Monthly meeting November 2020

London TMA (A)

London FIR (G)

Unknown Aircraft

(Unknown)

2x Unknown Aircraft

(Civ Gld)

24 Sep 20

0800   

A321

(CAT)

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.

25 Sep 20

0942

Tutor

(RN)

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.

16 Sep 20

1300

Hawk

(MoD ATEC)

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.

11 Oct 20

1509

SR22

(Civ Fw)

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 (9^th 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.

10 Oct 20

1527

C510

(Civ Comm)

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.

16 Oct 20

1126

A321

(CAT)

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.