Navy range fouler reports (redacted)

2016-002 (Cont.)

we (b) (1) was instrumented for (b) (1) ). The (b) (1) has an (b) (1) and (b) (1) . He was on the south side of (b) (1) , North to South vector.

Following a test event, $ ^{(b) (1)} $ was flying back to $ ^{(b) (1)} $ transiting from the northern portion of $ ^{(b) (1)} $ to the south through the center of the $ ^{(b) (1)} $ . The weather was clear, visibility was good. He was at $ ^{(b) (1)} $ and had a $ ^{(b) (1)} $ . As he got closer he saw what he described to be a $ ^{(b) (1)} $ $ ^{(b) (1)} $ flying but $ ^{(b) (1)} $ in the airspace. He made a $ ^{(b) (1)} $ pass co-altitude with the object to get a good look. There were no noticeable $ ^{(b) (1)} $ nor did it appear to be tethered to the ground or to any type of $ ^{(b) (1)} $ . He had a $ ^{(b) (1)} $ and although it looked to a very distinctive $ ^{(b) (1)} $ $ ^{(b) (1)} $ and just looked to be a $ ^{(b) (1)} $ $ ^{(b) (1)} $ . $ ^{(b) (1)} $ , a more senior test pilot was in the back seat of the $ ^{(b) (1)} $ and also had visual on the object. They both saw the same shape and approximate size. Upon landing he reported the incident to $ ^{(b) (1)} $ , he does not know if they took any further actions or attempted to investigate. He was not asked to sign a Non-Disclosure Agreement (NDA).

Analytic comments:

This aircraft was (b) (1) and the (b) (1) . We can reach out to ask. It was interesting that did not follow their standard procedure to have him sign an NDA. Additionally, (b) (1) stated that on days when other programs are (b) (1) the entire block of airspace is restricted/closed. Based on this, (b) (1) ruled out any type of (b) (1)