|
2018053
|
14 Apr 18
1652
|
B787
(CAT)
|
Drone
|
5127N 00024W
Feltham
1500ft
|
London CTR
(D)
|
The B787 pilot reports passing 1500ft on a DET 2Z departure when a
large red and white drone was observed at approximately 1600ft, hovering
directly
on
the departure path. LHR tower was informed immediately.
Reported Separation: 100ft V/0m H Reported Risk of Collision: High |
Cause: The drone was being flown in the vicinity of an
airfield SID 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 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
|
|
2018054
|
15 Mar 18
1330
|
Chinook
(HQ JHC)
|
Drone
|
5131N 00014W
ivo H3
1000ft
|
London CTR
(D)
|
The Chinook pilot reports that whilst transiting south at 1000ft
London QNH from the Brent reservoir to the Barnes VRP, to establish on H3, the
handling pilot spotted 3 drones at 500m on the nose at the same height. At first he saw an object and thought it was
a helium balloon, due to its oblong shape and silver colour. A further 2
drones were spotted beyond the first one and were thought to be sea-gulls. He gently rolled right to ensure they
passed down his left-hand side. On
passing down the side at a distance of 100m the silver oblong drone was seen
to manoeuvre away from the aircraft and then back towards it by the crewman.
At this point they realised the objects were drones. The next two were some
20m behind the first and at the same height.
Again, one was seen to manoeuvre away from the aircraft. They were
assessed to be white, circular and dustbin lid sized. The pilot reported the
incident to the Heathrow controller.
Reported Separation: 0ft V/100m H Reported Risk of Collision: Medium |
Cause: The Board noted that the incident took place in the
vicinity of Wormwood Scrubs park. The
drone operators were entitled to operate in this area (away from a built-up
area) and within visual line of sight as long as the drones weighed less than
7kg, or less than 3.5kgs if using FPV. Therefore, the Board agreed that the
incident was best described as conflict in Class D resolved by both parties.
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
|
|
2018055
|
19 Apr 18
1355
|
E195
(CAT)
|
Drone
|
5045N 00317W
5nm E Exeter
1800ft
|
London FIR
(G)
|
The E195 pilot reports on approach to Exeter RW26 when a large
black drone passed in front of the aircraft and less than 50ft above the
flight path.
Reported Separation: ‘<50ft’ Reported Risk of Collision: NK |
Cause: The drone was being flown at about 1500ft agl and
hence at the limit of practical VLOS 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
E195.
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
|
|
2018056
|
22 Apr 18
1740
|
A320
(CAT)
|
Drone
|
5127N 00006W
Heathrow App
4000ft
|
London TMA
(A)
|
The A320 pilot reports he had just descended below the cloud on the
RW27 ILS at approx. 12.5nm range, when the Captain saw a drone passing down
the left-hand side. It was approx.
50-70m from the wing-tip and just above their level. The drone appeared to be hovering and at
first the Captain thought it was a weather balloon, however it was much more
solid and flatter in shape and was about 2ft across. Although spotted relatively late, because
they had just descended below the clouds, it was not on a collision course
and it was too late to take any avoiding action.
Reported Separation: 10ftV/50-70m 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 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
|
|
2018059
|
22 Apr 18
1210
|
A320
(CAT)
|
2 x Drone
|
5137N 00012E
2.5nm SE LAM
FL090
|
London TMA
(A)
|
The A320 pilot reports turning back to LAM to leave the hold at FL090
when a formation of 2 drones was seen about 100m below the aircraft. In the
left-hand turn, when passing north, a red and white object was seen on the
nose of the aircraft. Within a fraction of a second it was seen to pass down
the left side of the aircraft narrowly missing the left wing. Both the First
Officer and he were convinced that it would hit the left wing/engine.
Although time for identification was minimal, the Captain assessed the object
to be similar to the drones that had been seen seconds earlier. Those drones
appeared to be commercially available quad-copter machines, with which the
Captain was familiar. If this was the type involved then the drone would
certainly have passed well within 50m of the flight deck.
Reported Separation: <10ft V/15m H Reported Risk of Collision: High |
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 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
|
|
2018063
|
20 Apr 18
0821
|
Q400
(CAT)
|
Drone
|
5129N 00034W
3.7nm W Heathrow
2500ft
|
London CTR
(D)
|
The Q400 pilot reports departing London Heathrow when the Captain
saw a white quad-copter drone ahead. It was apparent that the drone would
pass underneath but the margin was small. The Captain noted that several
factors, such as increased aircraft weight or higher OAT could have resulted
in the Q400 being slightly lower.
Reported Separation: 100ft V/0m H Reported Risk of Collision: NK |
Cause: The drone was being flown in the vicinity of an airfield
SID and above VLOS limit 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 Q400.
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
|
|
2018067
|
4 May 18
1050
|
A319
(CAT)
|
Drone
|
5128N 00023W
2.5nm Final Heathrow
600ft
|
London CTR
(D)
|
The A319 pilot reports that they were on final approach to Heathrow
RW27R and at approx. 2.5DME, when the first officer saw what he at first
thought was a bird in front of the aircraft and slightly left and above the
nose. As it came past the flight deck,
it took avoiding action, pitching away from the aircraft and it became
apparent that it was a drone, black and rectangular in shape, and about 1ft
on its longest edge. It passed down
the left-hand-side of the aircraft with a vertical distance of no more than
30ft and just over the left wing-tip.
By the time the first officer had realised what the object was and
reported it to the Captain, it had already passed and they were clear.
Reported Separation: 30ft V/15m H Reported Risk of Collision: NK |
Cause: The drone was being flown 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 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
|
|
2018070
|
6 May 18
1225
|
A320
(CAT)
|
Drone
|
5149N 00032W
7nm SW Luton
FL070
|
London TMA
(A)
|
The A320 pilot reports departing London Luton when the Captain saw
a drone in the 2 o’clock position that passed about 10-20ft above and down
the right-hand side of the aircraft. The Captain commented that there was
insufficient time to manoeuvre out of the way but he also assessed that it
would not hit aircraft.
Reported Separation: 20ft V/0m H Reported Risk of Collision: Very High |
Cause: The drone was being flown in the vicinity of an
airfield SID and above the VLOS limit 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
|
|
2018071
|
4 May 18
0945
|
B777
(CAT)
|
Drone
|
5138N 00009E
LAM Hold
FL080
|
London TMA
(A)
|
The B777 pilot reports that they were in the LAM hold at FL080,
after turning left over the fix a drone was sighted on the left-hand-side of
the aircraft at approx. 1000ft below.
It was passing from the left to the right of the aircraft in a
northerly direction. It appeared to be
square and black and remained in view for 10-15 seconds until it passed
beneath the aircraft.
Reported Separation: 1000ft V Reported Risk of Collision: Low |
Cause: The drone was being flown above the practical VLOS
limit such that it was endangering other aircraft at that altitude. However,
given the 1000ft separation described by the B777 pilot, the Board agreed
that the incident was therefore best described as 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
|
|
2018073
|
9 May 18
1455
|
EV97
(Civ Pte)
|
Drone
|
5120N 00041W
5nm NE Farnborough
2050ft
|
London FIR
(G)
|
The EV97 pilot reports that he was on a cross-country flight and
navigating between Farnborough, Odiham and Blackbushe, SW of the Heathrow CTR
and receiving a Traffic Service from Farnborough. The controller was busy and he was told to
follow the railway track from J4 of the M3.
As he started the turn he saw a black object in his 10 o’clock. It appeared stationary and he took avoiding
action to the right. He established
that it wasn’t an aircraft and thought it could be a balloon or a floating
bag, but as he got closer he saw it was a black and green drone.
Reported Separation: 50ftV/100m 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 EV97.
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
|