|
2017243
|
6 Oct 17
1536
|
C560
(Civ Comm)
|
Toy Balloons
|
5132N 00002W
London City
2300ft
|
London CTR
(D)
|
The C560 pilot
reports that on passing 2300ft in the climb-out from London City, the PM
called ‘watch out!’ and pointed to the 11 o’clock position, after a 2 second
delay, the PF saw approx 20 black and yellow party balloons, in a bundle,
approx 2-3m diameter approaching the aircraft at the same altitude. The auto-pilot was disconnected and bank
increased, and they levelled off as avoiding action and the bundle passed by
approx 10m to the left and 2m above.
|
Cause: Being un-tethered and unmanned balloons, the Board
agreed that it was not under direct control and that the incident was
therefore best described as a conflict in Class D.
Risk: The Board considered that the pilot’s estimate of
separation, allied to his overall account of the incident and his ability to
avoid the balloons portrayed a situation where providence had played a major
part in the incident and/or a definite risk of collision had existed.
Notwithstanding, the Board recognised that the outcome would most likely have
been benign even had collision occurred. |
A
|
|
2017254
|
25 Oct 17
1150
|
A321
(CAT)
|
Drone
|
5128N 00017W
Kew
1700ft
|
London CTR
(D)
|
The A321 pilot reports on approach to RW27L at Heathrow when the
crew saw a 3 or 4 engine white drone pass over the FO’s window at a range of
about 5ft. The crew considered that the drone passed close enough that it
must have collided with the tail. No tangible evidence of collision could be
found after landing by engineering staff and the aircraft was released back
into service.
Reported Separation: 5ft V/0m H Reported Risk of Collision: High |
Cause: The drone was being flown in the vicinity of an
airfield approach path and at the practical VLOS limit such that it was
endangering other aircraft at that location and altitude. The Board agreed
that the incident was therefore best described as the drone was flown into
conflict with the A321.
Risk: The Board considered that the pilot’s estimate of
separation, allied to his overall account of the incident and his inability
to avoid the drone portrayed a situation where
providence had played a major part in the incident and/or a definite risk of
collision had existed. |
A
|
|
2017258
|
30 Oct 17
1600
|
Chinook
(JHC)
|
Drone
|
5329N 00234W
Leigh Flash VRP
1200ft
|
London FIR
(G)
|
The Chinook pilot reports he was transiting south-bound through the
Manchester Low Level Route, passing directly overhead Leigh Flash VRP, when a
‘football size’ drone was observed to pass down the left hand side of the
aircraft. It was red in colour, with a round body, and appeared to be static
at the time. The pilot reported the occurrence to Manchester ATC.
Reported Separation: 0ft V/100m H Reported Risk of Collision: High |
Cause: The drone was entitled to operate at that location
and altitude, and was not endangering other aircraft by being flown in
proximity to airfield approach paths etc, and so the Board agreed that the
incident was therefore best described as a conflict in Class G.
Risk: The Board considered that the pilot’s estimate of
separation, allied to his overall account of the incident portrayed a
situation where
although safety had been reduced, there had been no risk of collision. |
C
|
|
2017264
|
4 Nov 17
1321
|
A320
(CAT)
|
Drone
|
5323N 00213W
Manchester
500ft
|
Manchester CTR
(D)
|
The A320 pilot reports that he was on short finals for RW23R at
Manchester when a medium sized quadcopter was seen 50ft to the right and 50ft
below the aircraft. Neither the pilot nor the FO saw the drone, but an A320
FO travelling as a passenger in the cabin reported it.
|
Cause: The drone was being flown in the vicinity of an
airfield approach path such that it was endangering other aircraft at that
location and altitude. The Board agreed that the incident was therefore best
described as the drone was flown into conflict with the A320
Risk: The Board considered that the description of the
incident, allied to the overall account of the incident and the pilot’s non-sighting
portrayed a situation where
providence had played a major part in the incident and/or a definite risk of
collision had existed. |
A
|
|
2017267
|
17 Nov 17
1220
|
Do328
(CAT)
|
Drone
|
5323N 00212W
4nm NE Manchester Airport
1400ft
|
Manchester CTR
(D)
|
The Do328 pilot reports that he was just inside 4nm and fully established on the Manchester
RW23R ILS in VMC on an IFR Flight Plan and carrying out his final
configuration of the aircraft to land. He spotted an object, slightly ahead
and below, passing the track of the aircraft from right to left. The object
remained below and to the left of the aircraft as it passed. There was very
little time from first sighting to it passing behind and out of view. It was
a drone, white in colour with areas of blue trim. He did not carry out any
avoiding action or a go-around. He immediately informed Manchester Tower that
they had just encountered a drone.
Reported Separation: 50ft V/20m H Reported Risk of Collision: High |
Cause: The drone was being flown in the vicinity of an
airfield approach path such that it was endangering other aircraft at that
location and altitude. The Board agreed that the incident was therefore best
described as the drone was flown into conflict with the Do328.
Risk: The Board considered that the pilot’s description of
the incident, allied to his overall account of the incident and his inability
to avoid the drone portrayed a situation where
providence had played a major part in the incident and/or a definite risk of
collision had existed.
|
A
|