|
2020135
|
24 Sep 20
0800
|
A321
(CAT)
|
Drone
|
5127N 0004W
15NM E Heathrow
4500ft
|
London TMA
(A)
|
The A321 pilot reports that they were on final to Heathrow RW27L,
when at 4500ft a drone was spotted. It was to the right of the aircraft, at
the same altitude and about 50-100m away. It was reported as medium sized,
dark in colour (black or blue) and had something below the drone, perhaps a
camera. It was reported to Tower.
Reported Separation: 0ft V/50-100m H Reported Risk of Collision: Low
The
Heathrow controller reports that on
first contact with the A321 pilot, they reported seeing a drone at 4500ft, to
the right of the aircraft about 100m away. Subsequent aircraft were informed,
as were the police. |
In the Board’s opinion the reported altitude and/or
description of the object were sufficient to indicate that it could have been
a drone.
Applicable
Contributory Factors: 1, 2, 3, 4, 7
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
|
|
2020140
|
25 Sep 20
0942
|
Tutor
(RN)
|
Drone
|
5100N 00221W
10NM E Yeovilton
2000ft agl
|
London FIR
(G)
|
The Tutor pilot reports that they were in the right-hand seat acting
as safety pilot for another QFI conducting a PAR approach under the hood in
VMC. At 2000ft QFE (1004hPa), 10.7NM east of Yeovilton, heading about 280°, they
were briefly visual with a UAV which unmasked to the right of the coaming and
rapidly disappeared underneath down the right-hand side of the aircraft. The
UAV a possible quadcopter, about 1m across, coloured blue and yellow; it
passed approximately 100ft below them displaced right (north) by around 50m.
Brief details of the event were passed to Yeovilton Radar for logging and an Airprox
report initiated post landing to minimise disruption to the sortie flow.
Reported Separation: 100ft V/50m H Reported Risk of Collision: Low |
In the Board’s opinion the reported altitude and/or
description of the object were sufficient to indicate that it could have been
a drone.
Applicable
Contributory Factors: 1, 2, 4, 7
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
|
|
2020142
|
16 Sep 20
1300
|
Hawk
(MoD ATEC)
|
Model ac
|
5028N 00413W
8NM NNW Plymouth
300ft agl
|
London FIR
(G)
|
The Hawk
pilot reports conducting a low-level
currency sortie, routing between 2 microlight sites. The front seat handling
pilot saw a small model aircraft (estimated as having a 2-3' wingspan)
directly ahead at the same level. A 5g break was conducted away from the
model aircraft which was estimated to pass 200-300ft down the right-hand side
of the now belly-up, Hawk. A useful lesson learnt was that it took the pilot
2-3secs to realise that the observed aircraft was indeed a model and was therefore
much smaller and much closer than initially estimated. With more UASs/model
aircraft around, it is a worthwhile reminder to "create the miss"
immediately and then observe later.
Reported Separation: 0ft V/2-300ft H Reported Risk of Collision: Low |
In the Board’s opinion the reported altitude and/or
description of the object were sufficient to indicate that it was probably a
model aircraft.
Applicable
Contributory Factors: 4, 6
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
|
|
2020144
|
11 Oct 20
1509
|
SR22
(Civ Fw)
|
Drone
|
5118N 00001E
2.5NM SW Biggin Hill
1600ft
|
London FIR
(G)
|
The SR22 pilot reports that they were on an extended left base for
RW03 at Biggin Hill, level and reducing speed, when a drone was sighted as it
whizzed past the right-hand-side just above the wingtip. The Airprox occurred
above a paraglider site, the site is normally dormant, but on this day, there
were many colourful canopies on the ground and there had been a promulgated
NOTAM about parachute/paraglider activity for a festival there two days prior
(9th Oct). The pilot opined that the drone was filming the
festival. Biggin Hill Ops and the police were informed. The drone was about
50cm square and 30cm deep, dark in colour and was probably stationary.
Reported Separation: 5ft V/ 15M H Reported Risk of Collision: None
The
Biggin Hill controller reports that
the SR22 was joining left base for RW03 when the pilot reported a drone about
2.6NM southwest of Biggin Hill, operating at 1700ft. The pilot thought that
the drone was operating from the same area as the Warlingham paragliders. The
police were informed. |
In the Board’s opinion the reported altitude and/or
description of the object were sufficient to indicate that it could have been
a drone. The Board also considered it unlikely that the drone would have been
associated with the paragliders because the reported altitude of the drone
was well above any paragliding activity and hence not amenable to filming.
Applicable
Contributory Factors: 1, 2, 4, 6
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
|
|
2020148
|
10 Oct 20
1527
|
C510
(Civ Comm)
|
Unk Obj
|
5129N 00035E
2NM S Canvey Island
4000ft
|
London TMA
(A)
|
The C510 pilot reports that they were flying on vectors for an ILS approach
to Biggin Hill. They were at 4000ft on the QNH of 1022hPa when they suddenly
saw a flying object at their 11 o’clock position. It was not on their
flightpath, but they passed it at a distance of about 50m from their left
wing. They advised Thames Radar about the sighting and filed an Airprox
report.
Reported Separation: NK V/50m H Reported Risk of Collision: NR
The NATS Safety Investigation reports that the pilot described the encounter as “it
looked like a drone, it was quite stable, we overtook it and we had it with
our left wing.” Analysis of the radar indicated that there were no
associated primary or secondary contacts visible on radar at the approximate
time of the event.
|
In the Board’s opinion the reported altitude and/or
description of the object were such that they were unable to determine the
nature of the unknown object.
Applicable
Contributory Factors: 4, 7
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
|
|
2020150
|
16 Oct 20
1126
|
A321
(CAT)
|
Unk Obj
|
5128N 00024W
1NM E LHR
1700ft
|
London CTR
(D)
|
The A321 pilot
reports that during the take-off roll RW09R LHR on DET 1J departure an ATC
broadcast was made of a drone sighting 2NM east of the airfield. This
information was repeated directly to the aircraft pilot once airborne.
Autopilot was engaged and lookout maintained. Upon passing 3000ft at LON 3NM
during a right-turn a bright red object was observed passing down the left-hand
side of the aircraft about 20ft off the left wing. Due to the speed of passing
they were unable to ascertain whether it was a helium balloon or a drone. ATC
were informed.
Reported Separation: NR V/20ft H Reported Risk of Collision: NR |
In the Board’s opinion the reported altitude and/or
description of the object were such that they were unable to determine the
nature of the unknown object.
Applicable
Contributory Factors: 4, 5
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
|