|
2018194
|
17 Jul 18
1328
|
B747
(CAT)
|
Drone
|
5131N 00001W
Heathrow Approach
5100ft
|
London TMA
(A)
|
The B747 pilot reports that whilst on right base for Heathrow RW27L
and descending through 5100ft, a drone was spotted a few hundred metres
directly in front of the aircraft. It
was in view for 2-3 seconds and then passed overhead the cockpit. It was dark red/magenta in colour and the
size of a dustbin lid.
Reported Separation: 50ftV/0m H Reported Risk of Collision: High
The LL FIN controller reports that he was vectoring the B747 onto base, it
was passing 5000ft for 4000ft when the pilot reported flying 50ft beneath a
red drone. |
Cause: The drone was being flown above the VLOS limit and
at an altitude 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 B747.
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
|
|
2018195
|
17 Jul 18
1350
|
B787
(CAT)
|
Drone
|
5129N 00005W
Heathrow Approach
4400ft
|
London TMA
(A)
|
The B787 pilot reports that he had been advised by a general
broadcast on a previous Heathrow frequency that a drone had been reported
about 3nm north of a point at 10 miles final to RW27L at altitude 5000ft. On
handover to Heathrow Director he was advised again of the location and to
expect a later descent clearance and a tighter intercept to avoid the original
sighting location. During the descent the First Officer (PM) saw a quadcopter
drone in the left 10 o’clock position at less than 1nm range. It was apparent
that it would pass clear of the left wing. The incident was reported immediately
to Heathrow Director, the position of the drone being estimated as just 1
mile north of the centre line for RW27L.
Reported Separation: 0ftV/300m H Reported Risk of Collision: High
The Heathrow Director reports that having
had a previous drone report to the north of the approaches for Heathrow, he
had been keeping aircraft at 6000ft (above the reported drone level) until
they were clear of the immediate area, notifying crews and asking if they
could see anything. The B787 pilot was given further descent followed by an
intercept heading to establish on RW27L localiser when the crew reported a
new drone sighting in their 9 o'clock at 1nm, at 4500ft, possibly silver or
white in colour (approximately 14nm final RW27L and south of the previous
report). Nothing was seen on radar therefore no avoiding action was given. |
Cause: The drone was being flown above the VLOS limit and
at an altitude 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
although safety had been reduced, there had been no risk of collision. |
C
|
|
2018196
|
24 Jul 18
1855
|
E190
(CAT)
|
Drone
|
5130N 00001W
London City
1800ft
|
London CTR
(D)
|
The E190 pilot reports that he was on an outbound course from
London City RW27, at 2nm he commenced a right turn onto north. A metallic drone with 4 propellers was
spotted travelling in a south-west direction.
It passed about 50ft below the left wing. ATC were advised.
Reported Separation: 50ft V/ 500m H Reported Risk of Collision: High |
Cause: The drone was being flown at or above the practical
VLOS limit and in an airfield departure lane 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: Although the pilot stated that the separation was
500m laterally, the Board felt that his being able to describe the drone in
detail indicated that it had been at much closer range. The Board therefore 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
|
|
2018197
|
25 Jul 18
1345
|
A319
(CAT)
|
Drone
|
5323N 00022W
Manchester Approach
600ft
|
Manchester CTR
(D)
|
The A319 pilot reports that on contact with Manchester Radar, the
controller advised a drone had been sighted at about 2nm from touchdown,
slightly north of the final approach track for RW23R. ATC reported no
sightings in the previous ten minutes. A normal approach was flown when about
2nm from touchdown the Captain (PF) observed a quadcopter drone about 200ft
below the aircraft, in line with the nose, tracking north, within 300m of the
fuselage. He was able to observe the sun glinting off the turning propeller
blades. PM did not see the drone.
Reported Separation: <100ft V/~150m Reported Risk of Collision: High |
Cause: The drone was being flown 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
|
|
2018198
|
25 Jul 18
1321
|
B737
(CAT)
|
Drone
|
5323N 00211W
Manchester
1100ft
|
Manchester CTR
(D)
|
The B737 pilot reports that at 2.5- 3nm on approach to Manchester
RW23R, the aircraft was fully configured for landing, with gear down and
checks complete, when he saw a sun flash, which on glancing right he saw to
be a white, medium sized drone. It was
below and right no more that 100-200ft vertically from the aircraft. The Captain (PF) did not see it. The FO
passed brief details to ATC and on landing to the Police.
Reported Separation: 100-200ft V/30m H Reported Risk of Collision: Not reported
The Manchester Controller reports that at 1321 the B737 pilot reported seeing
a white drone abeam 2nm final for RW23R, just on their right-hand-side by
about ‘100yds’ and slightly below.
Traffic Information was passed to other aircraft on approach and at
1348 another pilot reported seeing the drone in the same location on the
approach [Airprox 2018197]. |
Cause: The drone was being flown 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 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
|
|
2018199
|
24 Jul 18
1102
|
DA42
(MoD)
|
Drone
|
5044N 00322W
Exeter Approach
600ft
|
Exeter ATZ
(G)
|
The DA42 pilot reports conducting an ILS approach to RW26 when a small
white object was noticed by the left-seat non-handling pilot, to the left
(south) of the final approach track. It appeared initially to be a seabird
but the speed of movement and left to right flight path across the approach lane
made it appear unusual. At CPA the object was clearly identifiable as a
moderate sized white quadcopter, however, reliable distance estimation was
difficult due to the unknown size of the drone. Exeter Tower were informed of
the position of the drone on frequency (with 2 aircraft behind on the
approach) and a report submitted on landing.
Reported Separation: ‘500-1000ft’ Reported Risk of Collision: Low |
Cause: The drone was being flown 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 DA42.
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
|
|
2018200
|
15 Jul 18
1327
|
E190
(CAT)
|
Drone
|
5131N 00001W
London City
3000ft
|
London TMA
(A)
|
The E190 pilot reports that he was departing from London City
RW27. On passing 3000ft he saw a small
drone approximately 10-30m away. He
reported the incident to Thames Radar.
Reported Separation: 10-30m H Reported Risk of Collision: Not reported |
Cause: The drone was being flown above the VLOS limit and
in an airfield departure lane 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
|
|
2018201
|
25 Jul 18
1518
|
B787
(CAT)
|
Drone
|
5143N 00007W
Brookmans Park VOR
6200ft
|
London TMA
(A)
|
The B787 pilot reports that as they left 6000ft with a clearance to
climb to FL150, the Captain saw a red and black drone through his side
window. Their trajectory was taking them up and away from the drone, which
was reported to ATC.
Reported Separation: 100ft V/30m Reported Risk of Collision: High |
Cause: The drone was being flown above the VLOS limit and
at an altitude 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
|
|
2018203
|
30 Jul 18
1637
|
Saab 2000
(CAT)
|
Unk Obj
|
5208N 00014E
4nm NE Duxford
FL200
|
London TMA
(A)
|
The Saab 2000 pilot reports in the descent towards NUDNA when an object
resembling a Chinese Lantern was seen as it passed down the left side of the
aircraft, slightly above. ATC were notified.
Reported Separation: ~0ft V/<100ft H Reported Risk of Collision: Not reported |
Cause: The Board were unable to determine the nature of
the object reported and so agreed that the incident was therefore 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
|
|
2018210
|
16Jul 18
1752
|
Saab 2000
(CAT)
|
Drone
|
5130N 00005E
London City
1800ft
|
London CTR
(D)
|
The Saab 2000 pilot reports that during the final approach phase to RW27
at LCY, when passing 1800ft, a drone passed down the right-hand-side of the
aircraft, about 150m away.
Reported Separation: ‘150m’ Reported Risk of Collision: Not reported
The London City Tower controller reports that an inbound Saab pilot reported seeing a
drone just off their right wing, 1nm from touchdown on RW27. The incident was reported to the police. |
Cause: The drone was being flown at or above the practical
VLOS limit and in an airfield approach lane 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 Saab
2000.
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
|
|
2018214
|
2 Aug 18
1442
|
A321
(CAT)
|
Drone
|
5127N 00024W
Heathrow
2000ft
|
London CTR
(D)
|
The A321 pilot reports that during an approach to Heathrow RW27R he
saw a drone about 100m left of the aircraft at the same altitude. It was
reported to Tower and to the police.
Reported Separation: 0ft V/ 100m H Reported Risk of Collision: None |
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
although safety had been reduced, there had been no risk of collision. |
C
|
|
2018215
|
30 Jul 18
1935
|
A319
(CAT)
|
Drone
|
5141N 00023W
ivo Bovingdon VOR
FL080
|
London TMA
(A)
|
The A319 pilot reports that they were being vectored for RW27R when
they saw in front and slightly above what was thought to be a helium party
balloon with string dangling underneath, as is commonly seen in the FIR. As they
got closer it became obvious that it was a black quadcopter drone of fairly
large size with some sort of underslung camera system. As they passed
underneath and slightly to the left they could see a green-blue light being
emitted from the underslung assembly. The object was moving in the windscreen
and it was assessed that they were not on a collision course, hence no
avoiding action was necessary.
Reported Separation: ~200ftV/~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 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
|
|
2018220
|
19 Aug 18
1520
|
AW189
(SAR)
|
Unk Obj
|
5116N 00117E
Ash
700ft
|
London FIR
(G)
|
The AW189 pilot reports that he was in transit when an object, believed to be a white
and grey large kite or balloon, was seen directly ahead of the aircraft by
the co-pilot at a range of about ¼nm. As soon as it was realised that the
object was a collision risk the co-pilot called for an immediate 'break
right'. The commander (PF) immediately responded and the object passed down
the left side of the aircraft at a distance estimated to be 150m. Although
the object could not be clearly identified by the co-pilot, it was suspected
to be a balloon or kite which was estimated to be 3m-4m in height. On return
to base the incident was reported to the local ATC unit. The pilot noted that
another workload factor was the assessment of TCAS II contacts in the
vicinity.
Reported Separation: 0ft V/150m H Reported Risk of Collision: High |
Cause: The Board were unable to determine the nature of
the object so agreed that the incident was therefore best described as a
conflict in Class G.
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
|
|
2018222
|
17 Aug 18
1636
|
B737
(CAT)
|
Drone
|
5153N 00007E
ivo Stansted
FL100
|
London TMA
(A)
|
The B737 pilot
reports that they were being vectored for RW22 at Stansted when the Captain
called ‘drone’, at which point the FO looked up and saw a dark coloured
square/rectangle shaped object pass down the right side of the aircraft with
minimal separation. The airframe was inspected on the ground after landing
for any evidence of suspected contact or damage and none was observed. The
incident was reported to ATC immediately after making visual contact and, following
confirmation, ATC confirmed they would be filing a report.
Reported Separation: ~50ft V/~50-200m 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
|
|
2018225
|
20 Aug 18
1547
|
A319
(CAT)
|
Drone
|
5129N 00034W
Heathrow
3000ft
|
London CTA
(A)
|
The A319 pilot reports that on departure from Heathrow RW27R,
passing 4DME and 3000ft he saw a drone about 200-300m ahead and 30m right of
the nose, about 200ft above. The drone
was black in colour, which contrasted with the white overcast cloud above,
which is why it caught his attention. It appeared to be hovering just to the
right of the departure track and as they climbed out they passed about 100ft
below it and 30m horizontally. By the time he had seen it and communicated it
to the Captain who was the handling pilot, they had passed it. It was only visible for 2-3 seconds. He
opined that they were relatively heavy and therefore had a poor climb
performance, if they had been lighter they would have passed much closer to
the hovering altitude of the drone and risk of impact would have been very
high. They reported it to ATC. The
drone looked similar in size and design to the DJI Mavic Pro, a rectangular
bodied quadcopter and they were between cloud layers, so it was unlikely to
be flown by visual line of sight.
Reported Separation: 100ft V/30m H Reported Risk of Collision: High
The NE Deps Controller reports that the A319 pilot reported a drone whilst
on departure. He informed the
following aircraft and the Heathrow Tower Controller. No other pilots reported seeing the drone. |
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 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
|
|
2018227
|
24 Aug 18
1645
|
A320
(CAT)
|
Drone
|
5127N 00013W
Heathrow
2600ft
|
London CTA
(A)
|
The A320 pilot reports that whilst established on the Heathrow ILS
he observed a bright blue drone, probably hovering (it was difficult to tell
because of the closing speed) at around 100ft above them. The drone was
roughly in the 1 o’clock when first spotted and passed down the
right-hand-side. There was no time to
take avoiding action. He noted that the drone was medium sized and appeared
to be of a vertical plan form rather than the more normal horizontal form.
Reported Separation: 100-150ftV/’difficult to tell’ 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 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
|
|
2018228
|
6 Aug 18
1858
|
A320
(CAT)
|
Drone
|
5130N 00037W
6nm WNW Heathrow
|
London TMA
(A)
|
The A320 pilot reports that on initial climb out from Heathrow RW27R
a red and yellow quadcopter drone was sighted. It passed down the right side,
from left to right. The drone was not considered a threat given the A320
flight path and no avoiding action was taken.
Reported Separation: 800ft V/200m H Reported Risk of Collision: Low |
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 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
|
|
2018234
|
25 Aug 18
1220
|
A321
(CAT)
|
Drone
|
5226N 00204W
Manchester
3000ft
|
Manchester CTR
(D)
|
The A321 pilot reports that he was fully established on the
Manchester ILS for RW23R when he saw a medium sized red drone pass down the
right-hand-side of the aircraft at the same level and a distance of about
100m. ATC were informed.
Reported Separation: ~0ft V/100m H Reported Risk of Collision: Not reported |
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
safety had been much reduced below the norm to the extent that safety had
not been assured. |
B
|