Case No. 97·Peru
2019·Off Jorge Chávez Airport, Lima (over the sea)
Peru.Jorge Chávez · double sighting (DIFAA)
On 27 February 2019, around 1:30 AM, the crews of two commercial flights (LANPERÚ 2437 and LATAM ECUADOR 1442) waiting to take off from Lima's Jorge Chávez airport observed two very luminous objects over the sea, about 5 nautical miles out and ~2,400 m high. The episode lasted around 40 minutes, was corroborated with the control tower and was recorded on CORPAC radar. The Air Force's DIFAA investigated the case and its director confirmed there were two objects with a radar reading; their nature was left undetermined.
Year
2019
Tier
A
Probability
55%
Category
Incident
Institutional evidence: multiple verifiable witnesses or official documentation. Three independent axes: the «tier» measures the strength of the evidence; the «probability» estimates how genuinely unexplained the case is —a natural phenomenon can remain unexplained, so it does not equal «non-prosaic»—; and the partition of explanations (below) says what it most plausibly was. So a well-documented case can have a possible hoax as its most plausible cause, and a Tier B is not, for that reason, a hoax.
Primary documents · viewer

Context · Jorge Chávez Airport (Lima, Peru), site of the double sighting
Aeropuerto Internacional Jorge Chávez en 2024.jpg · Wikimedia Commons · CC0 · open original
Part 01
The night in question
In the early hours of 27 February 2019, around 1:30 AM, two airliners were waiting their turn to take off on the taxiways of Lima's Jorge Chávez International Airport, in Callao. The crews of flights LANPERÚ 2437 and LATAM ECUADOR 1442 noticed, west of the station and over the sea —in the vicinity of San Lorenzo Island, off Callao—, two very luminous unidentified objects, about five nautical miles offshore and at about 2,400 meters altitude (around 9,000 feet).
What sets the case apart is the convergence of witnesses and records. The pilots reported what they were seeing to the airport control tower, which coordinated the observations and produced a preliminary report; at least one of the objects appeared intermittently on the radar screen operated by CORPAC (the Corporación Peruana de Aeropuertos y Aviación Comercial, which manages the country's air traffic control). The sighting lasted from 1:30 AM until shortly after 2:12 AM —on the order of forty minutes, too long for a meteor or a fleeting flash— and occurred in controlled, closely watched airspace, at Peru's busiest airport.
The Peruvian Air Force's Department for the Investigation of Anomalous Aerial Phenomena (DIFAA) —one of the few military offices in the region formally dedicated to the subject— took up the case. Its lead investigator, FAP Colonel Marco Antonio Barraza, publicly stated, in a confirmation reported by CNN in June 2019, that there were two objects and that the radar reading supported their appearance; he also clarified, against more exaggerated versions circulating online (which spoke of a 'fleet' shutting down the airport), that this was two objects over the sea and not an operational closure of the terminal. The FAP offered no closed conventional explanation: the case stood as a multi-sensor sighting —professional pilots' visual + control tower + radar— of undetermined nature.
Part 02
Why this case moved the needle
The Lima double sighting is the recent Peruvian case that best combines the ingredients the corpus values when it ranks a file: qualified witnesses (trained commercial pilots, not casual observers), institutional corroboration (the control tower that coordinates and documents), a sensor independent of the human eye (CORPAC radar), and an official investigation (DIFAA) that confirmed the reality of the objects without forcing an explanation or filing the matter away. That chain —eye + procedure + instrument + state acknowledgment— is exactly the filter that separates a good case from a rumor.
What it does not do is prove what they were. Two bright lights over the sea, at night, admit a list of conventional candidates the investigation did not conclusively rule out: drones (increasingly common in 2019), balloons, bright planets or stars under refraction conditions, vessels, or reflections. The objects' only-intermittent appearance on radar is ambivalent: it may indicate a small or low-radar-cross-section object, but also a weak echo or a spurious return. And Colonel Barraza himself was careful to assert nothing about the objects' 'nature', which was explicitly left undetermined. Its value, then, is not to elevate the episode to an anomaly but to show two things: that a multi-sensor sighting in controlled airspace deserves to be treated with procedural seriousness, and that DIFAA is an office willing to publicly acknowledge the unidentified rather than bury it. It is the case that justifies treating Peru as a jurisdiction with honest official investigation of the phenomenon, not as folklore.
Part 03
What's left on paper
Documented evidence
- Two commercial crews (LANPERÚ 2437 and LATAM ECUADOR 1442) observe two luminous objects over the sea (27 Feb 2019, ~1:30 AM)
- Coordination with the Jorge Chávez airport control tower; ~40-minute episode
- Recorded on CORPAC radar (Peru's air traffic control)
- DIFAA (FAP) investigation; its director, Colonel Marcos Barraza, confirms two objects with a radar reading (CNN, Jun 2019)
Location
Off Jorge Chávez Airport, Lima (over the sea) · -12.02°, -77.12°
Distribution of explanations
This case is classified among the model's hypotheses: the bar splits 100% by how much each explanation weighs (the uncertainty is spread across the hypotheses the case supports). Summed across the corpus they produce the comparable partition. It is a different question from the Probability above: that one estimates how likely the case is a genuinely unexplained phenomenon; this one splits which the explanation would be.
Modal hypothesis: Misidentification 74% · sums to 100%
Confused with: No single object identified
Structured analytical judgment, not a calibrated frequency. Forced classification: the mass the evidence cannot assign is spread across the hypotheses the case does support.
Related cases
Associated actors (1)