|
2018041
|
26 Mar 18
0930
|
DA2000
(Civ Comm)
|
Drone
|
5137N 00012W
9nm ENE Northolt
2600ft
|
London TMA
(A)
|
The DA2000 pilot reports on final vector to intercept the RW25 localiser when the PM
called ‘bird!’ after sighting what looked like a black bird in the 11
o’clock, passing left to right, slightly above and crossing their path. The
PF looked up and identified the ‘bird’ as a black quadrotor drone with a
flashing blue strobe light. There was no time to take avoiding action. The
incident was reported to the police.
Reported Separation: 10 to 100ft V/10m H Reported Risk of Collision: High |
Cause: The drone was being flown beyond practical VLOS
limits such that it was endangering other aircraft at that altitude and
position. The Board agreed that the incident was therefore best described as
the drone was flown into conflict with the DA2000.
Risk: The Board considered that the pilot’s overall account
of the incident portrayed a situation where
providence had played a major part in the incident and/or a definite risk of
collision had existed. |
A
|
|
2018042
|
25 Mar 18
1800
|
A321
(CAT)
|
Drone
|
5312N 00159W
10nm SE Manchester
FL080
|
Manchester TMA
(A)
|
The A321 pilot reports that he was level at FL080 when he saw a
drone moving slowly below and to the left of the aircraft. The drone was a black quadcopter with
strobe lights. No avoiding action was
taken.
Reported Separation: 250ftV/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 altitude and
position. 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 overall account
of the incident portrayed a situation where
although safety had been reduced, there had been no risk of collision. |
C
|
|
2018043
|
1 Apr 18
1806
|
B747
(CAT)
|
Drone
|
5129N 00004W
16nm E Heathrow
4300ft
|
London TMA
(A)
|
The B747 pilot reports on an intercept heading for the LHR
localiser RW27R. PM in the right seat noticed what appeared to be a drone
below them in the 3 o’clock position. The drone was not an immediate threat
but the sighting was reported on R/T so that other aircraft in trail could be
warned. The pilot also later spoke with Heathrow police to report the event.
Reported Separation: 500ft V/500m 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 altitude and
position. The Board agreed that the incident was therefore best described as
the drone was flown into conflict with the B747.
Risk: The Board considered that the pilot’s overall account
of the incident portrayed a situation where
although safety had been reduced, there had been no risk of collision. |
C
|
|
2018044
|
25 Mar 18
1434
|
E190
(Civ Comm)
|
Drone
|
5115N 00038W
4nm SE Farnborough
3400ft
|
London FIR
G
|
The E190 pilot reports that he had departed from Farnborough on a
radar heading of 220°, there were several TCAS contacts on the screen, all
indicating below. Whilst searching for
traffic in the 10 o’clock position the Captain saw a drone or model aircraft
at the same altitude passing down the left-hand side. No avoiding action was
possible. The drone was a flying wing shape and bright green and red.
Reported Separation: 0ft V/12-15m H Reported Risk of Collision: High |
Cause: The drone was being flown beyond practical VLOS
limits such that it was endangering other aircraft at that altitude and
position. The Board agreed that the incident was therefore best described as
the drone was flown into conflict with the E190.
Risk: The Board considered that the pilot’s overall account
of the incident portrayed a situation where providence had played a major
part in the incident and a definite risk of collision had existed. |
A
|
|
2018047
|
1 Feb 18
1810
Night
|
A321
(CAT)
|
Unk Obj
|
5306N 00150W
22nm SE Manchester
FL100
|
Manchester TMA
(A)
|
The A321 pilot reports descending through FL100 at night in VMC
when his eye was caught by a greyish thin-profiled ‘something’ which passed
by very close at the same level down the left-hand side at great speed. His
initial reaction was that he had seen an internal reflection in his glasses
or the windshield but it was immediately apparent that the First Officer and another
person on the flight deck had also seen it. None of them had a clear view
because it was in the landing-light beam for a split second. The pilot noted
that having seen balloons in flight before, this object did not fit that
profile.
|
Cause: The Board decided there was insufficient
information to determine a cause.
Risk: The Board considered that the pilot’s overall account
of the incident portrayed a situation where
there was insufficient information to make a sound judgement of risk. |
D
|
|
2018048
|
5 Apr 18
1335
|
S92
(SAR)
|
Drone
|
5034N 00455W
Padstow
70ft
|
London FIR
(G)
|
The S92 pilot reports that they were conducting wet winch training
in the vicinity of the coastline. They
had a winchman on the wire in the surf, when they saw a small drone, just
outside the rotor disc, in the 10 o’clock position. The drone remained in close proximity while
the winchman was recovered and then flew away towards the shore.
Reported Separation: 20ft V/ 30-50ft H
|
Cause: ANO 2016 Article 240 states that ‘A person
must not recklessly or negligently act in a manner likely to endanger an
aircraft, or any person in an aircraft.’ Additionally, Article
95 states that drones should not be flown within 50m of any person, vessel,
vehicle, or structure. Therefore, the
Board agreed that the incident was best described as the drone was flown into
conflict with the S92.
Risk: The Board considered that the pilot’s 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
|