|
2020065
|
30 Jun 20
1434
|
PA28
(Civ FW)
|
Drone
|
5626N 00322W
Scone Airfield
1900ft
|
Perth ATZ
(G)
|
The PA28 pilot reports when deadside descending, the student saw
the drone first and told the Instructor that there was a drone at a similar
height (1900ft on the QNH, 1500ft agl). Their standard deadside descent took them
around the object so there was no avoiding action required other than to
observe that there was no change to the drone’s position. However, had they
not seen it and descended around it, the risk of collision would have been
high. The drone was round and red/orange, about 30cm in height and 80cm in
diameter. It was stationary and seemed to be ‘horizontal’ rather than
‘vertical’ and so did not look like a balloon. Subsequently they reported it to
Tower so that other aircraft could be informed.
Reported Separation: 0ft V/300m H Reported Risk of Collision: High |
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
|
|
2020071
|
18 Jul 20
1524
|
A320
(CAT)
|
Drone
|
5129N 00011W
10NM final LHR 27R
3000ft
|
London TMA
(A)
|
The A320 pilot reports that on approach into Heathrow they were
advised by Approach control of drone activity. On passing 10NM at 3000ft ft a
red drone was seen passing right-to-left ahead of them and approximately
500ft above their position.
[UKAB
note: Airprox 2020097 reported drone activity 30min earlier]
Reported Separation: 500ft V/NR H Reported Risk of Collision: None |
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, 8
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
|
|
2020072
|
27 May 20
1551
|
B787
(CAT)
|
Unk Obj
|
5124N 00032W
5NM SW Heathrow Airport
5100ft
|
LTMA
(A)
|
The B787 pilot reports that they were on departure from LHR, under
radar control climbing through 5100ft to the SW of LHR on a heading of 285°,
when the P3 saw a reflective (shiny) black surface of a small object pass
very quickly down the left-hand side of the aircraft. It appeared to be “very
close” but a detailed identification of size and shape was not possible due
to the speed with which it passed.
Reported Separation: ‘Very close’. Reported Risk of Collision: Medium. |
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
safety had been much reduced below the norm to the extent that safety had
not been assured. |
B
|
|
2020073
|
18 Jul 20
1635
|
C172
(Civ FW)
|
Drone
|
5435N 00554W
SW Belfast City Airport
1600ft
|
Scottish FIR
(G)
(Belfast City NOTAM’d as closed)
|
The C172 pilot reports that during a navigation exercise they
encountered a drone approximately 2NM from Belfast at 1850ft, level with their
aircraft. By altering course to the right, they avoided the drone by approximately
5 metres horizontally. The drone was hovering and remained in position while they
passed it; it was light purple in colour and believed to be of the 4-rotor
type.
They
made a radio report to Aldergrove Approach who were providing a Basic Service
at the time as Belfast City was closed by NOTAM and the CTR had reverted to
class G airspace. Further details were submitted by telephone to Aldergrove
Approach after landing at their destination.
Reported Separation: 0ft V/5m H Reported Risk of Collision: Not Reported.
The Belfast Aldergrove App Controller reports that the C172 was transiting past Belfast
City, which was closed, and so the C172 pilot remained on the Aldergrove
frequency. As the C172 passed 2NM SW of the airport the pilot reported coming
very close to a UAV, which was purple in colour. Other aircraft in the region
were warned about the presence of the UAV. |
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, 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
|
|
2020075
|
21 Jul 20
1403
|
B787
(CAT)
|
Unk Obj
|
5129N 00023W
2NM E LHR
600ft
|
London CTR
(D)
|
The B787 pilot reports on final approach to LHR 27R and passing
approximately 600ft when the FO (pilot monitoring) saw what looked like a
drone pass overhead about 100ft above the cockpit. The suspected drone was
black in colour but due to the momentary sighting it was not possible to identify
any other characteristics. The possible sighting was reported to Heathrow Tower
just prior to vacating the runway. The pilot noted that the risk of collision
was likely although it was hard to determine exactly how close it was. He did
not recognise the object as a drone seen close up, but it was definitely
black in colour and looked solid and had a constant shape unlike a bird. He
thought it was rectangular but not completely uniform in shape. The fact that
he could pick out in a few seconds that it was not completely uniform made
him think that it was probably closer than he first thought which is why he
thought the risk of collision was likely.
Reported Separation: 100ft V/0m H Reported Risk of Collision: High |
In the Board’s opinion the reported altitude and/or
description of the object were such that they were unable to definitively 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
safety had been much reduced below the norm to the extent that safety had
not been assured. |
B
|
|
2020079
|
27 Jul 20
2019
|
C560XLS
(Civ Comm)
|
Balloon
|
5152N 00011E
Bishop’s Stortford
FL91
|
London TMA
(A)
|
The Citation pilot reports that an unidentified object passed close to
their aircraft during descent through FL80 approaching Luton Airport. The
object, which was silver in colour and resembled a large partially deflated
balloon, appeared to be around 1m in size and passed on the right side of the
aircraft at an estimated distance of 10-20m. This was reported to Essex Radar
at the time and the flight continued normally.
Reported Separation: NK V/10-20m H Reported Risk of Collision: NR
Enquiries
were made with The Met Office, the outcome of which led to the possibility of
the object being a meteorological radiosonde balloon being discounted.
The
NATS radar replay briefly showed (a single radar sweep) an unidentified
primary return near to the location reported by the Citation pilot. The
incident estimated altitude is taken from the NATS investigation report,
which established that the aircraft was higher at the time of the Airprox
than the pilot reported. |
In the Board’s opinion the reported altitude or
description of the object were sufficient to indicate that it was probably a
balloon.
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
|
|
2020097
|
18 Jul 20
1453
|
A320
(CAT)
|
2 x Drones
|
5132N 00002E
17NM E H’Row
5400ft
|
London TMA
(A)
|
The A320 pilot reports that they were on a base leg at 17NM and
passing 5400ft when they overflew 2 drones approximately 1000ft below. The FO
saw what was initially thought to be a balloon travelling in the opposite
direction, as it got closer it looked metallic and did not have the usual
movement of a balloon, it was at a constant altitude and not climbing towards
them. The estimate was that it was 1000ft below, given that they were at
5000ft and it appeared to be around a quarter of the distance to the ground.
Once the Captain was informed about the first drone they looked back to the
south and saw a second object on the same course as the first drone, but
slightly further west. Both appeared to be black metallic objects moving at a
constant altitude, they were more solid than a balloon and smaller than a
helicopter, more like the small drones of the type seen in parks. The drones
were 1NM apart and travelling in a northerly direction. When they later
reported the drones to ATC they were told that other pilots had also reported
seeing them.
[UKAB
note: Airprox 2020071 reported drone activity 30min later]
Reported Separation: 1000ft V/ 0m H Reported Risk of Collision: Medium |
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, 8
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
|
|
2020098
|
14 Aug 20
1550
|
C404
(Civ Comm)
|
Drone
|
5245N 00115W
Kegworth
3000ft
|
East Midlands CTR
(D)
|
The C404 pilot reports that they were conducting a survey overhead
East Midlands at 3000ft and in a right-hand turn over Kegworth when a drone
was spotted off the right-hand P2 window. The drone was a quadcopter with 4
rotors and was a reflective black colour that was shining. It was between
100-200m from the starboard wing and vertically was between 0-500ft
separation. Avoiding action was taken and once clear of conflict the pilot
reported the sighting to ATC.
Reported Separation: 0-500ft V/ 100-200m H Reported Risk of Collision: Medium
The East Midlands ATC Investigation At 1549Z the pilot advised radar that they thought
they had passed close to a drone operating nearby. The pilot estimated that
the altitude of the drone was 2500ft. Based on the pilot's initial reported
position, ATC believed the drone to be operating approximately 2.5NM to the south
of the airfield, inside the control zone but outside the flight restriction
zone. Radar advised ADC and all members of staff present in the VCR attempted
to visually acquire the drone in the reported position, all to no avail. Based
on the reported position, and the inability to sight the drone from ATC, the
ATC supervisor initially decided to carry on with operations. The drone was more
than 1000m from the airfield boundary, not believed to be posing a threat and
ATC were prepared to pass a warning to other aircraft operating in the
vicinity of the reported position of the possibility of a drone. After
landing the pilot telephoned the ATC Supervisor to discuss the sighting. The
pilot advised that they had definitely sighted something which wasn't a bird.
The object had appeared to be reflective and, although not huge, had appeared
to be curved as they would expect a quadcopter to look. The object had passed
sufficiently close to the aircraft that they intended to report an Airprox on
the incident. The pilot was asked to confirm exactly where they believed the
drone to have been. They advised they thought it was 1NM south of Kegworth. On
the basis of that report, the ATC supervisor then elected to carry out the
actions as detailed in the EMA Drone Alert Policy. It was now believed that
the drone had been within the FRZ after all, therefore all relevant parties
on the policy had been 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.
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
|
|
2020100
|
14 Aug 20
1856
|
EMB505
(Civ Comm)
|
Unk Obj
|
5217N 00134W
Warwick
3300ft
|
Birmingham CTA
(D)
|
The EMB505 pilot reports that they were flying the RNP approach to
RW33 positioning to the IAF for the procedure. They were in and out of IMC
and, moments before reaching the IAF, a drone rushed by their right-hand
side. The captain saw it, but the FO (PF) did not. It was very close, within
200/300ft of their aircraft and they were flying at approximately 200kts at
this point. The drone was reported to ATC immediately. After landing, the
captain reported to ATC and provided a sketch of the drone’s reported
position on the approach procedure.
Reported Separation: NK V/200-300ft H Reported Risk of Collision: NR
The Birmingham ATC investigation found that there were no unidentified
radar returns in the immediate vicinity of the reported drone sighting.
Reporting action was taken in accordance with extant procedures; there were
no further sightings reported. |
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
|