|
2018318
|
14 Dec 18
1009
|
Legacy 500
(Civ FW)
|
Drone
|
5604N 00315W
8nm NNE Edinburgh
3000ft
|
Edinburgh CTR
(D)
|
The Legacy pilot reports that he was the PIC, seated on the right,
operating as PM and providing line training to a new Captain. They were in
receipt of radar vectors from Edinburgh, downwind right-hand for RW24. Having
finished the approach briefing, the PIC looked up and saw something black,
moving in his peripheral vision on the right. He turned and looked right and
clearly saw a ‘quadcopter’ like drone. There was no time to take avoiding
action. The PIC reported the drone to ATC who informed the police, to whom
the PIC gave a statement on landing. The pilot commented that he was
surprised and angry at the drone’s proximity and stated that a mandatory
identification device should be fitted to drones before a multi-million pound
engine is destroyed, or worse.
Reported Separation: 0ft V/20m H Reported Risk of Collision: High
The Edinburgh controller reports that the Legacy pilot reported an Airprox
whilst overland in the vicinity of Burntisland. The drone was not observed on
radar. |
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 Legacy.
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
|
|
2018321
|
23 Dec 18
1457
|
A330
(CAT)
|
Drone
|
5126N 00000W
4nm SSW London City
4000ft
|
London TMA
(A)
|
The A330 pilot reports that a blue drone was sighted off the
right-hand-side of the aircraft, about 200ft below. The aircraft was 1nm south of an extended
17nm final approach to LHR RW27R.
Reported Separation: 200ft V/NK H
The Heathrow controller reports that at approximately 1457 the A330 pilot
reported seeing a blue drone ‘not very big’ in size pass 300ft below. The A330 was passing 4000ft at the time and
was 4nm SSW of London City Airport. |
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 A330.
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
|
|
2018322
|
26 Dec 18
1420
|
DHC8
(CAT)
|
Drone
|
5133N 00045E
5nm E Southend
6000ft
|
London TMA
(A)
|
The DHC8 pilot reports inbound to London/City when the crew
observed a black drone with 2 red rotors. The crew observed that they were
operating above overcast cloud tops. ATC were informed.
Reported Separation: ‘below’/50m Reported Risk of Collision: High
The London controller reports that the DHC8 pilot reported a red drone with
2 propellers. The incident was reported to police. |
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 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
|
|
2018323
|
30 Dec 18
1845
(Night)
|
EMB175
(CAT)
|
Unk Obj
|
5554N 00420W
Glasgow
600ft
|
Glasgow CTR
(D)
|
The EMB175 pilot reports that on approach to Glasgow airport, when
passing about 600ft he saw an object pass between 3 and 10ft from the
aircraft, at the same level. He
couldn’t tell was the object was, it was lit up in various places and was
more horizontally long than it was vertically.
Reported Separation: 0ft V/ 3-10ft H
|
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 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
|
|
2018324
|
30 Dec 18
1832
(Night)
|
A319
(CAT)
|
Drone
|
5135N 00036E
3nm W Southend
4000ft
|
London TMA
(A)
|
The A319 pilot reports that
a suspected drone was seen on the right hand side. It had a blue flashing
light and ‘twinkling’ red light. It did not appear to be moving fast relative
to the A319, as it would do were it another aircraft, so the crew surmised
that it was just their forward speed causing the drone to pass behind them. The
pilot noted that the blue/red light intensity was low compared to standard
aircraft lighting. TCAS did not display an intruder. The incident was
reported to ATC.
Reported Separation: 0ft V/1nm 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 A319 pilot being concerned by the proximity of the drone.
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
|
|
2018325
|
12 Jul 18
1145
|
EMB135
(Civ Com)
|
Drone
|
5132N 00034W
10nm W Northolt
1800ft
|
London CTR
(D)
|
The EMB135 pilot reports that a red drone was spotted from the cabin by
the cabin crew on the starboard side of the aircraft when on extended base
leg for Northolt RW07. The drone was reported to be higher than the aircraft
and turning away in a westerly direction. Cabin crew reported the incident to
the Captain after landing.
Reported Separation: NK V/ 150m H |
Cause: The drone was being flown at the practical limit of
VLOS and in a position 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 EMB135.
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
|
|
2019005
|
12 Jan 19
0945
|
A320
(CAT)
|
Drone
|
5118N 00003E
IVO BIG VOR
FL080
|
London TMA
(A)
|
The A320 pilot reports that they were approaching the BIG hold at
FL080 when an object was noticed by both pilots in the distance. As it
approached it became clear it was a drone and was possibly being manoeuvred close
to them. It passed by the port wing at a distance of about 30-50 metres. It
was large in size and black in colour with twin rotors. No avoiding action
needed or taken, but both crew agreed that had it been closer, they would
probably have had to manoeuvre to avoid. It was reported to LHR approach controller
and the crew requested to move to another hold to avoid re-crossing the drone
next time round the hold. They were rerouted to OCK at FL070.
Reported Separation: 0ft V/30-50m H Reported Risk of Collision: Low
The Heathrow Int South controller reports that the A320 pilot reported a large black
drone passing down his left-hand-side whilst inbound to the BIG hold at
FL080. |
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 disagreed with the A320 pilot’s assessment
of risk and considered that separation was such that the incident portrayed a
situation where
safety had been much reduced below the norm to the extent that safety had
not been assured. |
B
|
|
2019006
|
9 Jan 19
1458
|
B737
(CAT)
|
Drone
|
5049N 00044W
Chichester
FL190
|
London FIR
(A)
|
A B737 pilot qualified passenger reports that he saw a large drone pass on the right
side which, after a few seconds, appeared to turn away and start descending.
The passenger stated that he was certain the object was not a helicopter or
other aircraft.
Reported Separation: ~0ft V/<500m 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 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
|
|
2019009
|
13 Jan 19
1050
|
A320
(CAT)
|
Unk Obj
|
5127N 00002E
Heathrow
5000ft
|
London TMA
(A)
|
The A320 pilot reports that during descent to Heathrow, passing about
5000ft on heading 300° he saw an unknown object passing on the left-hand-side
of the aircraft, slightly below. The object was only in sight for a short
moment. It was of a "roundish" irregular shape with
black/white/orange stripes on the top and approximately 50cm - 1m in
size. It could even have been a small
parachute. As it all happened extremely quickly, and the object was only in sight
for a very short moment, a better description of the object or the judgement
of the closest point was difficult, but he estimated it to be vertical
separation 100ft and lateral separation 100m.
He reported the event to ATC.
Reported Separation: 100ft V/100m H |
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 D.
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
|
|
2019012
|
22 Jan 19
1026
|
C406
(Civ FW)
|
Drone
|
5206N 00100W
Silverstone
FL067
|
Daventry CTA
(A)
|
The C406 pilot reports flying survey lines when he saw a large dark
coloured drone pass by on the left hand side.
Reported Separation: 0ft V/50m 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 C406.
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
|