|
2017270
|
24 Nov 17
1000
|
PA31
(Civ Comm)
|
Drone
|
5324N 00251W
4nm north Liverpool Airport
2000ft
|
Liverpool CTR
(D)
|
The PA31 pilot reports heading east and passing 2000ft in the climb
when an object was sighted by the P2 at 2 o'clock, same level, at a range of
200m and on an opposite track. On passing 25m laterally, 20ft below the
starboard side of the aircraft, the object was identified as a drone,
apparently maintaining its altitude and course. There was insufficient time
for the handling pilot to visually acquire the object before it passed, so no
evasive action was taken. The incident was immediately reported to Liverpool
and there were no further sightings of the drone.
Reported Separation: 20ft V/25m H Reported Risk of Collision: Medium |
Cause: The drone was being flown above the practical VLOS
limit 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 PA31.
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
|
|
2017271
|
1 Dec 17
1005
|
B787
(CAT)
|
Drone
|
5136N 00027W
10nm N Heathrow
7500ft
|
London TMA
(A)
|
The B787 pilot reports that they were just leaving the BDN hold, the
aircraft was in a right-hand turn and descending when the P3 spotted an
object coming towards the aircraft, at speed.
It was small and tracked from ahead to beneath the right wing. Neither
of the operating pilots saw it. As it
passed beneath the right wing he could see it was a small drone, but because
of its size he could not make out anyway identifying features or colours. No
avoiding action was necessary because it was obviously going to pass by.
Reported Separation: 500ft V/200m H Reported Risk of Collision: Medium |
Cause: The drone was being flown above the practical VLOS
limit such that it was endangering other aircraft at that altitude. 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 estimate of
separation, allied to his overall account of the incident and his inability
to avoid the drone portrayed a situation where
although safety had been reduced, there had been no risk of collision. |
C
|
|
2017273
|
10 Dec 17
1439
|
BN2 Islander
(Civ Comm)
|
Drone
|
5859N 00255W
1nm NW Kirkwall
400ft
|
Scottish FIR
(G)
|
The BN2 pilot reports that after take-off from RW32 a right turn
was made to remain right of the coast line. After passing 400ft, and before
Berstane House, an object to the left caught his attention. It appeared to
look like a large drone. The aircraft was already in a turn and no avoiding
action was required. ATC were informed.
Reported Separation: NK Reported Risk of Collision: Low |
Cause: The drone was being flown in the vicinity of an
airfield departure 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 BN2.
Risk: The Board considered that the pilot’s account of the
incident was such that
there was insufficient information to make a sound judgement of risk. |
D
|
|
2017279
|
8 Oct 17
1130
|
A320
(CAT)
|
Drone
|
5123N 00029W
5.5nm SSW LHR
6000ft
|
London TMA
(A)
|
The A320 pilot reports that he was climbing out of a cloud layer,
at about 5700ft, and levelled off at 6000ft. His F/O reported seeing
something like a drone just on top of the cloud layer, which passed below the
right-hand wing.
Reported Separation: 300ft V/0nm H Reported Risk of Collision: Low |
Cause: The drone was being flown above the VLOS limit such
that it was endangering other aircraft at that 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, his inability to
avoid the drone and the fact he had already climbed through the drone’s level
portrayed a situation where
providence had played a major part in the incident and/or a definite risk of
collision had existed. |
A
|
|
2017281
|
19 Nov 17
1220
|
A319
(CAT)
|
2 x Drones
|
5326N 00257W
7nm NW Liverpool
3500ft
|
Liverpool CTA
(D)
|
The A319 pilot reports he was positioning right downwind for RW27 at Liverpool at
3500ft when he spotted 2 drones, of the DGI Phantom type, on a bearing of
110° and below him. Both were white in
colour and were not in proximity to his aircraft, so avoiding action was not
necessary.
Reported Separation: 1000ft V/300m H Reported Risk of Collision: None |
Cause: The drone was being flown above the practical VLOS
limit such that it was endangering other aircraft at that altitude. However, in
this instance the Board agreed that separation was such that this was
considered a sighting report.
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
|
|
2018001
|
1 Jan 18
1140
|
ASK21
(Civ Club)
|
Drone
|
5151N 00032W
WSW Dunstable
550ft
|
London FIR
(G)
|
The ASK21 pilot reports that he was performing a standard circuit at Dunstable. The weather was grey and overcast with a
rain front approaching from the west. A drone was encountered at 550ft just
prior to the final turn for approach.
The drone was 20-50m in front of the nose of the glider and a few
metres below. It was grey in colour and therefore difficult to see in the
overcast weather against a backdrop of Dunstable town. It passed rapidly to the right of the glider,
remaining a few metres below; there was no time to take avoiding action. Had the drone been on a collision course it
was unlikely that the glider would have responded to control inputs rapidly
enough to allow avoiding action to be effective.
Reported Separation: 15ft V/20m H Reported Risk of Collision: High |
Cause: The drone was being flown in the vicinity of an
airfield circuit 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 glider.
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
|
|
2018004
|
7 Jan 18
1330
|
B747
(CAT)
|
Drone
|
5129N 00053W
15nm W Heathrow
5000ft
|
London TMA
(A)
|
The B747 pilot reports lined up on a long final for RW09L when the
First Officer saw a drone in the 1 o’clock position, moving rapidly along the
window as the aircraft flew past it. The rest of the crew and ATC were
informed immediately. There was insufficient time to take avoiding action.
Reported Separation: 50ft V/100m H Reported Risk of Collision: Medium |
Cause: The drone was being flown above the VLOS limit and
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 B747.
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
|