|
2017187
|
7 Aug 17
1534
|
B757
(CAT)
|
Drone
|
5334N 00214W
5nm N MCT
5000ft
|
Man TMA
(A)
|
The B757 pilot
reports that he was right-hand downwind, on the MCT 005 radial at 5nm when a
drone passed directly overhead by approx 50ft. He opined that he had no doubt that a
collision would have occurred had the drone been any lower. MAN ATC were informed.
Reported Separation: 50ft V/0m H Reported Risk of Collision: NK |
Cause: The drone was being flown beyond practical VLOS
limits and 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 B757.
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 object portrayed a situation where
providence had played a major part in the incident and/or a definite risk of
collision had existed.
|
A
|
|
2017216
|
6 Sep 17
0750
|
EMB170
(CAT)
|
Drone
|
5136N 00010E
Hornchurch
3000ft
|
London TMA
(A)
|
The EMB170 pilot reports on departure from London/City on the CLN1A SID at a point
between LCN01 & LCN02. Two passengers, seated very near the front of the
passenger cabin, saw a white/yellow drone that they described as helicopter-like
in shape and about 40/50cm in diameter. They stated that the drone passed
within an estimated 30m/100ft horizontally of the aircraft and at the same
level. London ATC was advised of a drone Airprox. The cabin crew carried out a
discrete damage inspection; nothing was seen on leading edges or engine
housings. Systems checks were carried out and a decision made to continue to destination.
An engineering visual inspection was carried out on landing with no damage
found.
Reported Separation: 0ft V/30m H Reported Risk of Collision: High |
Cause: The drone was being flown beyond practical VLOS
limits and 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 EMB170.
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 object portrayed a situation where
safety had been much reduced below the norm to the extent that safety had
not been assured. |
B
|
|
2017217
|
6 Sep 17
1840
|
EMB190
(CAT)
|
Drone
|
5138N 00000W
NE LCY
3000ft
|
London TMA
(A)
|
The EMB190 pilot reports that he was northeast of London city at
3000ft when he saw a red and black drone pass to the right and 200ft below
the aircraft in the opposite direction.
The drone was reported to ATC and the Police; the flight continued as
normal.
Reported Separation: 200ft V/0m H Reported Risk of Collision: Medium |
Cause: The drone was being flown beyond practical VLOS
limits and 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 EMB190.
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 object portrayed a situation where
safety had been much reduced below the norm to the extent that safety had
not been assured. |
B
|
|
2017219
|
8 Sep 17
1015
|
DH8
(CAT)
|
Drone
|
5550N 00428W
WSW Glasgow
1040ft
|
Glasgow CTR
(D)
|
The DH8 pilot reports that he was on departure from Glasgow,
during the acceleration he noticed a small black object moving towards the
aircraft. As it got closer he could
see it was a drone; it was black and had an object or device attached below. In
the space of about 3 seconds they had narrowly missed it, there was no time
to take avoiding action. At the same
time a TCAS indication appeared on the MFD, however there was no TA or RA.
Reported Separation: 100ft V/15m H Reported Risk of Collision: High |
Due to the absence of TCAS compatible electronic
conspicuity fitted to the drone, the Board thought it extremely unlikely that
it caused the TCAS indication, and concluded that it was probably another
aircraft above or below the DH8, which would explain the lack of a TA/RA.
Cause: The drone was being flown in the vicinity of an
airfield departure lane 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 DH8.
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
safety had been much reduced below the norm to the extent that safety had
not been assured. |
B
|
|
2017222
|
6 Sep 17
1740
|
DHC8
(CAT)
|
Drone
|
5132N 00001W
Stratford
3000ft
|
London TMA
(A)
|
The DHC8 pilot reports that he was on departure from London/City,
midway between LCW01 and LCN02 on the EKNIV1A SID, when the 3rd
pilot, seated in the observer position, saw a ‘DJI Mavic’ type drone. It was
pointed out to, and seen by, the Captain and Co-pilot. No avoiding action was
required as the drone was below the aircraft. The drone was reported to the
Thames Director.
Reported Separation: 100ft V/30-100m H Reported Risk of Collision: Low |
Cause: The drone was being flown beyond practical VLOS
limits and 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 DHC8.
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
|
|
2017223
|
11 Sep 17
1410
|
FA20
(Civ Comm)
|
Drone
|
5433N 00121W
NE Durham Tees Valley
1460ft
|
DTV CTR
(D)
|
The FA20 pilot
reports that he was flying a straight-in recovery to Durham Tees Valley, in
good VMC. When approx 3.7nm from the airfield and passing 1460ft, the EWO
spotted a drone in the 3 o’clock position.
After the internal information call, the FO also then sighted it. The
drone was ‘spindly’ in design and relatively large, although its size and
scale were difficult to assess in such a fleeting moment. The Captain, who was flying, did not see
the drone and no avoiding action was taken.
The drone was reported to ATC and another aircraft on recovery
adjusted its flight path to avoid the area.
Reported Separation: ‘slightly lower’ /100-200m H Reported Risk of Collision: Medium |
Cause: The drone was being flown at or beyond practical
VLOS limits and 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 FA20.
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
|
|
2017227
|
19 Sep 19
2105
|
A321
(CAT)
|
Drone
|
5327N 00158W
Manchester
3500ft
|
Manchester CTR
(D)
|
The A321 pilot
reports on left base for RW23R at Manchester, just before localiser capture,
when a large black x-shaped drone was seen in close proximity and level with
the flight deck. There was no time to avoid the drone, which was reported to
Manchester ATC.
Reported Separation: 0ft V/30ft H Reported Risk of Collision: NK |
Cause: The drone was being flown in the vicinity of an
airfield approach path and beyond practical VLOS limits 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 object portrayed a situation where
providence had played a major part in the incident and/or a definite risk of
collision had existed. |
A
|
|
2017228
|
17 Sep 17
1730
|
A321
(CAT)
|
Unknown
Object
|
5202N 00121W
Nr Banbury
FL180
|
Daventry CTA
(A)
|
The A321 pilot
reports approximately 5 nm north of EMKUK climbing through FL180 on a heading
155°. A white or light grey object was spotted in the aircraft's 1 o'clock at
apparently the same level. It flew past and continued into the 5 o'clock
position. It was suspected to be a drone. A TCAS intruder (white empty diamond)
appeared briefly in a position equivalent to that of the object, with no
height information. ATC were informed.
The Swanwick controller reports that the A321 was departing from Birmingham
when the pilot enquired whether he could see anything on radar in their
position. When the controller
confirmed nothing was there, the pilot reported passing a drone.
Reported Separation: NK Reported Risk of Collision: Low |
Cause: The Board could not conclude that the object was a
drone and, therefore being an unknown object, the Board agreed that the
incident was best described as a conflict in Class A.
Risk: The Board considered that the pilot’s description of
the event was such that
there was insufficient information to make a sound judgement of risk. |
D
|
|
2017229
|
30 Aug 17
1120
|
A319
(CAT)
|
Drone
|
5315N 00255W
Helsby/Frodsham
2500ft
|
Liverpool CTR
(D)
|
The A319 pilot
reports downwind left hand for the RW27 ILS at Liverpool when the PM saw what
he believed to be a drone pass beneath the right side of the aircraft.
Reported Separation: NK Reported Risk of Collision: None |
Cause: The drone was being flown in the vicinity of an
airfield approach path and beyond practical VLOS limits 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 A319.
Risk: The Board considered that the pilot’s description of
the event was such that
there was insufficient information to make a sound judgement of risk. |
D
|
|
2017232
|
21 Sep 17
1230
|
Hawk
(RN)
|
Balloon
|
5015N 00508W
1nm SW Truro
10,000ft
|
London FIR
(G)
|
The Hawk pilot
reports that he was on the climb out to the northeast from RNAS Culdrose when
he passed a Balloon. He noticed it in his 10 o'clock at approximately 200m as
he passed 10000ft. He suspects it was a MET balloon as it was white and about
2m in diameter with an orange/red cylinder hanging immediately beneath it,
although it was a late sighting his flight path was clear and he did not take
any avoiding action. He notified Plymouth Military of the sighting. The
sortie was completed without incident.
Reported Separation: 0ft V/200m H Reported Risk of Collision: Medium |
A met balloon was released from the Camborne Met Office
at 1115UTC. Given the prevailing wind and elapsed time it was surmised that
this was the balloon sighted. UK AIP ENR 5.3 refers.
Cause: Being an un-tethered and unmanned balloon, the Board
agreed that it was not under direct control and 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
|
|
2017236
|
23 Sep 17
1650
|
FA20
(Civ Comm)
|
Drone
|
5504N 00127W
St Mary’s Bait Island
2000ft
|
Newcastle CTA
(D)
|
The FA20 pilot
reports that he was in a left bank turn to intercept final to Newcastle RW25
at 8nm (which is just at the coastline) when he saw a drone passing about 300ft
to the right and about 100ft below his altitude of 2000ft. He immediately
informed ATC about the drone.
Reported Separation: 100ft V/100m H Reported Risk of Collision: Medium |
Cause: The drone was being flown beyond practical VLOS
limits 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 FA20.
Risk: The Board considered that the pilot’s estimate of
separation, allied to his overall account of the incident and his
ability/inability to avoid the object portrayed a situation where
although safety had been reduced, there had been no risk of collision. |
C
|
|
2017239
|
5 Oct 17
1619
|
Voyager
(HQ Air Ops)
|
Drone
|
5142N 00137W
Brize Norton
3400ft
|
Brize CTR
(D)
London FIR
(G)
|
The Voyager pilot reports recovering to Brize Norton, overhead the BZ NDB and
descending to 2800ft when both the Captain and Co-pilot saw what they both
thought to be a large bird in the 1 o'clock position at about the same
height. As the aircraft flew just south of the BZ and began a left turn onto
a vector of 090°, the object was seen to pass down the right side of the
aircraft and above. As the object got closer it was noted that it was a drone
and not a bird but it passed without incident. The pilot noted that the drone
was circular, black or blue in colour and was considered large in size for a
drone. The object was immediately reported to Brize Director.
Reported Separation: ~200ft V/~90m H Reported Risk of Collision: Medium |
Cause: The drone was being flown beyond practical VLOS
limits and 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 Voyager.
Risk: The Board considered that the pilot’s estimate of
separation, allied to his overall account of the incident portrayed a
situation where
safety had been much reduced below the norm to the extent that safety had
not been assured. |
B
|
|
2017240
|
01 Oct 17
1603
|
A320
(CAT)
|
Drone
|
5138N 00005E
2nm west LAM
FL90
|
London TMA
(A)
|
The A320 pilot
reports that he was exiting the LAM hold when he saw a drone. There was no
time for avoiding action.
Reported Separation: 300ft V/NK H Reported Risk of Collision: Medium |
Cause: The drone was being flown beyond practical VLOS
limits and 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 pilot’s estimate of
separation, allied to his overall account of the incident and his inability
to avoid the object portrayed a situation where
although safety had been reduced, there had been no risk of collision. |
C
|
|
2017249
|
16 Oct 17
1655
|
A320
(CAT)
|
Drone
|
5143N 00032W
BNN Hold
FL85
|
London TMA
(A)
|
The A320 pilot
reports that he noticed what he initially thought was a helicopter heading
towards them, he thought it must be 1000ft below them as it looked close. He
looked to see if anything was showing on TCAS but there wasn't. He looked
back outside and saw it was passing underneath them and off to the right,
opposite direction. Due to their speed and the lighting and position of the
sun, it was difficult to obtain a detailed description, but it was a drone
like rotorcraft, possibly dark in colour with what seemed to be a light on
the top of it. He is confident it was a drone and not a balloon, so he
reported it to ATC.
Reported Separation: 200ft V/200m H Reported Risk of Collision: Medium |
Cause: The drone was being flown beyond practical VLOS
limits and 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 pilot’s estimate of
separation, allied to his overall account of the incident and his inability
to avoid the object portrayed a situation where
although safety had been reduced, there had been no risk of collision. |
C
|