO as so enormous that his 747 “was tiny compared to the mysterious object”[95]. He is quoted saying the object was “a very big one – two times bigger than an aircraft carrier.”[2] It mentions two smaller UFOs also were seen (which did not appear on radar), and that Terauchi received FAA permission to deviate altitude to avoid the UFO[12]. FAA investigators are cited as finding the crew “normal, professional, rational (and having no drug or alcohol involvement)”[21]. The article also notes Terauchi’s lighthearted remark that perhaps the UFO was interested in the plane’s French wine cargo[35]. Source: Los Angeles Times archives (1987).

[6] Philip J. Klass – “FAA Data Sheds New Light on JAL Pilot’s UFO Report,” Skeptical Inquirer Vol. 11 No. 4 (Summer 1987): An investigative article by renowned UFO skeptic Philip Klass. Based on the FAA’s released data package, Klass offers a debunking perspective. He provides the radar analysis explaining the duplicate blips as an “uncorrected primary return” caused by radar timing issues[72]. He highlights that Captain Terauchi had a history as a “UFO repeater” (multiple prior sightings) which raises a caution flag[80]. Klass also notes the inconsistencies between Terauchi’s in-flight statements and later interviews (specifically whether the UFO stayed through the turn) as evidence of possible misperception[77][78]. The article points out that Jupiter and Mars were in the exact area of the sky of the sighting, and quotes Klass saying it’s not the first time an experienced pilot has mistaken a bright planet for a UFO[73][96]. Klass concludes that a prosaic explanation (stars/planets + radar quirks + psychological factors) is most likely. Source: Reprint via The Black Vault FOIA archive – JAL1628/733667-001-003.pdf (original in Skeptical Inquirer, 1987).

[1] [5] [20] [43] [45] [66] [93] [94] UFO Report

http://www.nicap.org/861117alaska_dir.htm

[2] [12] [21] [35] [52] [56] [58] [59] [95] Plane Maneuvered to Avoid Object : Pilot Recounts Sighting Enormous UFO – Los Angeles Times

https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1987-01-01-mn-1922-story.html

[3] [18] [24] [25] [26] [27] [61] documents.theblackvault.com

https://documents.theblackvault.com/documents/ufos/jal1628/733667-001-025.pdf

[4] [46] [63] [85] [88] Pilots were not encouraged to discuss UFOs with media

https://www.newindianexpress.com/opinions/2016/Nov/09/pilots-were-not-encouraged-to-discuss-ufos-with-media-1536454.html

[6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [13] [14] [16] [17] [19] [22] [28] [29] documents.theblackvault.com

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

[15] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [36] [53] [54] documents.theblackvault.com

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

[23] [55] [81] [86] [87] What Really Happened to Japan Airlines Flight 1628 in 1986? – The Debrief

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

[37] [38] [39] [40] [41] [67] [71] [72] [80] centerforinquiry.s3.amazonaws.com

https://centerforinquiry.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/29/1987/07/22165315/p04.pdf

[42] [44] [47] [48] [49] [50] [51] [62] [68] [69] Haunted Skies: 1986’s Japan Airlines Flight 1628 UFO Encounter

https://www.americanghostwalks.com/haunted-alaskan-skies-1986-s-japan-airlines-flight-1628-ufo-encounter

[57] [82] [83] [89] [90] Japan Air Lines Cargo Flight 1628 – Wikipedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japan_Air_Lines_Cargo_Flight_1628

[60] UFO SIGHTING CONFIRMED BY FAA, AIR FORCE RADAR

https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1987/01/02/ufo-sighting-confirmed-by-faa-air-force-radar/c186c4b7-54ed-459e-b94d-eeeff7b3322e/

[64] FAA reopens UFO probe – UPI Archives

https://www.upi.com/Archives/1987/01/03/FAA-reopens-UFO-probe/9716536648400/

[65] Final FAA report can’t explain UFO sighting – UPI Archives

https://www.upi.com/Archives/1987/03/06/Final-FAA-report-cant-explain-UFO-sighting/4541542005200/

[70] [84] [91] [92] The Japan Air Lines Alaska UFO

https://web.archive.org/web/20230524025304/https://skeptoid.com/episodes/4753

[73] [74] [75] [76] [77] [78] [79] [96] Scientists Explain Alleged UFO Sighting by Japanese Pilot over Alaska | AP News

https://web.archive.org/web/20221122233407/https://apnews.com/article/275967ae96c4e21dad2fb5eda04bcb37

🧠 About The Vault Files

The Vault Files are a new, and experimental, evolution in investigative research created and published by The Black Vault. They are meticulously crafted using a powerful fusion of declassified government records (via FOIA), verified eyewitness testimony, physical and photographic evidence, open-source intelligence (OSINT), and a uniquely trained AI framework developed exclusively for this project.

Each case is reconstructed from the ground up, cross-referencing documentation and sources across decades, often involving thousands of pages and countless hours of review. The result: a definitive, evidence-based deep dive that offers both clarity and context—paired with visuals, timelines, and original government material to make complex events accessible and verifiable.

No speculation. No hype. Just facts—delivered with the precision and depth The Black Vault strives to be known for.

🔍 Spotted an error or have additional insight?
Despite the care taken to ensure accuracy, and the fact that is still an evolving experimental project, no effort is ever perfect. If you see something that needs correcting, please contact me directly and I’ll make sure it gets fixed. Every Vault File is a living archive—and your input helps keep it the best it can be.

Follow The Black Vault on Social Media: