Tag Archives: UK

Drone near-miss reported involving a Flybe ATR-72 near Newquay Airport

Flybe ATR-72 was reportedly involved in a near-miss with a drone near Newquay Airport on 9 August 2016. Separation distance reported as unknown.

An ATR-72 (OY-RUG), operating flight BE1825 from London-Stansted Airport reported observing a drone while 2 miles out on approach.

Aircraft: ATR-72
Operator: Flybe
Flight: BE1825
Aircraft altitude: 900 ft
Separation: unknown
Source: http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-cornwall-37042796


Please note:

Please note that separation distances are solely based on pilot’s judgements and not necessarily accurate since horizontal and vertical separation distances can be hard to judge.

Drone airpox report involving an Embraer ERJ-170 near London City Airport

The UK Airprox Board investigated a drone near-miss reported by Embraer ERJ-170 near London City Airport on 6 December 2015. Separation distance reported as 164 feet.

On 6 December 2015, the pilot of an ERJ-170 reported that he was on final approach to London City, passing 1000ft when he saw a red and black UAV. He reported that there was a high cockpit workload as they were landing, and it was too late to take any avoiding action. The drone passed overhead by 100ft and 50m to the port side. It could have been stationary, but the wind at this level was in excess of 20kts. He believed that the aircraft about 2mins ahead of him had also reported seeing the drone.

Reported separation: 100 ft vertical (30 m) / 164 ft (50 m) horizontal.

Aircraft: Embraer ERJ-170
Operator:
Flight:
Aircraft altitude: 1000 ft
Separation: 164 feet
Source: UKAB


Please note:

Please note that separation distances are solely based on pilot’s judgements and not necessarily accurate since horizontal and vertical separation distances can be hard to judge.

Drone airpox report involving a British Airways Airbus A319 near London-Heathrow Airport

The UK Airprox Board investigated a drone near-miss reported by British Airways Airbus A319 near London-Heathrow Airport on 28 November 2015. Separation distance reported as 3040 feet.

On 28 November 2015, the pilot of an Airbus A319 reported that at approx. 1900ft on final approach to London-Heathrow Airport both crew members spotted an object moving rapidly from west to east roughly half a mile to the south of their position. Its height was hard to judge because its size was unknown, but it was thought to be between 400-900ft below them, and was noticeable due to the sunlight glinting off its upper surface. It was overhead Richmond and heading towards Richmond Park. They assessed its flight path as no risk to their own so continued with the approach, had it been further north they felt they would have needed to go-around. Given that they saw the drone at the same time as final configuration for landing, during a high cockpit workload, they considered that it was highly distracting.

Reported separation: 400-900 ft (121-274 m) vertical / 0,5 NM (926 m) horizontal.
Flight involved: BA831 Dublin (DUB) – London-Heathrow (LHR); Airbus A319 G-EUOC

Aircraft: Airbus A319
Operator: British Airways
Flight: BA831
Aircraft altitude: 1900 ft
Separation: 3040 feet
Source: UKAB


Please note:

Please note that separation distances are solely based on pilot’s judgements and not necessarily accurate since horizontal and vertical separation distances can be hard to judge.

Drone airpox report involving a Monarch Airlines Airbus A321 near London-Heathrow Airport

The UK Airprox Board investigated a drone near-miss reported by Monarch Airlines Airbus A321 near London-Heathrow Airport on 28 November 2015. Separation distance reported as 80 feet.

On 28 November 2015, the pilot of an Airbus A321 reported conducting a normal ILS Approach to RW26L at London-Gatwick Airport. The Captain was flying (PF) and the reporting pilot was pilot monitoring (PM). At 100ft agl he saw what he assumed was a bird hovering at about that height above the RW26L touchdown markers, on the centreline, which did not warrant mentioning. He kept watching, with increasing suspicion as the object remained in the same spot in the front cockpit window, hovering, entirely stationary, and not ‘flapping’, unlike a bird. At about 30ft agl, when just about to land, he realised it was a drone with a dark/black colour frame. He lost sight of the drone at 20ft agl and continued for a normal landing. He noted that there was not enough time to state or discuss the sighting with the PF at such a critical phase of flight.

Reported separation: 80 ft (24 m) vertical / 0 ft horizontal.
Flight involved: ZB265 Alicante (ALC) – London-Gatwick (LGW); Airbus A321 G-ZBAM

Aircraft: Airbus A321
Operator: Monarch Airlines
Flight: ZB265
Aircraft altitude: 100 ft
Separation: 80 feet
Source: UKAB


Please note:

Please note that separation distances are solely based on pilot’s judgements and not necessarily accurate since horizontal and vertical separation distances can be hard to judge.

Boeing 737 involved in drone near miss incident near Leeds/Bradford Airport

The pilot of a Boeing 737 reported a near miss with a drone while on final approach to runway 32 at Leeds/Bradford Airport (LBA), U.K. on July 9, 2015

The aircraft was passing through 1800 feet on the ILS at the time. Both crew saw a black and white, 4-rotor helicopter type drone to the left of them. The drone was seen too late to take avoiding action and passed abeam them. The assessed the risk of collision as ‘Medium’.

Members of the UK Airprox Board (UKAB) agreed that, even had they been operating using first-person view (FPV), the quadcopter operator should neither have allowed the drone to fly above 1000 feet nor operate over a built-up area. Therefore, because the drone was being flown inappropriately, they determined the cause of the Airprox to be that the drone had been flown into conflict with the B737.
For the drone to have been identified specifically as a black and white 4-rotor drone this indicated that it was probably closer than the pilots’ estimate of 300m. As a result, the Board considered that, in this case, it was therefore likely that safety margins had been much reduced below the normal.

Drone airpox report involving an Emirates Airbus A380 near London-Heathrow Airport

The UK Airprox Board investigated a drone near-miss reported by n Emirates Airbus A380 near London-Heathrow Airport on 13 October 2015. Separation distance reported as 262 feet.

On 13 October 2015, the pilot of an Airbus A380 reported being on the DET 1J SID from London-Heathrow Airport. In the right turn, the crew observed a large object at the same altitude which appeared to be taking avoiding action. The object passed within 70-80m, down the port side. It was greyish-white in colour, had a span of about 2m and was semi-circular in design; it appeared to have propulsion at the rear of the structure. No avoiding action was necessary. They advised ATC of the sighting, and a follow-up call was made to the airport police.

Reported separation: 150 ft (46 m) vertical / 262 ft (80 m) horizontal.
Flight involved: EK030 London-Heathrow (LHR) – Dubai (DXB); Airbus A380 A6-EEE

Aircraft: Airbus A380
Operator: Emirates
Flight: EK30
Aircraft altitude: ft
Separation: 262 feet
Source: UKAB


Please note:

Please note that separation distances are solely based on pilot’s judgements and not necessarily accurate since horizontal and vertical separation distances can be hard to judge.

Drone airpox report involving an Airbus A319 near London-Heathrow

The UK Airprox Board investigated a drone near-miss reported by Airbus A319 near London-Heathrow on 25 September 2015. Separation distance reported as 165-330 feet.

THE A319 PILOT reports approaching the LAM hold when ATC advised that a drone had been reported in the vicinity at FL080; consequently, both crew members were looking out for it. Upon leaving the hold, the FO spotted an object on the horizon, approaching them at the same level and in the opposite direction. As the object got closer it became obvious that it was either a drone or a balloon, it then passed between 50-100m off the right wing. As it passed, the FO was able to get a detailed look at it and could clearly see it to be a drone. It was a Quadcopter with two forward/downward looking lights on the central underside; it was of medium size, not a small toy drone. They immediately reported it to ATC with as much information as possible. The pilot noted his concern that a drone could be operating at such an altitude, in such a critically busy piece of airspace; he considered that it presented a serious risk of collision to their own aircraft and the other aircraft in the hold.
He perceived the severity of the incident as ‘High’.

Operating as he was in airspace within which he was not permitted meant that the Board considered that the cause of the Airprox was that the drone operator had flown into conflict with the A319. Unsurprisingly, the incident did not show on the NATS radars and, therefore, the exact separation between the two air-systems was not known. However, the Board noted that the A319 pilot estimated the separation to be between 50m and 100m horizontally (more than a wingspan away); basing their assessment of risk on this estimate, it was therefore determined that the risk was Category B, safety margins had been much reduced below the normal.

Aircraft: Airbus A319
Operator:
Flight:
Aircraft altitude: 8000 ft
Separation: 165-330 feet
Source: UKAB


Please note:

Please note that separation distances are solely based on pilot’s judgements and not necessarily accurate since horizontal and vertical separation distances can be hard to judge.

Drone airpox report involving an Embraer ERJ-190 near London-City Airport

The UK Airprox Board investigated a drone near-miss reported by Embraer ERJ-190 near London-City Airport on 23 September 2015. Separation distance reported as 50 feet.

THE E190 PILOT reports on final approach to London/City RW27 when the First Officer (PF) saw what he identified as a yellow RC helicopter 300m ahead. He called it to the Captain’s attention; both pilots simultaneously assessed that the object would not collide with them so the aircraft was allowed to continue its glidepath descent on autopilot. The pilot stated that it appeared that the drone was in level flight and that it was fortuitous their descending flight path took them clear. He notified the London/City Tower controller by radio and spoke with the police in person after landing.
He assessed the risk of collision as ‘Medium’.

The Board noted that the drone had passed close enough to the E190 for the First Officer to identify it as a ‘yellow helicopter’ and that the drone should not have been operated at the reported altitude in that vicinity. Because it should not have been flown in that airspace, it was agreed that the cause of the Airprox was that the drone had been flown into conflict with the E190. Unfortunately, tracing action on the drone operator was unsuccessful. The Board noted that the drone had reportedly passed close to the E190 (circa 50ft). They also noted that neither pilot had felt it necessary to take avoiding action to prevent an actual collision because their aircraft was already descending just below the drone. The Board agreed that safety margins had been much reduced and that there had been little opportunity for the crew to react; however, the fact that they had been able to make a conscious decision that there was enough separation prompted the Board to classify this as a Category B risk.

Aircraft: Embraer ERJ-190
Operator:
Flight:
Aircraft altitude: 2600 ft
Separation: 50 feet
Source: UKAB


Please note:

Please note that separation distances are solely based on pilot’s judgements and not necessarily accurate since horizontal and vertical separation distances can be hard to judge.

Drone airpox report involving a Boeing 777 near London-Heathrow

The UK Airprox Board investigated a drone near-miss reported by Boeing 777 near London-Heathrow on 22 September 2015. Separation distance reported as 80 feet.

THE B777 PILOT reports being in the climb-out from Heathrow when, on passing 2000ft, the Captain saw a silver or metallic drone pass down the right-hand-side of the aircraft at the same height. He described the drone as a Quadcopter type, silver or metallic in colour with “coke can” size cylinders at each corner. He estimated it to be 12-18 inches diameter. The aircraft was climbing, and therefore had a nose up attitude, which meant that the crew had limit forward visibility; the encounter was only fleeting as the drone passed down the right-hand-side, lasting probably 1-2 seconds. There was no time to take avoiding action.
He assessed the risk of collision as ‘High’.

Operating as he was in airspace within which he was not permitted meant that the Board considered that the cause of the Airprox was that the drone operator had flown into conflict with the B777. As is often the case with drone Airprox, the incident did not show on the NATS radars; the B777 pilot estimated that the drone was at the same height and within 25m of the B777, less than a wingspan away. Using this estimate as a guide, the Board determined that the risk was Category A, separation had been reduced to the minimum and chance had played a major part in events.

Aircraft: Boeing 777
Operator:
Flight:
Aircraft altitude: 2000 ft
Separation: 80 feet
Source: UKAB


Please note:

Please note that separation distances are solely based on pilot’s judgements and not necessarily accurate since horizontal and vertical separation distances can be hard to judge.

Drone airpox report involving a Boeing 737 near Stansted

The UK Airprox Board investigated a drone near-miss reported by Boeing 737 near Stansted on 13 September 2015. Separation distance reported as 165 feet.

THE B737 PILOT reports passing 4000ft on departure from RW04 at Stansted when the First Officer saw a remotely piloted aircraft pass within 50m and overhead the aircraft by about 5m. The aircraft was purple in colour with a fuselage of about 2m in length, the crew were unable to tell whether it was jet powered or had prop blades. It went from the 12 o’clock position to the 1 o’clock position on a reciprocal track. The incident happened so quickly that there was no time to take avoiding action; however, there was no indication on the flightdeck of an impact. The incident was reported to ATC.
He assessed the risk of collision as ‘High’.

Operating as he was in airspace within which he was not permitted meant that the Board considered that the cause of the Airprox was that the drone operator had flown into conflict with the B737. Unsurprisingly, the incident did not show on the NATS radars and, therefore, the exact separation between the two air-systems was not known; however, the B737 pilot had estimated the separation to be 15ft vertically and 50m horizontally. Basing their assessment on this report, the Board determined that the risk was Category A, separation had been reduced to the minimum and chance had played a major part in events.

Aircraft: Boeing 737
Operator:
Flight:
Aircraft altitude: 4000 ft
Separation: 165 feet
Source: UKAB


Please note:

Please note that separation distances are solely based on pilot’s judgements and not necessarily accurate since horizontal and vertical separation distances can be hard to judge.