Monthly meeting June 2022

2022007

H145 (HEMS)

Unk light-aircraft (Unknown)

London FIR (G)

C

2022009

SR22 (Civ FW)

PA28 (Civ FW)

London FIR (G)

B

2022010

Puma ( HQ JHC)

Discus (Civ Gld)

London FIR (G)

C

2022011

Easy Raider (Civ FW)

PA28 ( Civ FW)

London FIR (G)

B

2022012

Cabri G2 ( Civ Helo)

PA28 (Civ FW)

Chichester/Goodwood ATZ (G)

A

2022013

R22 (Civ Helo)

Van’s RV8 (Civ FW)

Shobdon ATZ (G)

B

2022014

BE200 (Civ Comm)

TBM940 (Civ FW)

London FIR (G)

C

2022015

Juno (A) (HQ Air Trg)

Juno (B) (HQ Air Trg)

Shawbury ATZ (G)

C

2022017

Piper Cub (Civ FW)

C421 (Civ Comm)

London FIR (G)

B

2022020

PA28 (1) (CIV FW)

Ikarus C42 (Civ FW)

Compton Abbas ATZ (G)

B

2022021

DJI Matrice (Civ Comm)

PA28 (Civ FW)

London CTR (D)

E

2022022

C152 (Civ FW)

PA28 (Civ FW)

London FIR (G)

C

2022024

DJI Mavic 2 (Civ UAS)

Texan II (HQ Air Trg)

London FIR (G)

B

Recommendation: The CAA and MAA jointly consider a coherent means by which non-recreational drone activity can be promulgated by drone operators and an associated method through which this information can be made available to other air users operating in either the UK Military Low Flying System or with a CAA permission to operate outside the provisions of ORS4 No.1496.

2022025

PA28 (Civ FW)

SF260 (Civ FW)

London FIR (G)

C

2022026

DA40 (Civ FW)

SR22 (Civ FW)

Oxford ATZ (G)

C

2022028

Bulldog (Civ FW)

AS355 (Civ Helo)

London FIR (G)

B

2022029

Skyranger (Civ FW)

CL600 (Foreign Mil)

London FIR (G)

E

2022076

3 Apr 2022

1456

AW189

(Coast Guard)

Drone

5043N 00133W

Milford on Sea

600ft

London FIR

(G)

The AW189 pilot reports that during a SAR training sortie transiting to a field landing site on the Isle of Wight, a large white fixed-wing type drone (approx. 5ft wide) was seen flying in the opposite direction 50ft below the aircraft at approximately 550ft agl. It was seen too late to take any avoiding action. The crew was alert having just seen a large hovering quadcopter 100m away at a similar height a few minutes before. The crew discussed the near miss, noted the position and elected to continue with the sortie.

Reported Separation: 50ft V/ 0m 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, 4, 7

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

2022078

4 May 22

1937

A320

(CAT)

Drone

Burgess Park

5129N 00005W

4200ft

London TMA

(A)

The A320 pilot reports established on the ILS for RW27R at Heathrow when the Captain (PF) caught sight of an airborne grey object ahead, slightly to the right and slightly below. The First Officer and supernumerary were asked to see what it was as they went past, and they confirmed it was an unlit drone, about 2ft across and estimated to be 100ft below and 300ft off the end of the right wing tip.

Reported Separation: 100ft V/300ft H

Reported Risk of Collision: NR

The Heathrow Arrivals controller reports that an inbound A320 reported a drone at 4200ft when passing 14 miles on final approach to 27R. They reported the size to be about 2ft by 2ft. They reported the drone to have gone below the wing down the right-hand side. TC FIN was informed to pass this information to subsequent aircraft.

In the Board’s opinion the reported description of the object was 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

2022093

27 May 22

1512

Wildcat

(RN)

Drone

1NM N Chepstow

5139N 00240W

200ft

London FIR

(G)

The Wildcat pilot reports that whilst low flying in the Wye Valley, in the stretch between Woodcroft to Chepstow, the crew noted a flock of birds taking flight from the river but remaining beneath the aircraft. Continuing to look out for additional birds that were flying from the cliffs the observer called visual with a large bird hovering overhead before changing their assessment to a drone. The pilot sighted the drone approximately 100ft above the aircraft and 100m ahead, which was steady in position. Due to the aircraft's position in the valley the pilot elected to continue with a slight descent while the observer maintained eyes on until the drone had passed overhead. The aircraft climbed out of low-level to enter the Bristol Channel and reported the Airprox to London Information with whom they had a service and had contacted prior to entering the valley.

Reported Separation: 100ft V / 50m H

Reported Risk of Collision: Medium

The London Information FISO reports that the [Wildcat pilot] reported climbing from low-level and that they had just had an Airprox with an unmanned drone. No avoiding action was taken. The drone was described as a quad rotor, white upper, black lower half. [The Wildcat pilot] reported routing via Bristol Channel and Old Severn Bridge. At the time of the incident [they were] climbing out of the Wye Valley. [The Wildcat] was at 200ft and the drone was reported as being above, at around 300-400ft AGL.

NATS Safety Investigations reviewed the radar at the time the pilot of [the Wildcat] reported the sighting, however, no radar contacts were visible.

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: 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

2022094

22 May

0946

A319

(CAT)

Drone

5128N 00033W

ivo Horton

1500ft

London CTR

(D)

The A319 pilot reports that on passing 1500ft on the SID, the Captain noticed what appeared to be a stationary ‘regular-sized, domestic hobby-type 4-blade drone’. It was estimated to be over the lakes to the south of the village of Horton.

Reported Separation: Not reported.

Reported Risk of Collision: Not reported.

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

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