Claim: Melton 'UFO's' Melbourne, Australia (1983)

[Mendel]

the French Alouette helos resemble the Model 47

Aerospatiale built another similar helicopter as well, on top of several Alouette models.

Article:

AEROSPATIALE SA-315 LAMA

A small number of Lamas have been registered in this region. One VH-FJS (c/n 2029A – ex F-WKQF), which later became VH-PDU with Pacific Aviation, was used in the Mount Kosciuszko National Park and in other mountain areas for the installation of ski-lifts and other associated equipment. This machine was first registered in June 1973 and spent sometime in New Guinea as P2-PDU before being exported in 1989.

Source: https://aeropedia.com.au/content/aerospatiale-sa-315-lama/

By Australian standards, that park is close to Melbourne.

 

[Mendel]

You might want to revisit the source you posted above, it looks to be for some fantasy or alternative history group.

Article:

This is the Alternate History Wikia site of Chris Marshall. This wikia site started as a factbook for role playing, but has now become a place to hold my alternate history writings. I have written a history of an Australia colonised by France rather than Britain, and a series of articles about a world in which there is a Cold War between Nazi Germany and the United States.

Source: https://themarshall.fandom.com/wiki/Marshall_Wiki

 

[John J.]

Edited to add: Spent so long on this post (on and off) that parts are already redundant- apologies and acknowledgements to Duke and Mendel!

How could object 2 be a jet aircraft? It's described as making little noise.

...And a Harrier in the hover is a seriously loud aircraft.
Plus I doubt the Aussie authorities would allow a Harrier to hover (or fly at a speed lower than that sufficient for aerodynamic lift) over a residential area, the pilot hasn't many options in an "engine out" scenario
(unlike, say, Chesley Sullenberger's famous landing of US Airways Flight 1549 in the Hudson River in 2009).

Probably a good idea for you to vet sources before posting them

Duke is spot-on, the Home page for the "Marshall Wiki" website (link in Duke's post) says

This is the Alternate History Wikia site of Chris Marshall. This wikia site started as a factbook for role playing, but has now become a place to hold my alternate history writings.

I'm going to go in a different direction. Even today Bell 47s are operating as crop dusters.

A company called McDermott Aviation, established 1982, flies Bell 47's for spraying in Australia:

Quoting from their website, https://www.mcdermottaviation.com/our-aircraft/bell-47t/ (my bold)

The quiet noise signature of the Bell 47T is also excellent around noise sensitive areas such as livestock/horses etc.

,
but McDermott's nearest current base is in Bankstown, just over 530 miles from Melbourne (and the Bell 47's aren't based there).

Various Australian rescue organisations used the Bell 47 with floats, click to enlarge if interested
,
On left, a story from a local Sydney newspaper, St. George & Sutherland Shire Leader, July 04 2019, about a guy retiring after 44 years, his first helicopter in 1975 was a Bell 47 https://www.theleader.com.au/story/...y-after-1000-missions-to-save-lives-in-peril/), on right, a demonstration by The Sydney Branch of the Helicopter Surf Rescue Committee, 1973, picture (ahem) borrowed from Getty Images.

Added later: Just noticed the helo on the left has similar markings to dierde's,

they had one as a rescue copter

but a different registration number.

The Royal New Zealand Air Force operated Bell 47's as trainers up to at least 2005

In 2005 the Ministry of Defence selected the NH90 helicopter to replace the RNZAF's ageing fleet of 14 UH-1H Iroquois. The NZ government allocated NZ$550 million to replace the Iroquois and Bell 47 (Sioux) training helicopters.

(Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_New_Zealand_Air_Force) and I'd guess RNZAF sometimes train alongside the Australian army and air force.
But I can't think of a reason why RNZAF would ship an essentially obsolete training aircraft to Australia in 1983.

The Aerospatiale Alouette II helicopter was sold widely, and had a very similar tail boom to the Bell 47.
It could carry pontoons like the Bell, and was used for many purposes including rescue, crop-spraying and policing.
Did a very quick search, couldn't see any obvious Aussie users; some pics for comparison, click to enlarge if interested.


Pretty confident we can ascribe the Melbourne sighting to flarkey's/ Z.W. Wolf's helicopter theory though, and probably a Bell 47 as they suggested.

If only all Australian mysteries were so open to explanation...

 

[ManInBlack]

Yes. Still, a Bell 47 helicopter with pontoons fits both, taking the unreliability of witness recollections at nighttime into account.

The Bell 47 has a fuel endurance up to 2.5 hours (see below)

https://www.mcdermottaviation.com/o...xt=The Bell 47 is a,endurance up to 2.5 hours.

According to the documents above this went on for >5 hours. Plus if it landed during that time, someone would have had to have aviation fuel on hand for a quick refuel and back up in the skies.

 

[deirdre]

The Bell 47 has a fuel endurance up to 2.5 hours (see below)

THAT bell 47 has an endurance of 2.5 hours. Probably because water is heavy.

According to the documents above this went on for >5 hours.

But they didnt see it for 5 hours straight. We have some sightings that all say 12:40.
then we have some sightings from [allegedly]4:30 am to about 5:45 am (according to your UFOlogist PDFs in the OP.)

Unless i missed it, i saw no sightings between say 1 am and 4:30 am.

 

[Z.W. Wolf]

If it was being used as a crop duster, it would be serviced on the ground by a support vehicle. I suspect the pesticide tanks need to be refilled more often than the fuel tanks.

 

[ManInBlack]

THAT bell 47 has an endurance of 2.5 hours. Probably because water is heavy.

-
But they didnt see it for 5 hours straight. We have some sightings that all say 12:40.
then we have some sightings from [allegedly]4:30 am to about 5:45 am (according to your UFOlogist PDFs in the OP.)

Unless i missed it, i saw no sightings between say 1 am and 4:30 am.

I have found some more information, some key highlights below:

- The constables visually tracked the object and at 2.40am it again appeared to be on the ground at a location which they attended.
- It was then lost to view until 4:30am when they were again at the shopping centre. The object was some sixty meters up, and when they shone their spotlight at it.
-They followed the object, this time with more lights visible than previously, until about 6am. By 6:10am at dawn the object was not sighted again.
- The Army signal unit was alerted that their security had been breached. Earlier the object had briefly appeared on Tullamarine radar. The officers had also sighted the object on the ground near a paddock at the rear of the Toolern Vale Stud. Ellens and Ferguson inspected the paddocks in the area but could find nothing.

Source: https://richardsportal.tripod.com/policeufo/AuWitsB.html

 

[ManInBlack]

You might want to revisit the source you posted above, it looks to be for some fantasy or alternative history group. The Aussies never flews Sea Harriers as the site claims, nor did/do they operate the two aircraft carriers (HMAS Vengeance, HMAS Australia) the site claims the Sea Harriers flew/fly from. Probably a good idea for you to vet sources before posting them.

https://themarshall.fandom.com/wiki/Australia_class_(Principe_de_Asturias)_aircraft_carrier


It's possible RAF or RN Harriers/Sea Harrier flew in Oz for training and exercises. The Brits probably tried to sell one or both those a/c to the Aussies as well at one time or another. We know they were going to buy HMS Invincible from the Brits prior to the Falklands War, but after the war the UK decided not to sell it.

Agreed, I recant my statement.

But agreed it is possible they had a Harrier that flew for training etc...

 

[deirdre]

I have found some more information, some key highlights below:

- The constables visually tracked the object and at 2.40am it again appeared to be on the ground at a location which they attended.
- It was then lost to view until 4:30am when they were again at the shopping centre. The object was some sixty meters up, and when they shone their spotlight at it.
-They followed the object, this time with more lights visible than previously, until about 6am. By 6:10am at dawn the object was not sighted again.
- The Army signal unit was alerted that their security had been breached. Earlier the object had briefly appeared on Tullamarine radar. The officers had also sighted the object on the ground near a paddock at the rear of the Toolern Vale Stud. Ellens and Ferguson inspected the paddocks in the area but could find nothing.

Source: https://richardsportal.tripod.com/policeufo/AuWitsB.html

i cant verify the 2:40 am time because im not spending 18$ to buy a book that only has 2 pages on this event. I had already searched these sources as i posted this link earlier in the thread. Granted i'm a bit suspicious because 12:40 and 2:40 is a bit on the nose..but coincidences do happen i'll grant.

but even "if" they spotted the thing at 2:40 it sounds like it was just a momentary sighting.
from the project 1947 source given :

Article:

Earlier the object had briefly appeared on Tullamarine radar. The officers had also sighted the object on the ground near a paddock at the rear of the Toolern Vale Stud. Constables Ellens and Ferguson inspected the paddocks in the area but could find nothing.

Source: http://www.project1947.com/forum/bcoz4.htm

either way there is nothing to say it was flying around for 5 hours. we really have very spotty information, which is typically the case with these very old cases. and as you pointed out there is always the possibility that the earlier "thing" (before the 5am sightings) was a separate object. No pics, old case with only various retellings by ufologists... there will be no definite answers found either for or against an ET ufo.

 

[NorCal Dave]

- It was then lost to view until 4:30am when they were again at the shopping centre. The object was some sixty meters up, and when they shone their spotlight at it.
-They followed the object, this time with more lights visible than previously, until about 6am. By 6:10am at dawn the object was not sighted again.

Best to quote the source:

The constables visually tracked the object and at 2.40am it again appeared to be on the ground at a location which they attended. It was then lost to view until 4:30am when they were again at the shopping centre. The object was some sixty meters up, and when they shone their spotlight at it, it left to the south-east. They followed the object, this time with more lights visible than previously, until about 6am. By 6:10am at dawn the object was not sighted again.

https://richardsportal.tripod.com/policeufo/AuWitsB.html

By reading the actual quote we see that they saw it again at 4:30 and then it implies they followed it for over 1 1/2 hours. How? In their car, on foot or did the just watch it from a stationary position? If they followed by car, did the object also follow the road, or was it off in the distance? If they followed for that amount of time, they must have ended up somewhere different then where they started right? Where did they lose sight of the object?

The source seems to just be a UFOlogy reposting or collection site. This is supposedly from the police reports, but there is no way to be sure. As @deirdre noted above, there isn't much definitive that can be done with some of these old cases. There is no physical evidence, just some witness statements and no real investigation.

Even if the witnesses were contacted today, it's been 40 years and memory is far too fragile and malleable. Some guys saw some lights and maybe a helicopter.

 

[John J.]

But agreed it is possible they had a Harrier that flew for training etc...

Possible- it's likely that Australian pilots on exchange programs flew British (and possibly USMC) Harriers.
But with the 1982 cancellation of plans to sell the British ship HMS Invincible (a "Harrier carrier") to Australia, I think it's unlikely that such flying would be done in Australia in 1983, more likely the UK or West Germany (or if with USMC, the USA and USN ships).

- Traveled around 70 to 80 mph.

These speeds are well below the stall speed of a Harrier in forward flight (where airflow over the wings provides lift).
Of course, a Harrier could vector its thrust, enabling it to fly very slowly or hover-
-if the engine has problems while doing this, the plane's going to drop pretty much vertically- there's no option of a steerable glide to a preferred "ditching" area.

Engine failures, and bird strikes, are thankfully rare, but I don't think Australian civil or military authorities would approve sustained vectored thrust-dependant flight over a residential area. Why take the risk- and for what purpose?

Plus vectored lift is an extremely inefficient use of fuel, I won't pretend to know the figures (I think there are one or two members here who might have an idea, or be able to calculate it) but it would massively reduce the time spent in the air-

- Sighting went for 5-6 hours.

I don't think this is achievable by a Harrier (without in-flight refuelling) in forward flight, let alone while vectoring.
Harriers don't have a particularly long range for a combat aircraft, and therefore limited endurance (time in the air).

From Wikipedia, data for Harrier GR.3 (1983 was before AV8B/ Harrier II), https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawker_Siddeley_Harrier

Maximum speed: 635 kn (731 mph, 1,176 km/h) at sea level
Ferry range: 1,850 nmi (2,130 mi, 3,430 km) with 330 imp gal (400 US gal; 1,500 L) drop-tanks, 3,000 nmi (3,500 mi; 5,600 km) with one AAR
Endurance: 1 hour 30 minutes combat air patrol 100 nmi (120 mi; 190 km) from base, 7 hours plus with one AAR

(...where AAR= air-to-air refuelling, which I think is unlikely in this scenario).


And the Pegasus engine of a Harrier is loud. Constable Ferguson's account, courtesy of member ManInBlack:

Object 2 by Constable Ferguson (Fig. 4 (5.45 am)
"The object came closer and eventually passed directly overhead; we shined the spotlight onto its underside..."

Also in the policemen's statements,
Object 1 "Admitted a whirling sound (not like a conventional helicopter)."
Object 2 "Admitted a low pitched humming sound."

I think it's extremely unlikely that these reports can be reconciled with the whining scream of a Rolls-Royce Pegasus engine.

The sketches of object 1 both strongly suggest a small helicopter of dated design, as others have posted, probably a Bell 47 or maybe an Alouette II.
The reported sounds (particularly "...a whirling sound") imply a light rotorcraft, not a jet fighter-bomber.

Z.W. Wolf's and deirdre's pictures of the underside of pontoon-equipped Bell 47s make a helicopter of that type a plausible candidate for object 2 IMHO.

The details of object 2's sides as sketched by Ferguson have some resemblance to these pontoons on an Alouette

We know Bell 47s had been used by the Australian army and rescue organisations, and are still used for spraying.
I don't know if the TV series M*A*S*H was shown in Australia-
-but on reflection I find it implausible that the cops who sketched "object 1" didn't notice the resemblance to a helicopter tail-boom (though it was described as looking like a gyrocopter):

Object 1 looks very much like a Bell 47 tail-boom, without the fuselage (or whatever it's called) of a Bell 47.
Object 2 looks (arguably) like the underside of a Bell 47 with pontoons, without a tail-boom.

I wonder if there was an element of a practical joke by the police witnesses, whatever they actually saw- to see if the despatch officer back at the station (or maybe their boss) would "put 2 and 2 together".

 

[deirdre]

Object 1 "Admitted a whirling sound (not like a conventional helicopter)."

just a fun bit of trivia..we in AMerica used to call those things (MASH helicopters) whirleybirds. i never realized the name might come from the sound they make. huh.

 

[John J.]

whirleybirds. i never realized the name might come from the sound they make. huh.

I'm gonna guess it's more from the whirly thing on top

...When I was very little one of the TV stations showed repeats of an old (black and white) TV series about helicopters, called "Whirlybirds". -This was in the UK but I'm pretty sure the programme was American, I can't remember any details.

-Just had a quick look on Wikipedia: a nice bit of serendipity, deirdre, one of the "star" helicopters in Whirlybirds is a Bell 47!

Desilu Studios, intrigued by the Bell 47 and its manufacturer, began discussions with Bell Aircraft about how the entertainment potential of the Bell 47 might be further developed for a television audience. The result of this collaboration became The Whirlybirds.

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

 

[ManInBlack]

I have been given a tip off that there is a presentation/conference video where the researcher who investigated this case provided more information than what has been documented in the archives. More data that might help with solving this case. Apparently this presentation was put on YouTube (dates back to the early 2000s), I have searched but cannot find it. If anyone finds it please post it here. Thank you.

 

[jackfrostvc]

COincidentally, my brother and I have been looking for a house to buy in the Melton area for the last couple of months. It's odd that this is refeered to the Melton case, it's true that Rockbank is within the City of Melton local government area. The Suburb or Melton and Rockbank are about 10km apart. Rockbank is even now , almost nothing there, a very small development suburb of houses thats now expanding. It sits on the way to Melton cluster and it's sattelite suburbs and is really disconnected from it.

I imagine in 73 there would not have been much at Rockbank given theres not much there now

 

[ManInBlack]

*UPDATE MORE INFORMATION*

Thanks to a tip-off, the presentation has been found. John Auchettl who investigated the case, attended a 'UFO conference' and this was recorded in 1996 (see below).

Ignoring that this is from a UFO conference, Mr Auchettl was on scene just after the event and wrote the report in the beginning of this thread.


Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gnLctuhtWWk&list=UUwS0l7X-Z1or-vjWFQ9ygtA&index=67


[h3][/h3]

 

[NorCal Dave]

*UPDATE MORE INFORMATION*

Thanks to a tip-off, the presentation has been found. John Auchettl who investigated the case, attended a 'UFO conference' and this was recorded in 1996 (see below).

Ignoring that this is from a UFO conference, Mr Auchettl was on scene just after the event and wrote the report in the beginning of this thread.


Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gnLctuhtWWk&list=UUwS0l7X-Z1or-vjWFQ9ygtA&index=67


[h3][/h3]

It's a 40-minute presentation from a UFO conference from 27 years ago about a case from 40 years ago. Is there anything special about it with at least some time stamps or is it just a rehash of the original report. YouTube videos can be a bit challenging here as evidence when it requires people to just watch through to find out what they're supposed to be seeing.

Best practice would be to summarize key points with time stamps so we can decide if we want to take the time to go through it.

If it's just presented as a curiosity that sort of reenforces the original report, that's ok but preference it as such.

 

[ManInBlack]

It's a 40-minute presentation from a UFO conference from 27 years ago about a case from 40 years ago. Is there anything special about it with at least some time stamps or is it just a rehash of the original report. YouTube videos can be a bit challenging here as evidence when it requires people to just watch through to find out what they're supposed to be seeing.

Best practice would be to summarize key points with time stamps so we can decide if we want to take the time to go through it.

If it's just presented as a curiosity that sort of reenforces the original report, that's ok but preference it as such.

Have a life outside of this forum but will summarise additional points when I get a chance. Provided it for anyone interested in watching in the meantime.

 

[Pferg]

Have a life outside of this forum but will summarise additional points when I get a chance. Provided it for anyone interested in watching in the meantime.

Hi all. Peter Ferguson now retired but still around and I know what I saw that night!

 

[Mendel]

Hi all. Peter Ferguson now retired but still around and I know what I saw that night!

Welcome!

The question I'm sure interests us all the most is: Looking at the pictures of helicopters here in this discussion, do you think that's what you might have seen that night? Is it possible?
If not, why not?

 

[Pferg]

Welcome!

The question I'm sure interests us all the most is: Looking at the pictures of helicopters here in this discussion, do you think that's what you might have seen that night? Is it possible?
If not, why not?

Possible but we were close enough to shine a spotlight from the police van on it to see the rear framework. However it made virtually no sound only a low humming like a vacuum cleaner. No down draft It was stationary then slowly moved off to the north towards a small local airfield. There was a known gypcopter at that airfield so we headed that way following at a distance. It travelled across farm land very low to ground popping higher as it came to fences. When we got to the airfield the gyocopter was on the ground near other light planes and the object continued on and away to the east.

This was night shift. When we started patrol we headed east along the main highway towards Deer Park about 20 kms We then turned north through back blocks and came out on the Keillor-Melton Road and headed west back to Melton. It was then we saw the light over the township from about 10 kms out. Sky in that direction is black and thought what is that light. That brought us to the shopping centre where the object was hovering over the building and this whole saga started

My perception was it was man made but it didn't fit anything I understand to be able to hover, fly etc with no noise

I still have a copy of the statements made after that night

 

[Bristolian]

Possible but we were close enough to shine a spotlight from the police van on it to see the rear framework. However it made virtually no sound only a low humming like a vacuum cleaner. No down draft It was stationary then slowly moved off to the north towards a small local airfield. There was a known gypcopter at that airfield so we headed that way following at a distance. It travelled across farm land very low to ground popping higher as it came to fences. When we got to the airfield the gyocopter was on the ground near other light planes and the object continued on and away to the east.

This was night shift. When we started patrol we headed east along the main highway towards Deer Park about 20 kms We then turned north through back blocks and came out on the Keillor-Melton Road and headed west back to Melton. It was then we saw the light over the township from about 10 kms out. Sky in that direction is black and thought what is that light. That brought us to the shopping centre where the object was hovering over the building and this whole saga started

My perception was it was man made but it didn't fit anything I understand to be able to hover, fly etc with no noise

I still have a copy of the statements made after that night

I read about this case many years ago and have been interested in finding out more about it ever since.

I was wondering if you could shed any light on the statement that the object was seen on the ground, and seemingly "disappeared into the ground" at one point?

 

[ManInBlack]

Hi all. Peter Ferguson now retired but still around and I know what I saw that night!

Firstly thank you Ret. Constable Ferguson for your service to the people Victoria. I believe you saw what you saw, hopefully we can find out what it was you saw. This was not a time where drones were buzzing around which makes it particularly interesting.

Out of curiosity, how did you find this thread?

Going through the national archives this was the most intriguing incident I ever came across, so I appreciate any more information you can provide...

1) are you able to post the copy of those statements on here?
2) When you shone the light on the rear frame work, do you remember anything unusual in regard to its construction? Any symbols, paint (or colours), rivets...etc.
3) Do you believe there was one unidentified aerial object or many? The accounts detail different objects.
4) Are any of your colleagues willing to provide additional information?
5) Are you aware that a (US) military base was operating not far from the incident. Were they engaged during or after the incident?
6) Was there any attempt after the fact to obtain radar data from any near by airports (other than what was provide in the report), including the point cook RAAF base?
7) You were quite close to the object according to the report, did you get a sense that it was being intelligently controlled? For example did it make any sharp or sudden movements, making it difficult for a pilot to control? Or do you believe it is was possible that it was radio controlled?
8) What small local airfield did the object fly towards?

 

[Pferg]

Firstly thank you Ret. Constable Ferguson for your service to the people Victoria. I believe you saw what you saw, hopefully we can find out what it was you saw. This was not a time where drones were buzzing around which makes it particularly interesting.

Out of curiosity, how did you find this thread?

Going through the national archives this was the most intriguing incident I ever came across, so I appreciate any more information you can provide...

1) are you able to post the copy of those statements on here?
2) When you shone the light on the rear frame work, do you remember anything unusual in regard to its construction? Any symbols, paint (or colours), rivets...etc.
3) Do you believe there was one unidentified aerial object or many? The accounts detail different objects.
4) Are any of your colleagues willing to provide additional information?
5) Are you aware that a (US) military base was operating not far from the incident. Were they engaged during or after the incident?
6) Was there any attempt after the fact to obtain radar data from any near by airports (other than what was provide in the report), including the point cook RAAF base?
7) You were quite close to the object according to the report, did you get a sense that it was being intelligently controlled? For example did it make any sharp or sudden movements, making it difficult for a pilot to control? Or do you believe it is was possible that it was radio controlled?
8) What small local airfield did the object fly towards?

Hello

By way of background I retired in 2021 at the rank of Inspector. Yes it was certainly not a time when drones were flying about. I have been in Vicpol airwing (Dauphin and Australian Army Blackhawk) and are very well aware of the level of noise and down draft a helicopter makes in operation. Similarly I have been at accidents and emergencies when Airwing have landed to take casualties. In answer to your questions I provide the following:

I was made aware of the site and post by accident. We were out at a family birthday celebration. My son said something about being in a book written about the Melton township to my son in law. Next thing he was on his phone and came up with this thread. Good laugh was had by all. Anyway I decided to have a look at the site/thread in private when I got home and responded from there. This is not something I have talked about over the years and it has become history. I was very surprised of people taking about it now.

1 - Yes I will work out how to scan them and post in the next day or so.
2 - framework similar to the older Bell/MASH type aircraft
3 - 2 distinctly different objects 1st was the object with framework. 2nd was wide and long as in the sketches earlier in the thread. My description was of the underside of a life raft by with light towards the front and rear.
4 - Probably no. Havent seen or spoke to them in over 30 years.
5 - Yes well aware of the military sites in the Melton area. I have been to both for social functions at the mess. They were run by Australian Army Signals. The site at Rockback was a HF receiving site and the site at Diggers Rest was a HF sending site. Both had very tall masts held up by guy wires and HF antennas strung between. Not sure if they still exist.
6 - Not by us. Melbourne Airport admitted on the night it was seeing intermittent objects. Not sure about Point Cook or Williams (RAAF base at Laverton about 12 KMs north of Point Cook.) However I dont think either Point Cook or Williams were really active bases. Mainly training and a museum.
7 - my impression was it was being controlled from inside and not remotely. Movements was measured and not sudden changes of direction
8 - local airfield was called Fogartys Field. It was in Coburns Road about 4-5 kms north of township. Grass strip. Few small sheds as hangers and a number of light planes parked outside. We were well aware of the gyrocopter being there as I often saw it on the ground during day shift. However when we got there that night it was parked as usual and not the source of the objects.

As mentioned above will work out scanning and send through copies of docs I have. Most are already on this thread but the interesting thing is many are not what we drew after that night.

 

[Mendel]

Thank you for your detailed reply!

My description was of the underside of a life raft by with light towards the front and rear.

This will probably become clearer once you post your drawings. Life rafts come in different shapes, would it be similar to this:

https://www.nrseurope.com/product/86223.01/star-high-five-self-bailing-raft

 

[Pferg]

Yes to above but imagine viewing a raft from the underside.

The drawings in the post on 27/5/23 by Man In Black are the original drawings but lack the notes on my copy. It was dull metal grey in colour. The front lights were inset into the object and projected a white light forward. The rear lights projected white light to the rear. There was a small flashing red light in the middle of the object.

Copy of my statement made at the time. Note this was before we had computers and word processors. Statement was done on typewriter and hence I dont have electronic copy. Only a photocopy of the original.

 

[Mendel]

Yes to above but imagine viewing a raft from the underside.

Well, that photo shows the underside of an actual raft (though it's smaller, 10ft×6ft (3m×1.6m)). Everyone's imagination is different, and there are different types of raft, so I'm trying to pin it down as well as possible.

The drawings in the post on 27/5/23 by Man In Black are the original drawings but lack the notes on my copy.

Would you be able to scan these as well? if you think the notes are helpful.

Copy of my statement made at the time. Note this was before we had computers and word processors. Statement was done on typewriter and hence I dont have electronic copy. Only a photocopy of the original.

That's perfectly fine. Thank you very much for providing these pages!

Your statement mentions a unit called Sunshine 311, what kind of unit was that?

It's difficult to follow along without a map. I hope one of us can make a map with approximate locations and sight lines.

https://www.timeanddate.com/moon/australia/melton?month=7&year=1983 agrees:

 

[Mendel]

Where do we stand with the helicopter hypothesis?

• The first sighting, with the object seen from the side as it hovered above the shopping center, had the tail look like a helicopter's tail.
• The object did not sound like any helicopter @Pferg was accustomed to (e.g. Dauphin or Black Hawk).
• The object apparently turned on two rearward lights. Lighting is generally consistent with civil aviation, especially the red strobe.
• Travel and motion are consistent with a helicopter.
• On the second sighting, the object (if it was the same) passed directly overhead, and presented a different aspect. If it was a helicopter, the patrol saw the body from directly below on this occasion, not the tail.
• There was no strong downdraft.
• If the object was working a fixed area, the patrol was not able to find it.

If it was a helicopter, then
• noise and (lack of) downdraft need to be explained
• where did it come from?
• what was its purpose?
• it would've been in uncontrolled airspace, and flying under VFR, so did not need to check in with air traffic control. It would've been too low for the radar to see during most of the time.

I'm not surprised that the patrol couldn't get a good look at it, as the lights on the objdct would've destroyed the men's night vision.
Because of that, I'm considering distance and size estimates as very approximate.

 

[ManInBlack]

Hello

By way of background I retired in 2021 at the rank of Inspector. Yes it was certainly not a time when drones were flying about. I have been in Vicpol airwing (Dauphin and Australian Army Blackhawk) and are very well aware of the level of noise and down draft a helicopter makes in operation. Similarly I have been at accidents and emergencies when Airwing have landed to take casualties. In answer to your questions I provide the following:

I was made aware of the site and post by accident. We were out at a family birthday celebration. My son said something about being in a book written about the Melton township to my son in law. Next thing he was on his phone and came up with this thread. Good laugh was had by all. Anyway I decided to have a look at the site/thread in private when I got home and responded from there. This is not something I have talked about over the years and it has become history. I was very surprised of people taking about it now.

1 - Yes I will work out how to scan them and post in the next day or so.
2 - framework similar to the older Bell/MASH type aircraft
3 - 2 distinctly different objects 1st was the object with framework. 2nd was wide and long as in the sketches earlier in the thread. My description was of the underside of a life raft by with light towards the front and rear.
4 - Probably no. Havent seen or spoke to them in over 30 years.
5 - Yes well aware of the military sites in the Melton area. I have been to both for social functions at the mess. They were run by Australian Army Signals. The site at Rockback was a HF receiving site and the site at Diggers Rest was a HF sending site. Both had very tall masts held up by guy wires and HF antennas strung between. Not sure if they still exist.
6 - Not by us. Melbourne Airport admitted on the night it was seeing intermittent objects. Not sure about Point Cook or Williams (RAAF base at Laverton about 12 KMs north of Point Cook.) However I dont think either Point Cook or Williams were really active bases. Mainly training and a museum.
7 - my impression was it was being controlled from inside and not remotely. Movements was measured and not sudden changes of direction
8 - local airfield was called Fogartys Field. It was in Coburns Road about 4-5 kms north of township. Grass strip. Few small sheds as hangers and a number of light planes parked outside. We were well aware of the gyrocopter being there as I often saw it on the ground during day shift. However when we got there that night it was parked as usual and not the source of the objects.

As mentioned above will work out scanning and send through copies of docs I have. Most are already on this thread but the interesting thing is many are not what we drew after that night.

Thank for the detailed information.

What are the chances. This incident has intrigued me for years so glad you did come across the thread.

1. Thank you for posting your statement.
2. From memory was the material shiny or dull?
3. Did the 'life raft' craft look like similar to this by any chance?

4. Noted.
5. I know the area, it no longer exists.
6. How about Essendon airport?
7. If you had to estimate the speed what would you say in kmh?
8. In regard to the objects was the sound similar to a ducted fan hum? or was it like an electrical hum?

 

[Pferg]

Hello

Copies of my original sketches attached.

re questions above

2- dull grey metallic
3- roughly similar in shape
6- no Melbourne Airport is the only 24/7 operation and much closer to the area. Essendon is smaller and used for freight and charter. Vicpol Airwing based there.
7- speed wasnt exceptional and in general we were able to follow at distance by ground vehicle
8- ducted fan hum is probably closest

With respect to the earlier post questioning Sunshine 311. This is a radio call sign/unit identifer for a police vehicle coming out of Sunshine Police Station, 3 means divisional van and 11 denotes shift start time. Similarly we were Melton 311. Sunshine is a suburb name and their patrol area adjoined ours about 20 kms west of Melton.

 

[Pferg]

Hello

Copies of my original sketches attached.

re questions above

2- dull grey metallic
3- roughly similar in shape
6- no Melbourne Airport is the only 24/7 operation and much closer to the area. Essendon is smaller and used for freight and charter. Vicpol Airwing based there.
7- speed wasnt exceptional and in general we were able to follow at distance by ground vehicle
8- ducted fan hum is probably closest

With respect to the earlier post questioning Sunshine 311. This is a radio call sign/unit identifer for a police vehicle coming out of Sunshine Police Station, 3 means divisional van and 11 denotes shift start time. Similarly we were Melton 311. Sunshine is a suburb name and their patrol area adjoined ours about 20 kms west of Melton.

 

[Mendel]

Thanks for the sketches!
I'm sorry I was only able to extract low-quality images, maybe someone else has better luck than me?

Object 1 side view

Sketched by P. Ferguson 27/7/83

• unable to see front section
• the white lights in front area unable to display on diagram
• metal tub[u]lar framework, not solid — see through
• apparently flat solid tail.
• red flashing lights
• [indicated height] 3 to 4 feet
• [indicated length] 20 ft.
• direction of travel. [indicated left]

Object 2 underside view

Sketched by P. Ferguson 27/7/83

• front lights inset into body of object [indicated 2×]
• white light [indicated 2× in front, 2× in rear]
• underside appeared to be slightly curved convexly
• dull gun metal grey in colour
• red flashing light
• [indicated width] 20 ft. [10 ft. ?]
• [indicated height] 3 to 4 ft.
• sides slightly curved convexly
• direction of travel [indicated left]

Map — Shire of Melton

The map indicates roads, creeks, a railway, and borders.
There is a large triangle on the map with corners in 5C, 5J, 12J.

@Pferg please correct me if I misread anything.

 

[Mendel]

Thank you for your replies! The note about the speed is particularly interesting.

8- ducted fan hum is probably closest

Did the two objects sound similar? or were they distinct?

 

[Pferg]

Hi

sorry for delay in responding.

objects sounded similar if I recall correctly but we were closer to object 1 than object 2.

re map and triangle. that appears to have been drawn on the map and is not part of the original map. the point at 5J is or would be Melbourne Airport and thus this triangle is an area coming out from the airport. I think it might be a rough area of airport radar coverage at low level or the area of directly controlled airspace around Melbourne airport.

note map is from a local Real Estate Agent and covers the Melton council area and a little beyond. I recall we had copies of this map at the police station which we often copied and handed out to people when giving directions etc.