|
2018236
|
29 Aug 18
1745
|
Chinook
(JHC)
|
Drone
|
5126N 00007E
Sidcup
1600ft
|
London/City CTA
(D)
|
The Chinook pilot reports departing the London City CTA when a crewman
sighted and called a drone at a range of 200m on the left side of the
aircraft at the same height, travelling in the opposite direction.
Immediately afterwards another crewman called a break right for a second drone,
this time in the 10 o'clock position at 50m and at the same height,
travelling towards them. The handling pilot broke right to take avoiding
action and a large yellow drone was seen to pass down the left side of the
aircraft at a distance of 50m. The position of the drone was reported to
London City Tower and the sortie continued without further incident.
Reported Separation: 0ft V/50m H Reported Risk of Collision: Medium |
Cause: The drone was being flown above the maximum
permitted height of 400ft such that it was endangering other aircraft at that
location. The Board agreed that the incident was therefore best described as
the drone was flown into conflict with the Chinook.
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
|
|
2018238
|
22 Jul 18
1725
|
A380
(CAT)
|
Drone
|
5129N 00009W
Battersea Park
3400ft
|
London TMA
(A)
|
The A380 pilot reports conducting an ILS approach to Heathrow RW27R
when a large ‘commercial drone’ was observed passing down the right side of
the aircraft within approximately 20m. ATC was notified and the police
contacted the Captain to make a report.
Reported Separation: 0ft V/20m H Reported Risk of Collision: Not reported |
Cause: The drone was being flown above the practical VLOS
limit and at an altitude and position in an airfield approach path such that
it was endangering other aircraft at that location. The Board agreed that the
incident was therefore best described as the drone was flown into conflict
with the A380.
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
|
|
2018242
|
7 Sep 18
2144
|
E190
(CAT)
|
Drone
|
5554N 00422W
Glasgow
800ft
|
Glasgow CTR
(D)
|
The E190 pilot reports that he was on final approach to Glasgow
when a UAS passed immediately above the aircraft. It was estimated to be between 50ft-100ft
above and was a shiny white drone which reflected in the landing lights of
the aircraft. It was only seen for around a second before it passed over the
window. No avoiding action was taken,
and a normal approach and landing followed. ATC were informed after landing.
Reported Separation: 50-100ft V/0m H Reported Risk of Collision: High
The Glasgow Controller reports that the E190 pilot reported a drone had
flown very close to them when on 2.5nm final to RW23. |
Cause: The drone was being flown above the maximum
permitted height of 400ft and at an altitude and position in an airfield
approach path such that it was endangering other aircraft at that location.
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/or a definite risk of
collision had existed. |
A
|
|
2018244
|
4 Aug 18
1130
|
A380
(CAT)
|
Drone
|
5128N 00004W
Peckham
4200ft
|
London TMA
(A)
|
The A380 pilot reports capturing the localiser for Heathrow RW27L
when the crew saw a drone pass by on the right side. ATC was informed
immediately.
Reported Separation: 0ft V/60m H Reported Risk of Collision: High |
Cause: The drone was being flown above the maximum
permitted height of 400ft and at an altitude and position in an airfield
approach path such that it was endangering other aircraft at that location.
The Board agreed that the incident was therefore best described as the drone
was flown into conflict with the A380.
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
|
|
2018245
|
1 Sep 18
1802
|
A220
(CAT)
|
Drone
|
5128N 00011W
Heathrow
2700ft
|
London TMA
(A)
|
The A220 pilot reports that they were between 7-8nm on the ILS for
RW27R in VMC conditions, when they saw a drone at around 2700ft. It was white, had 4 propellers and appeared
to be hovering in place. They reported
the incident to ATC.
Reported Separation: 100-500ft V/100m H Reported Risk of Collision: Low |
Cause: The drone was being flown above the maximum
permitted height of 400ft and at an altitude and position in an airfield
approach path such that it was endangering other aircraft at that location.
The Board agreed that the incident was therefore best described as the drone
was flown into conflict with the A220.
.
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
|
|
2018250
|
2 Sep 18
1328
|
DHC8
(CAT)
|
Drone
|
5237N 00155W
Aldridge
3800ft
|
Birmingham CTA
(D)
|
The DHC8 pilot reports having just become fully established on the
ILS approach for RW15 when the First Officer observed a drone like object
slightly right and above the cockpit which passed by on the right very
quickly. ATC was informed and the flight continued for a normal landing.
Reported Separation: ‘slightly above’ V/50ft H Reported Risk of Collision: Not reported |
Cause: The drone was being flown above the maximum
permitted height of 400ft and at an altitude and position in an airfield approach
path such that it was endangering other aircraft at that location. 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 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
|
|
2018251
|
31 Aug 18
0900
|
Tutor
(HQ Air Trg)
|
Drone
|
5237N 00026W
3nm E Wittering
1300ft
|
Wittering MATZ
(G)
|
The Tutor pilot reports that on departure from Wittering he saw a
silver, metallic object 100m to the left.
Its motion negated the possibility of it being a silver balloon, and
its location was just to the south of Burghley Horse Trials which had a NOTAM
of a drone operating up to 400ft.
Reported Separation: 0ft V/100m H Reported Risk of Collision: Medium |
Cause: The Board agreed that the Burghley Horse Trials
NOTAM drone was probably not the drone in question. The subject drone was
being flown above the maximum permitted height of 400ft such that it was
endangering other aircraft at that location. The Board agreed that the
incident was therefore best described as the drone was flown into conflict
with the Tutor.
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
|
|
2018256
|
14 Sep 18
1445
|
Tutor
(HQ Air Trg)
|
Drone
|
5124N 00326W
St Athan
300ft
|
Cardiff CTR
(D)
|
The Tutor pilot reports that he was returning from a local area
familiarisation sortie and joined downwind to land RW25. On final approach,
when configured to land, the passenger saw a white drone, which was then
confirmed by the Captain. It was just
to the north of the final approach path at about 300ft. This would have put it just outside the
airfield perimeter, but inside the local flying zone, possibly over the St
Athan golf course. There was no
requirement to go-around or alter course and the drone passed down the
right-hand-side of the aircraft as they passed 300ft. The drone looked like a DJI Phantom 2. After landing he requested that ATC notify
the local police and by the time he had returned to the ops room, they had
called the golf course as well.
Reported Separation: 0ft V/20m H Reported Risk of Collision: High
The St Athan ADC reports that after the Tutor pilot had landed he
reported that he had encountered a drone ‘off his right-hand-side’ just
outside the airfield perimeter at 300ft. Local police were called on 999 and
Cardiff ATC were also informed.
Despite efforts with binoculars nether the controller nor colleagues
were able to see the drone, even though they continued to look for 15
minutes. The local police response was
swift, with officers on the reported scene where the encounter took place
within 25-30min, but unfortunately no drone operator was found. |
Cause: The Board agreed that the incident occurred below
400ft but in proximity to the 1km boundary of the ‘Flight Restriction Zone’,
as defined in the ANO 2016 Article 94B. Nevertheless, the Board felt that the
drone’s position was at an altitude and position in an airfield approach path
that could endanger other aircraft (ANO 2016 Article 241) and that it had
been flown into conflict with the Tutor.
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
|
|
2018259
|
16 Sep 18
1151
|
A321
(CAT)
|
Drone
|
5128N 00002W
Brockley
4900ft
|
London TMA
(A)
|
The A321 pilot reports established on the ILS for RW27L when an
object was seen below and directly ahead of the aircraft. It was initially
thought to be a balloon but as it got closer it appeared to be a white and
black drone, the main body being oval or oblong in shape. No manoeuvring to
avoid or to increase separation was deemed necessary and the approach
continued. ATC was informed of the sighting.
Reported Separation: 200ft V/0m H Reported Risk of Collision: Low |
Cause: The drone was being flown above the maximum
permitted height of 400ft and at an altitude and position in an airfield
approach path such that it was endangering other aircraft at that location.
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
safety had been much reduced below the norm to the extent that safety had
not been assured.
|
B
|
|
2018261
|
19 Sep 18
1135
|
B737
(CAT)
|
Drone
|
5247N 00059W
East Midlands
4000ft
|
East Midlands CTA
(D)
|
The B737 pilot reports that he was on a busy phase of flight,
descending, slowing and configuring flap selection for intercept of the
ILS. The First Officer alerted him to
a drone which passed immediately down the left-hand-side of the aircraft. No impact was observed, felt or indicated
by engine instrumentation.
Reported Separation: 0ft V/20m H Reported Risk of Collision: High |
Cause: The drone was being flown above the maximum
permitted height of 400ft such that it was endangering other aircraft at that
location. The Board agreed that the incident was therefore best described as
the drone was flown into conflict with the B737.
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
|
|
2018262
|
2 Sep 18
1534
|
A220
(CAT)
|
Drone
|
5129N 00040W
Windsor
2300ft
|
London CTR
(D)
|
The A220 pilot reports conducting an approach to RW09L when the
Captain (PM) saw a black and grey drone with red and green lights pass by the
right side of the aircraft.
Reported Separation: 0ft V/NK H Reported Risk of Collision: Not reported |
Cause: The drone was being flown above the maximum
permitted height of 400ft and at an altitude and position in an airfield
approach path such that it was endangering other aircraft at that location.
The Board agreed that the incident was therefore best described as the drone
was flown into conflict with the A220.
.
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
|
|
2018263
|
16 Sep 18
1708
|
A321
(CAT)
|
Drone
|
5137N 00011W
LAM Hold
FL95
|
London TMA
(A)
|
The A321 pilot reports that he was approaching the LAM VOR at about
FL140 when the Capt saw something lower than the aircraft, which may have
been a drone. They joined the LAM hold
to make one orbit and were just about to leave the hold at FL95 when the
co-pilot saw a drone to the right, very close, probably just metres away. The shape was similar to a DJI
Phantom. ATC were informed.
Reported Separation: 0ft V/ ‘some metres’ Reported Risk of Collision: High |
Cause: The drone was being flown above the maximum
permitted height of 400ft such that it was endangering other aircraft at that
location. 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
providence had played a major part in the incident and/or a definite risk of
collision had existed. |
A
|
|
2018264
|
23 Sep 18
1634
|
B737
(CAT)
|
Drone
|
5319N 00220W
Manchester
800ft
|
Manchester CTR
(D)
|
The B737 pilot reports that one of the cabin crew reported seeing a
white drone to the left of the aircraft on departure, about 20sec after take-off.
It was close enough to see its structure dearly. The occurrence was reported
to London Control later in the climb.
Reported Separation: 0ft V/100ft H Reported Risk of Collision: Medium |
Cause: The drone was being flown above the maximum
permitted height of 400ft and at an altitude and position in an airfield
departure path such that it was endangering other aircraft at that location.
The Board agreed that the incident was therefore best described as the drone
was flown into conflict with the B737.
.
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
|
|
2018265
|
25 Sep 18
1310
|
B787
(CAT)
|
Drone
|
5109N 00016E
Maidstone
FL90
|
London TMA
(A)
|
The B787 pilot reports that the Captain raised his head from
looking at the instrument panel and saw a small silver aircraft pass very
rapidly from level with the flight deck to below the left wing. It was a very brief sighting of the craft
as it flashed past at high speed. It
was silver metallic and appeared to be descending in the opposite direction. He
opined that he suspected it was a drone; it was definitely not a balloon or
sonde.
Reported Separation: 150ft V/ 0m H Reported Risk of Collision: High
The London TCC controller reports that the B787 pilot reported an Airprox with
a drone. He reported passing the drone
when at FL90, however the frequency was extremely busy and so the controller
was only able to obtain sketchy details.
The pilot reported it as silver, fast-moving and too small to be a manned
aircraft. The controller passed the information to subsequent pilots in the
area. |
Cause: The drone was being flown above the maximum
permitted height of 400ft such that it was endangering other aircraft at that
location. The Board agreed that the incident was therefore best described as
the drone was flown into conflict with the B787.
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
|
|
2018270
|
28 Sep 18
1435
|
Prefect
(HQ Air Trg)
|
Drone
|
5249N 00015W
4nm NW Spalding
FL067
|
London FIR
(G)
|
The Prefect pilot reports instructing a steep turn and aerobatics
sortie when the student saw what appeared to be a drone in the 2 o'clock
position at the same level with about 400-500ft lateral separation and
passing in the opposite direction. As it passed down the right side the
instructor took control and turned right to keep it in sight. As he did so
the drone also turned right and matched their orbit for approximately 1½
turns with about 200-300ft lateral separation at the same level. The
instructor rolled wings level and accelerated away to the northwest. The
drone also ‘levelled wings’ and was last seen heading west. The Instructor
made an airborne Airprox report and continued with the sortie further to the northwest.
The drone was dark grey and black in colour and generally rectangular in
shape. As it turned there appeared to be small wings, or possible rotor arms,
visible.
Reported Separation: 0ft V/200ft H Reported Risk of Collision: Low
The Cranwell controller reports that the Prefect pilot reported a large
drone operating in close proximity to his aircraft. The pilot reported it was
approximately 'dustbin lid' sized, was following the movements of the
aircraft and advised that they were manoeuvring away from that location. The
ATC supervisor was informed who then passed the details to the relevant civilian
agencies. |
Cause: The drone was being flown above the maximum
permitted height of 400ft such that it was endangering other aircraft at that
location. The Board agreed that the incident was therefore best described as
the drone was flown into conflict with the Prefect.
.
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
|
|
2018272
|
29 Sep 18
1348
|
A380
(CAT)
|
Drone
|
5140N 00042W
Holmer Green
FL073
|
London TMA
(A)
|
The A380 pilot reports that on the climb-out a ‘medium size’ drone
was seen about 50m ahead, which then passed overhead the aircraft.
Reported Separation: 200ft V/0m H Reported Risk of Collision: Medium |
Cause: The drone was being flown above the maximum
permitted height of 400ft such that it was endangering other aircraft at that
location. The Board agreed that the incident was therefore best described as
the drone was flown into conflict with the A380.
.
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
|
|
2018274
|
5 Oct 18
0750
|
B737
(CAT)
|
Balloon
|
5354N 00206W
NE Burnley
FL130
|
Manchester TMA
(A)
|
The B737 pilot reports during an approach to Manchester, they came
very close to a weather balloon. It
passed at exactly the same altitude on their left-hand-side, less than a
wingspan away.
The Manchester ACC controller reports that the B737 pilot reported a weather
balloon when passing FL130 inbound to Manchester. The information was passed to subsequent
pilots in the area.
The Met Office reports that having checked their records only 2 of their
radiosondes were in the air around that time and were ones released from
Larkhill and Herstmonceux, both in southern England. Further analysis of the
wind and synoptic data from the day indicate that neither of these would have
been carried towards the North West of England, indicating that it could not
have been one of their radiosondes. |
Cause: The Board were unable to determine the nature of
the balloon and therefore agreed that the incident was best described as a
conflict in Class A.
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
|
|
2018275
|
30 Sep 18
1125
|
A319
(CAT)
|
Drone
|
5127N 00014W
Heathrow
2400ft
|
London CTR
(D)
|
The A319 pilot reports that they were at 7nm final on the ILS to
Heathrow RW27L, when they passed a flying object. It was V shaped, yellow and about 1m in
diameter. The type of the object was not clearly identifiable, but it was
thought to be a drone.
Reported Separation: 0ft V/ 150m H Reported Risk of Collision: Not reported |
Cause: The drone was being flown above the maximum
permitted height of 400ft and at an altitude and position in an airfield
approach path such that it was endangering other aircraft at that location.
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 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
|
|
2018281
|
7 Oct 18
1300
|
HS125
(Civ Comm)
|
Drone
|
5114N 00046W
Farnborough
3800ft
|
London TMA
(A)
|
The HS125 pilot reports that during descent downwind, when passing 2800ft
[actually 3800ft], a drone was observed head-on and passing about 10m above
the canopy. From initial contact to near-miss there was no time to react. The drone was black with a gold top and
about 50cm in diameter. The event was
immediately reported to ATC.
Reported Separation: 10m V/0m H Reported Risk of Collision: Not reported
The Farnborough Controller reports the HS125 pilot had been given cleared to
descend and whilst in the descent reported just missing a drone. At the time of the Airprox the aircraft was
still in the London TMA, just SSW Farnborough. He reported it had several
colours and had been directly in front of the aircraft as they
descended. He later reported it was
black/yellow/gold/red and was about 50cm wide, with a camera hanging
underneath, and that it passed very, very close and that he thought it would
hit the tail of the aircraft. |
Cause: The drone was being flown above the maximum
permitted height of 400ft such that it was endangering other aircraft at that
location. The Board agreed that the incident was therefore best described as
the drone was flown into conflict with the HS125.
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
|