|
2018114
|
28 May 18
1848
|
A319
(CAT)
|
Drone
|
5125N 00022W
3nm SE Heathrow
2500ft
|
London CTR
(D)
|
The A319 pilot reports departing LHR RW09, passing 2500ft on a
weather avoidance heading of 130°, a large drone passed 10m above the left
wing. It was about 70cm in diameter,
white with yellow markings. There was
no time to taking any avoiding action and there was a very high risk of
collision.
Reported Separation: 10m V/0m 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 A319.
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
|
|
2018116
|
13 May 18
1559
|
C56X
(Civ Comm)
|
Drone
|
5113N 00036W
8nm ESE Farnborough
2400ft
|
London FIR
(G)
|
The C56X pilot reports that whilst being vectored by Farnborough in
uncontrolled airspace, a drone appeared about 100-200ft below and 200m off
the left wing. The drone was orange
but it’s size was difficult to estimate because there was no size reference
to judge it against. They reported it to ATC, who in turn reported it to the
Surrey police.
Reported Separation: 100-200ftV/200m H
The Farnborough Approach Controller reports that he had vectored the C56X onto a
downwind heading for an ILS approach to RW24.
The aircraft was descending to 2400ft when the pilot reported that he
had seen a drone very close to him and about 200ft below. |
Cause: The drone was being flown at the practical VLOS
limit and 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 C56X.
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
|
|
2018117
|
28 May 18
1825
|
DHC8
(CAT)
|
Drone
|
5250N 00129W
6nm W EMA
2000ft
|
EMA CTR
(D)
|
The DHC8 pilot reports established on the ILS for RW09 at EMA, at about
175kts. It was a beautiful summer evening, no clouds, light wind, and the sun
behind them. He noticed what he thought at first was a bird, but it’s flight path
was too straight and level. As they got closer he recognised it as a drone.
It’s rough heading was west, travelling slowly at around 50kts, it did not change
altitude or heading as it passed down the left side of the aircraft. The
distance was hard to judge, but it was close enough for him to see that it
was a quadcopter drone as they passed. It did not present an immediate collision
risk and no avoiding action was taken. He reported the occurrence to ATC in
the belief that someone might be filming at Donnington Park race track and had
lost control of their drone.
Reported Separation: 500ft V/200m H Reported Risk of Collision: None |
Cause: The drone was being flown at the practical VLOS
limit and in proximity to the runway approach path 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 DHC8.
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
|
|
2018119
|
2 Jun 18
1700
|
Van’s RV8
(Civ FW)
|
Drone
|
5119N 00046W
VRP M3 J4
1850ft
|
London FIR
(G)
|
The RV8
pilot reports that both he and the passenger saw a grey
and white drone at the same time. It appeared to be of twin ducted-fan design.
No avoiding action was possible as the small size and colour scheme, combined
with its position just below the horizon, rendered it almost impossible to see
in time at their closure speed.
Reported
Separation: 10ft V/45m H Reported
Risk of Collision: Medium |
Cause: The drone was being flown at
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 RV8.
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
|
|
2018120
|
11 Jun 18
1245
|
PA31
(Civ Comm)
|
Drone
|
5132N 00026W
1nm W Northolt
350ft
|
London CTZ
(D)
|
The PA31 pilot reports that he was on final approach to Northolt
when he saw what he thought initially was a helium balloon floating up toward
the aircraft. He lost sight of it
under the nose and looked down at the wing root and identified it as a small
white drone of the lightweight hobbyist type, it was about 20ft below the
aircraft as he passed over it. He
reported that he had no doubt that it was being deliberately flown under the
flight path in an attempt to collide with an aircraft.
Reported Separation: 25ft V/0m H
The Northolt Tower controller reports that the PA31 was on finals to RW07 at a
range of 1nm and had been cleared to land when he reported that a drone had
just passed close by, down his right-hand-side. The controller acknowledged and waited for
the PA31 to land, and when taxying the pilot passed further details. He
reported that the drone had passed close to his right wing and that it was
possibly launched from a park situated on his right-hand-side. The local
police and the RAF police were informed. |
Cause: The drone was being flown in an airfield approach
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 PA31.
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
|
|
2018122
|
3 Jun 18
1406
|
A321
(CAT)
|
Drone
|
5320N 00106W
10nm SW Doncaster Airport
15500ft
|
L603
(A)
|
The A321 pilot reports that he was passing 15500ft in the climb
when he saw a drone pass very close down the left-hand-side of the
aircraft. It was within 100ft and at
the same level as it passed.
Reported Separation: 0ft V/100ft H Reported Risk of Collision: Low |
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
safety had been much reduced below the norm to the extent that safety had
not been assured. |
B
|
|
2018125
|
6 Jun 18
0931
|
Saab 2000
(CAT)
|
Drone
|
5133N 00006E
14nm SE BPK VOR
4200ft
|
London TMA
(A)
|
The Saab 2000 pilot reports conducting the Brookmans Park 5U SID from
London/City when a drone was seen to pass ‘below on the starboard wing’.
Reported Separation: 100ft V/NK H Reported Risk of Collision: NK |
Cause: The drone was being flown beyond 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 Saab 2000.
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
|
|
2018126
|
10 May 18
1050
|
A380
(CAT)
|
Drone
|
5128N 00009W
12nm E Heathrow
4000ft
|
London TMA
(A)
|
The A380 pilot reports that he was at 4000ft turning onto a
vectored ILS approach to Heathrow when a drone was seen slightly to the left
and below the aircraft. It passed below, although vertical separation was
difficult to judge because the size of the drone was unknown. There was no
time to take avoiding action.
Reported Separation: 500ft V/0m 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 A380.
Risk: The Board considered that the pilot’s overall account
of the incident was such that there was insufficient certainty of separation
with which to make a sound judgement of risk. |
D
|
|
2018127
|
3 Jun 18
1605
|
B737
(CAT)
|
Drone
|
5319N 00224W
3nm W Manchester Airport
2000ft
|
Manchester CTR
(D)
|
The B737 pilot reports conducting a SONEX 1Y SID, in a right turn,
when the F/O (PF) saw a drone below and to the right of the aircraft. The
pilot noted that an event was being held at Tatton Park, which was
immediately below the aircraft at the time of the Airprox.
Reported Separation: 200ft V/ 250m H Reported Risk of Collision: Medium |
Cause: The drone was being flown beyond practical VLOS
limits and in a promulgated departure path 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 B737.
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
|
|
2018128
|
14 Jun 18
1835
|
A320
(CAT)
|
Drone
|
5136N 00020W
9nm NE Heathrow
6000ft
|
London TMA
(A)
|
The A320 pilot reports that he was inbound to Heathrow, passing
6000ft when he spotted a drone in front of his aircraft. Its flight path was assessed as close, but
because collision was unlikely no avoiding action was taken. The drone passed
down the right-hand-side. It was
reported to ATC and to the police.
Reported Separation: 500ft V/100m H Reported Risk of Collision: Medium
The Heathrow controller reports that the A320 was in the Harrow area, at about
6000ft when the pilot reported a white or grey drone in his vicinity. |
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 A320.
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
|
|
2018129
|
14 Jun 18
1900
|
B767
(CAT)
|
Drone
|
5128N 00020W
4nm E LHR
1200ft
|
London CTR
(D)
|
The B767 pilot reports that a drone was encountered whilst at 4nm
on the approach to RW27L. The incident was reported to LHR Tower.
Reported Separation: 0ft V/ 30ft H Reported Risk of Collision: Low |
Cause: The drone was being flown in a promulgated arrival
path 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 B767.
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
|
|
2018130
|
15 Jun 18
1755
|
A320
(CAT)
|
Drone
|
5127N 00009W
12nm E Heathrow
3400ft
|
London TMA
(A)
|
The A320 pilot reports that he was at 12.5nm final for RW27L at
LHR, a drone appeared on the right-hand side approximately 100-200ft from the
aircraft. It was red and black in
colour and reported to LHR Tower, they advised other aircraft of the
situation. Avoiding action was not
required as it was seen whilst passing.
Reported Separation: 0ft V/100-200ft 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 A320.
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
|
|
2018131
|
17 Jun 18
1705
|
A320
(CAT)
|
Drone
|
5127N 00021W
3nm E Heathrow
900ft
|
London CTR
(D)
|
The A320 pilot reports that the previous aircraft had reported a drone
sighting which was reported by Tower. At
1000ft the PM (FO) clearly saw a drone pass close down the right-hand side of
the aircraft. It was a small white
drone with 4 rotors that resembled a DJI phantom. A report was passed to Tower.
Reported Separation: 40ft V/30m H Reported Risk of Collision: Medium |
Cause: The drone was being flown in the vicinity of an
airfield approach 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 A320.
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
|