|
2018167
|
1 Jul 18
1747
|
G450
(Civ Comm)
|
Drone
|
5132N 00035E
East London
FL120
|
London TMA
(A)
|
The G450 pilot reports that they were heading over London at FL120,
when they saw what they were fairly certain was a drone, it was about a metre
in size and passed 50ft above them.
The sighting lasted not more than 2 seconds and allowing for human
factors including surprise, they were 80% certain it was a drone. They
reported it to ATC and pushed the ‘event’ button to record their position and
flight parameters.
Reported Separation: 50ftV/20ft H |
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 G450.
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
|
|
2018168
|
27 Jun 18 0831
|
EMB550
(Civ Comm)
|
Drone
|
5121N 00027W
4nm N OCK
FL070
|
London TMA
(A)
|
The EMB550 pilot reports leaving FL070 at a point 4nm north of the
OCK beacon when the co-pilot (PF) saw an object pass the aircraft on the
right which he believed to be a drone. Nothing was seen on TCAS and the Captain
(PM) notified Heathrow Director.
Reported Separation: 0ft V/50ft H |
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 EMB550.
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
|
|
2018170
|
12 Jul 10
1415
|
Chinook
(JHC)
|
Drone
|
5111N 00112W
IVO Popham
1200ft
|
London FIR
(G)
|
The Chinook pilot reports that he was the No 2 in a formation of two
aircraft, transiting southwest at 1200ft from the western edge of Basingstoke
towards the A303/M3 junction. The crewman initially asked for the current
height of the aircraft, before informing the crew that he had seen a drone
pass by the starboard side of the aircraft at the same height at a range of
about 200m. It was described as a quadcopter with a white body and black
legs. Neither of the two pilots saw the UAV.
Reported Separation: 0ft V/200m H Reported Risk of Collision: Medium |
Cause: The drone was being flown within VLOS limits and
clear of airfield activity. The Board 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
although safety had been reduced, there had been no risk of collision. |
C
|
|
2018171
|
07 Jul 18
1300
|
A320
(CAT)
|
Drone
|
5127N 00004W
11nm E Heathrow
3700ft
|
London TMA
(A)
|
The A320 pilot reports that at about 3700ft and 11.5nm on the
Heathrow 27L ILS, the FO spotted a black drone. It passed about 200ft below and 50m
laterally down the left-hand side.
Reported Separation: 200ft V/50m H Reported Risk of Collision: Medium
The London TCC controller reports that the A320 pilot reported seeing a drone
when on 13nm final to RW27L. A subsequent aircraft reported the same drone
and following this all other aircraft were kept at 4500ft to overfly the area
until it was certain to be clear. |
Cause: The drone was being flown above the 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 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
|
|
2018173
|
16 Jul 18
1325
|
DHC8
(CAT)
|
Drone
|
5130N 00008E
3.5nm E London/City
1400ft
|
London/City CTR
(D)
|
The DHC8 pilot reports descending on final approach at London/City
when the crew saw a black ‘quadcopter’ drone in the left 11 o’clock which
passed down the left side of the aircraft. The drone was reported to ATC by
radio.
Reported Separation: 0ft V/50m H Reported Risk of Collision: High |
Cause: The drone was being flown at the 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 DHC8.
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
|
|
2018175
|
12 Jul 18
1513
|
DA42
(Civ Comm)
|
Drone
|
5113N 00207W
2nm WSW Imber Village
4500ft
|
EG D123
(G)
|
The DA42 pilot reports that he was operating within the confines of
EG D123, maintaining an altitude of 4500ft. During a steep turn to the left
he saw a silver and red ‘quadcopter’ drone pass below and on the left. He
informed the controlling authority who informed him they were unaware of any
drone activity other than that already notified, coordinated and briefed and
from which he was already separated.
Reported Separation: 300ft V/200ft H Reported Risk of Collision: Medium |
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 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
|
|
2018176
|
14 Jul 18
0745
|
A321
(CAT)
|
Drone
|
5327N 00204W
10nm Manchester Approach
3500ft
|
Manchester TMA
(A)
|
The A321 pilot reports that he was being vectored for an ILS RW23R
at Manchester. At about 10nm finals
(in the vicinity of Arnfield Reservoir) at 3500ft, a crew member saw what
appeared to be a drone in close proximity.
It was estimated to be within 200ft laterally and at the same
altitude. It was reported to
Manchester ATC. The pilot noted that as a drone operator himself, he was
aware that some drones have software on them to prevent flying in CAS. He opined
that better education, training and regulation on the sales of the drones was
needed to minimise the risk.
Reported Separation: 0ft V/200ft H
The Manchester controller reports that the A321 pilot reported seeing a drone
to the left of his aircraft. He
reported it as white. No further
sightings were made. |
Cause: The drone was being flown above the 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 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
|
|
2018177
|
14 Jul 18
1007
|
A321
(CAT)
|
Unk Obj
|
5229N 00147W
3nm NW Birmingham Airport
900ft
|
Birmingham CTR
(D)
|
The A321 pilot reports that he was on final approach when he saw an
object pass directly beneath the aircraft. He thought it was either some sort
of balloon or a drone.
Reported Separation: 25ft V/0m H |
Cause: The Board were not able to ascertain whether the
object was a balloon or a drone and therefore agreed that the incident was
best described as a conflict in Class D.
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
|
|
2018179
|
7 Jul 18
1448
|
ATR72
(CAT)
|
Drone
|
5558N 00258W
14nm E Edinburgh
FL049
|
Edinburgh CTA
(D)
|
The ATR72 pilot reports that he was on base leg for an IFR approach
to Edinburgh RW24 when the FO saw a drone in the 12 o’clock, initially well
below but which appeared to be climbing. It passed down the left side of the
aircraft slightly above.
Reported Separation: 200ft V/10m H Reported Risk of Collision: Medium |
Cause: The drone was being flown above the VLOS limit such
that it was endangering other aircraft at that location. The Board wondered
whether there had been opportunity for the ATR72 pilot to avoid the drone but
agreed that the incident was best described as the drone was flown into
conflict with the ATR42.
Risk: The Board considered that the pilot’s overall account
of the incident, given that they had seen the drone at range, portrayed a
situation where
safety had been much reduced below the norm to the extent that safety had
not been assured. |
B
|
|
2018184
|
13 Jul 18
1434
|
B787
(CAT)
|
Drone
|
5128N 00018W
Woolwich
3000ft
|
London TMA
(A)
|
The B787 pilot reports that he was departing from Heathrow RW09R
when he saw a small drone pass down the right-hand-side of the aircraft about
200ft below. It was spotted too late
to take any avoiding action.
Reported Separation: 200ft V Reported Risk of Collision: Medium
The London TCC controller reports that the B787 pilot was departing from
Heathrow, passing 3000ft climbing to 6000ft, when the pilot reported seeing a
drone. |
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 B787.
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
|
|
2018192
|
21 Jul 18
1630
|
C152
(Civ FW)
|
Drone
|
5256N 00116W
Trowell services
2080ft
|
London FIR
(G)
|
The C152 pilot reports that he was on a navigational exercise with
a student at a height of 2080ft, when a flying object passed to their right
at a similar altitude within 15m of them.
He believed it was possibly a drone.
Reported Separation: 0ft V/15m H
|
Cause: The drone was being flown above the practical VLOS
limit 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 C152.
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
|
|
2018193
|
22 Jul 18
1742
|
B777
(CAT)
|
Drone
|
5128N 00008W
Nine Elms
3500ft
|
London TMA
(A)
|
The B777 pilot reports that he was on final approach to Heathrow at
a range of about 12nm when they encountered a drone just above and to the
left of the aircraft. It had previously been reported both on ATIS and by ATC
as being at 8 miles and at 3400 feet. Workload was high, approach was into
sun and the sighting was at the last moment.
Reported Separation: 100ft V/50m H Reported Risk of Collision: Medium |
Cause: The drone was being flown above the VLOS limit and
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 B777.
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
|