Flying Saucer Working Party

From the UAP Encyclopedia, the open encyclopedia of UFO and UAP history · 🏢 Organization

Contents 6
Flying Saucer Working Party
Flying saucer from the USA National Archives and Records Administration, cropped from the original here…
Flying saucer from the USA National Archives and Records Administration, cropped from the original here… Photo: Unknown author Unknown author · Public domain · via Wikimedia Commons
TypeOrganization
Also known asFSWP

The Flying Saucer Working Party (FSWP) was a small committee set up by the British Ministry of Defence in 1950 to study reports of flying saucers. It was the British government's first official study of UFOs. Its 1951 report concluded that all the sightings could be explained and recommended that no further investigation be carried out.[1][2]

Origins

Illustration of a disc-shaped craft in the night sky
Illustration: a disc-shaped craft in the night sky. An artist's impression drawn for this site, not a photograph of the event.

The study was commissioned by Sir Henry Tizard, the Ministry of Defence's Chief Scientific Adviser and a key figure in the development of British radar before the Second World War.[1][2] Tizard felt that saucer reports should not be dismissed without proper scientific study. He was responding in part to a newspaper campaign that favoured the saucers, backed by Lord Louis Mountbatten.[2] Writer Nick Pope later described the committee as perhaps the most marvellously named in the history of the civil service.[1]

Membership and work

Illustration of official papers and files
Illustration: official papers and files. An artist's impression drawn for this site, not a photograph of the event.

The working party had five members drawn from the technical intelligence branches of the Air Ministry, the Admiralty, the War Office and the Ministry of Defence. It held its first meeting in October 1950 in a room at the former Hotel Metropole on Northumberland Avenue, near Trafalgar Square.[2] Its conclusions were set out in a six-page secret report, DSI/JTIC Report No. 7, titled "Unidentified Flying Objects", in June 1951.[1][2]

Conclusions

Illustration of a jet meeting an unknown object
Illustration: a jet meeting an unknown object. An artist's impression drawn for this site, not a photograph of the event.

The working party concluded that all the reports it examined could be explained as astronomical or weather phenomena, misidentified aircraft, balloons or birds, optical illusions and psychological delusions, or hoaxes.[1] It recommended strongly that no further investigation be undertaken unless material evidence became available.[1][2] Researcher David Clarke notes that its approach reflected American influence: the acronym UFO had only recently been coined by the U.S. Air Force, and the recommendations followed the American line of debunking sightings and keeping tight security.[2]

Aftermath

Illustration of a government hearing
Illustration: a government hearing. An artist's impression drawn for this site, not a photograph of the event.

A year later, in the summer of 1952, a wave of sightings on both sides of the Atlantic revived interest. When Prime Minister Winston Churchill asked about flying saucers in 1952, the Air Ministry told him that a full intelligence study in 1951 had found that all incidents could be explained.[2] The RAF later used the Official Secrets Act to stop service personnel discussing sightings with the public or the press.[2]

Rediscovery

Illustration of an open book about flying saucers
Illustration: an open book about flying saucers. An artist's impression drawn for this site, not a photograph of the event.

Copies of the report were found in 2001, when David Clarke and Andy Roberts, researching their book Out of the Shadows, found copies in a Ministry of Defence file labelled "Scientific intelligence". It was released to them under the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.[1][2]

References

This page was last edited on 31 October 2026. Articles are written in our own words from the sources listed under References; disputed claims are attributed to the people who made them.

Discuss the article: missing sources, mistakes, or what should be added.

No discussion yet.

BrowseFeedArticlesTimelineOfficial filesMapTonight’s SkyStatsFavorites