|
2019048
|
29 Mar 19
1638
|
B737
(CAT)
|
Drone
|
5342N 00142W
Carr Gate
4000ft
|
Leeds Bradford CTA
(D)
|
The B737 pilot reports that they were descending under Radar
Control when the crew saw a white, blue and yellow drone flash past the
flight deck window, very close above and to the left. The crew assessed that
it passed between the flight deck window and the left wingtip at about the
same height as the vertical stabiliser. The incident was reported to ATC, who
were aware of some recent activity in that area. The aircraft was also
inspected for damage, with none found.
Reported Separation: 6ft V/3m H Reported Risk of Collision: High |
Cause: The drone was being flown
above the maximum permitted height of 400ft and in controlled
airspace 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
|
|
2019050
|
30 Mar 19
1409
|
B787
(CAT)
|
Unk Obj
|
5134N 00009W
Highgate
6000ft
|
London TMA
(A)
|
The B787 pilot reports that a red coloured object passed down the
right hand side of the aircraft. It was impossible to identify the object
although it was large enough to cause concern. LHR approach were informed and
an uneventful approach and landing followed.
Reported Separation: 0ft V/<100ft H Reported Risk of Collision: High |
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
|
|
2019052
|
30 Mar 19
1056
|
A320
(CAT)
|
Drone
|
5127N 00011W
Heathrow
3000ft
|
London TMA
(A)
|
The A320 pilot reports that he was established on the localiser for
RW27 when he saw a drone pass underneath and slightly right of his aircraft.
The drone had a yellow body and black propellers. It was reported to ATC and the police met
the aircraft on arrival.
Reported Separation: 100ft V/NK H
|
Cause: The drone was being flown
above the maximum permitted height of 400ft and in controlled
airspace 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
providence had played a major part in the incident and/or a definite risk of
collision had existed. |
A
|
|
2019054
|
1 Apr 19
1544
|
A320
(CAT)
|
Drone
|
5141N 00012W
5nm SE BPK
6000ft
|
London TMA
(A)
|
The A320 pilot reports that they had departed Heathrow and, just
south of BPK, he saw a black round drone with bright blue LED lights pass
very close to the aircraft. There was
no time to react.
Reported Separation: 0ft V/ 20m H Reported Risk of Collision: Medium
The Swanwick Controller reports that the A320 pilot reported seeing a drone
at 6000ft when approximately 5nm southeast BPK. He described it as 2-3ft in diameter, black
with blue neon lights. |
Cause: The drone was being flown
above the maximum permitted height of 400ft and in controlled
airspace 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
providence had played a major part in the incident and/or a definite risk of
collision had existed. |
A
|
|
2019057
|
7 Apr 19
1837
|
ATR72
(CAT)
|
Drone
|
5131N 00244W
Avonmouth
FL078
|
Bristol CTA
(D)
|
The ATR72 pilot reports in a normal climb when he noticed a possible
object in the distance. He asked the FO to verify what it was. It was identified
as a small black quadcopter about 2sec prior to passing overhead. ATC were notified
and the flight continued normally.
The Cardiff Controller reports the
ATR72 was passing above Avonmouth own navigation when the pilot reported
passing in close proximity to a drone. No other radar return was seen. The
controller notified the Bristol Radar controller and an aircraft inbound to
Bristol of the report, with a radar heading to pass 6nm to the west of the
reported position before transfer to Bristol. He then advised the Watch
Manager. Bristol reported the incident to their local policing unit.
Reported Separation: 30ft V/0m H Reported Risk of Collision: High |
Cause: The drone was being flown
above the maximum permitted height of 400ft and in controlled
airspace 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 ATR72.
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
|
|
2019063
|
12 Apr 19
1820
|
A320
(CAT)
|
Drone
|
5105N 00035W
15nm WSW Gatwick
FL098
|
London TMA
(A)
|
The A320 pilot reports in the climb when the FO saw an object above
and in front of the aircraft. The object appeared to be a large black quadcopter,
which passed above and slightly to the right.
Reported Separation: 50-100ft V/10-20m Reported Risk of Collision: High |
Cause: The drone was being flown
above the maximum permitted height of 400ft and in controlled
airspace 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
providence had played a major part in the incident and/or a definite risk of
collision had existed. |
A
|
|
2019067
|
15 Apr 19
|
A330
(CAT)
|
Unk Obj
|
5139N 00010E
LAM
FL080
|
London TMA
(A)
|
The A330 pilot reports they were level in the LAM hold when a ‘dark
static object’, most likely a drone, passed below.
Reported Separation: ~500ft V/ 0m H Reported Risk of Collision: Low |
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
although safety had been reduced, there had been no risk of collision. |
C
|
|
2019068
|
18 Apr 19
1445
|
Tutor
(HQ Air Trg)
|
Drone
|
5216N 00127W
3nm SE Warwick
1100ft
|
London FIR
(G)
|
The Tutor pilot reports that they were conducting a low-level
navigational exercise. About halfway through the sortie they turned to head
east, when the student spotted a drone and took immediate avoiding action by
making a climbing turn to the right.
As he did this the instructor saw the drone pass down the left-hand
side of the aircraft. The drone had grey
and orange markings and was estimated to have been 75cm in diameter. Had the student not taken avoiding action
they would have collided with the drone.
Reported Separation: 0ft V/ 20m H Reported Risk of Collision: Very 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 Tutor.
Risk: The Board considered that the pilot’s overall account
of the incident and the fact that avoiding action was taken portrayed a
situation where
safety had been much reduced below the norm to the extent that safety had
not been assured. |
B
|
|
2019069
|
20 Apr 19
|
PA28
(Civ FW)
|
Drone
|
5347N 00113W
Sherburn-in-Elmet
1000ft
|
Sherburn ATZ
(G)
|
The PA28 pilot reports returning to base from a pleasure flight
with two (non-pilot) passengers. He
had descended deadside on to crosswind and was looking to turn right on to downwind
when he glanced left out of the cockpit and saw an object which he first thought
was a bird but quickly deduced was a small rectangular drone. The pilot noted
that this was at a critical stage of flight as he was aware of another
aircraft which had performed a touch and go and which would potentially be at
a similar downwind position. He should have been looking right rather than
being distracted to the left by the drone and consequently felt rushed during
the remainder of the approach until established on a stabilised final.
Reported Separation: 0ft V/50m H Reported Risk of Collision: None |
Cause: The drone was being flown
above the maximum permitted height of 400ft and within the lateral and
vertical limits of an FRZ 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 PA28.
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
|
|
2019073
|
23 Apr 19
1812
|
A321
(CAT)
|
Unk Obj
|
5328N 00135W
20nm W Doncaster
FL100
|
Airway L975
(A)
|
The A321 pilot reports that they were at FL100 passing abeam
waypoint ELNOD when both the flight crew observed what appeared to be a drone
pass directly overhead the aircraft.
They estimated that it passed 20-30 ft above it. They concluded that it must have been a
drone because it was a solid, dark mass and square in shape.
Reported Separation: 20-30ft V/ 0m H
The Manchester Controller reported that the A321 pilot reported that they may
have passed a black drone on climbing through FL100. A primary return was visible on the radar
so he turned the following aircraft away to keep it clear.
|
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
|
|
2019076
|
21 Apr 19
1310
|
B737
(CAT)
|
Unk Obj
|
5244N 00119W
5nm S EME NDB
6000ft
|
East Midlands CTA
(D)
|
The B737 pilot reports that he was on a westerly heading,
descending downwind to East Midlands Airport when he spotted what initially
appeared to be a bird. First sighting
was through the front right-hand window.
Almost immediately he realised it was a drone because it was too large
for a bird and was reflecting sunlight.
The drone passed very close, down the right-hand side and was gone in
a matter of seconds. ATC were
notified.
Reported Separation: 0ft V/ 50m H Reported Risk of Collision: Medium |
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
|
|
2019080
|
21 Apr 19
1209
|
A321
(CAT)
|
Drone
|
5554N 00422W
Glasgow Airport
1000ft
|
Glasgow CTR
(D)
|
The A321 pilot reports that he was on the ILS for RW23 Glasgow
passing about 1000ft when a drone flew beneath him. The drone was estimated to be at
approximately 200-400ft, and was about 400-600ft below them. It was flying left to right at a relatively
high speed and being flown over an open grass area between Drumchapel and
Bearsden built up residential and commercial areas below the final approach
to Glasgow. There was insufficient time to take any avoiding action, but a
collision risk did not exist. The
drone was white and assessed to be a DJI Phantom type quadcopter.
Reported Separation: 600ft V/ 0m H Reported Risk of Collision: None. |
Cause: The drone was being flown either just within, or
near the lateral limit of the Glasgow FRZ. Because the Board were not able
positively to determine whether the drone was within the FRZ, they agreed
that the incident was best described as a sighting report.
Risk: The Board did not believe there was a risk of
collision, but, because they could not determine whether the drone was inside
or outside the FRZ, they were unable positively to determine whether normal
procedures had pertained (Category E) or whether, if it were inside the FRZ,
safety had been reduced (Category C) therefore they assessed that there was
insufficient information to make a sound judgement of risk. |
D
|