Monthly meeting February 2023

2022158

T67 Firefly (Civ FW)

ASG29 (Civ Gld)

London FIR (G)

B

2022160

Puma (HQ JHC)

Tiger Moth (Civ FW)

London FIR (G)

C

2022161

Hang-glider (Civ Hang)

AH64 Apache (HQ JHC)

Wattisham MATZ (G)

E

2022162

EV97 (Civ FW)

Spitfire (Civ FW)

London FIR (G)

A

2022163

PA28 (Civ FW)

PA38 (Civ FW)

London FIR (G)

A

2022165

SportCruiser (Civ FW)

C150 (Civ FW)

London FIR (G)

C

Recommendation: The CAA considers reviewing the extant guidance to flight instructors for conducting exercises on quiet frequencies and include a recommendation that the flight be conducted in receipt of an appropriate level of ATS.

2022166

DA40 (Civ FW)

DA42 (Civ FW)

London FIR (G)

C

2022167

Paraglider (Civ Hang)

K8 (Civ Gld)

London FIR (G)

B

2022168

Nova Paraglider (Civ Hang)

EC135 (NPAS)

London FIR (G)

C

2022169

PA28 (Civ FW)

Unk Paraglider (Civ Hang)

London FIR (G)

C

2022171

SR22 (Civ FW)

DR400 (Civ FW)

London FIR (G)

B

2022173

ASK13 (Civ Gld)

C401 (Civ FW)

London FIR (G)

B

Recommendation: Aston Down and Cotswold Airport work together to establish a mechanism to facilitate the notification of Aston Down’s activity to pilots operating to, or from, Cotswold Airport.

2022174

C172 (Civ FW)

T67 Firefly (Civ FW)

Goodwood ATZ (G)

C

2022175

PA28 (Civ FW)

SR20 (Civ FW)

London FIR (G)

A

2022178

AW139 (Civ Comm)

Typhoon (HQ Air Ops)

London FIR (G)

C

2022179

SF340 (CAT)

AS350 (Civ Helo)

Scottish FIR (G)

E

2022181

DA42 (Civ FW)

Citabria (Civ FW)

London FIR (G)

C

2022183

AW189 (Coast Guard)

BE24 (Civ FW)

London FIR (G)

C

2022185

EC135 (Civ Helo)

PA28 (Civ FW)

Gloucestershire ATZ (G)

B

2022198

Arcus (Civ Gld)

C150 (Civ FW)

London FIR (G)

A

2022279

21 Dec 22

1525

DHC8

CAT

Drone

5439N 00550W

2NM NE Belfast City

900ft

Belfast City CTR

(D)

The DHC8 pilot reports that on approach to Belfast City ILS22, a drone was sighted [when they were at] approximately 2.8NM and 900ft. The drone passed down the left-hand side of the aircraft, at the same altitude as the aircraft. The drone was in close enough proximity to positively identify it. It was difficult to say just how close the drone was, but it was clearly visible from the flight deck and certainly a near miss.

Reported Separation: 0ft V/ NR 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 providence had played a major part in the incident and/or a definite risk of collision had existed.

B

2023001

2 Jan 23

1348

A220

(CAT)

Drone

5128N 00010W

IVO Battersea

4000ft

London TMA

(A)

The A220 pilot reports that during final intercept onto ILS RW27R at Heathrow at around 11NM from threshold, they (F/O, PF) spotted a drone to the right of the aircraft around 100m. It was to the right of the wing at a little bit lower altitude. The drone was steady (as far as they could tell) and had red and green lights. ATC was informed immediately with all information available. There was no imminent threat at that time since there was quite a distance to the drone. Upon arrival at the gate two police officers took a report with some details of the flight, and the drone.

Reported Separation: 300ft V/100m H

Reported Risk of Collision: NR

A NATS Investigation reports that the A220 was at 4000ft at the time the pilot reported the drone, which they stated was at 3700ft. The pilot reported to the Heathrow FIN controller that the drone was colourful and approximately 50m away from their right wing whilst the aircraft was at 11.1DME for RW27R at Heathrow. The pilot’s Airprox report stated that the drone had red and green lights, but this was not reported on the frequency at the time of the pilot’s report. The Heathrow FIN controller made broadcasts, informing all other pilots on their frequency of the drone report, at various points for 30min after the pilot’s drone report.

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, 5

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

2023002

8 Jan 23

2025

B737

(CAT)

Unk Obj

5028N 00146W

1NM final RW33 EGBB

550ft

Birmingham CTR

(D)

The B737 pilot reports that passing 200ft radio altitude, a drone, coming slightly from the right, in the darkness with no lights, passed above the aircraft. The crew continued to land safely. The crew reported the event immediately to Birmingham Tower after landing. An inspection was made [but found] no sign of a drone. An airport agent came on board the aircraft to get crew details.

Reported Separation: NR

Reported Risk of Collision: High

The Birmingham Tower controller reports that the [B737] landed on RW15 and the pilot reported that they thought they'd been overflown by

a drone on short final. Nothing could be seen from the tower - it was dark. Subsequent arriving and departing aircraft were informed of the report. The

ranger vehicles looked for the drone - nothing was seen. West Midlands Police reported nothing was showing on their drone detection equipment.

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 there was insufficient information to make a sound judgement of risk.

D