Monthly meeting July 2023

2022237

Wildcat (RN)

Tutor(A) (RN)

Yeovilton MATZ (G)

C

2023005

Phenom (HQ Air Trg)

Tutor (HQ Air Trg)

Cranwell CMATZ (G)

C

2023012

C140 (Civ FW)

PA28 (Civ FW)

London FIR (G)

C

2023013

C42 (Civ FW)

CTSW (Civ FW)

Shobdon ATZ (G)

C

2023016

A32 Vixxen (Civ FW)

Christen Eagle (Civ FW)

London FIR (G)

B

2023017

Duo Discus (Civ Gld)

BE58 (Civ FW)

London FIR (G)

B

2023021

T67 (Civ FW)

PA28 (Civ FW)

London FIR (G)

C

2023024

Hawk (Foreign Mil)

LS8 (Civ Gld)

Leeming CMATZ (G)

B

2023025

DR400 (Civ FW)

PA28 (Civ FW)

Sleap ATZ / London FIR (G)

B

2023026

DA42 (Civ Comm)

PA28 (Civ FW)

London FIR (G)

B

2023028

Tutor (HQ Air Trg)

C172 (Civ FW)

London FIR (G)

E

2023030

AS365 (HQ JHC)

Jabiru (Civ FW)

London FIR (G)

E

2023031

H175 (Civ Comm)

S92 (Civ Comm)

Scottish FIR (G)

E

2023034

Prefect (HQ Air Trg)

Yak 18T (Civ FW)

London FIR (G)

E

0

2023091

27 May 23

1400

C42

(Civ FW)

Drone

5208N 00237W

6NM NE Hereford

2900ft

London FIR

(G)

The C42 pilot reports that during the second leg of their flight, they were flying at 2900ft on 1027hPa QNH. They saw a shining object on the port side, underneath their wing, 400ft below. Four rotors of the drone were visible. They reported [the incident] to the FISO and an instructor at Shobdon on their return.

Reported Separation: 400ft 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, 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

2023100

28 May 23

1610

B787

(CAT)

Unk Obj

5129N 00038W

6NM W Heathrow

1800ft

London CTR

(D)

The B787 pilot reports that at approximately 6 mile final RW09L in the vicinity of Dedworth at 1800ft agl what appeared to be a drone passed down the left-hand side of the aircraft. It was luminous green in colour and although it was difficult to tell was perhaps 1-2ft long. It passed what appeared to be less than 100m down the left-hand side of the aircraft. Almost by the time it had been recognised it had passed clear.

Reported Separation: NK V/ 100m H

Reported Risk of Collision: High

The Heathrow controller reports that when at on final approach for RW09L at 6DME, the B787 pilot reported a drone over the river at Windsor at 2000ft altitude, they reported that the drone passed down the left-hand side of the aircraft.

In the Board’s opinion the reported altitude and/or description of the object, combined with the absence of any indication of a drone’s presence from drone detection data, 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 although safety had been reduced, there had been no risk of collision.

C

2023102

25 May 23

1935

A330

(CAT)

Unk Obj

5129N 00042W

9.5NM W Heathrow

3100ft

London TMA

(A)

The A330 pilot reports that a parachute, [initially reported on RT as a balloon], passed down the RHS of their aircraft on approach to [their destination] at 3500ft. The parachute, of approximately 2m diameter, had an item hanging below and it passed from the nose to the RHS of aircraft. It did not look like a toy item.

NATS Safety Investigations report that analysis of the radar indicated that there were no associated primary or secondary contacts visible on radar at the approximate time of the event and in the vicinity of Heathrow. Safety Investigations have also confirmed that there were no balloon releases or rocket launches published in NOTAMs on the date of the sighting, nor further reported sightings by subsequent aircraft. In lieu of any further evidence as to the nature of the object, it is not possible for Safety Investigations to confirm the object type or any further details.

Reported Separation: NK V/ NK H

Reported Risk of Collision: Medium

In the Board’s opinion the reported altitude and/or description of the object, combined with the absence of any indication of a drone’s presence from drone detection data, 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

2023117

4 Jun 23

1951

A320

(CAT)

Drone

5128N 00024W

LON 3.5D waypoint on MODMI3J

1700ft

London CTR

(D)

The A320 pilot reports that shortly after lift-off a large rectangular-body drone with solid multiple arms supporting 4+ rotors passed directly overhead the cockpit. The incident was reported by radio.

Reported Separation: 200ft V/0m H

Reported Risk of Collision: High

The Heathrow controller reports the A320 pilot reported to Air Departures that they had come into proximity with a drone just above them when at about 2000ft. The Police and airfield authorities were informed and a message included on ATIS for subsequent aircraft for 30min. There were no further reported sightings.

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 safety had been much reduced below the norm to the extent that safety had not been assured.

B

2023118

14 May 23

1257

B787

(CAT)

Drone

5129N 00000W

1NM WSW of LCY

5200ft

London TMA

(A)

The B787 pilot reports that when on heading 180°, just north of London City at 5200ft descending on a base leg to LHR RW27R, they contacted Heathrow Director and reported via VHF, that a drone passed within a wing’s length off the left-hand side of the aircraft. There was visual contact from the captain’s window. Drone was white in colour and professional sized.

Reported Separation: 20ft V/ 30m H

Reported Risk of Collision: High

A NATS Investigation reports that the B787 was at 5200ft on the London QNH of 1020hPa when the pilot reported the drone had passed them on the left-hand side. When asked if the drone was at their level, the pilot responded, “Yes. I literally thought it was going to hit the windscreen”. The LL FIN controller informed subsequent aircraft traversing the area of the sighting. There were no further reports made to ATC.

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.

A

2023122

15 Jun 23

1000

Chinook

(HQ JHC)

Drone

5100N 00007W

Haywards Heath

2000ft

London FIR

(G)

The Chinook pilot reports that when in level transit a crewman spotted a white 4-propeller drone just outside the rotor disc and slightly below. The drone was judged to be within 50m of the aircraft laterally and about 20-40ft below. The drone was in a hover at about 1950ft on the western edge of Haywards Heath. The drone was reported to London Info by the aircraft captain. No avoiding action was required.

Reported Separation: 30ft V/<50m H

Reported Risk of Collision: High

The London Information FISO reports the Chinook pilot reported they had been at Haywards Heath at 0940Z at 1.8A and that a drone had passed close to them down their left-hand side.

NATS Ltd Investigation Conclusion stated, the pilot of [Chinook C/S] reported a drone encounter to the LFIS frequency, stating the drone had passed down the left-hand side of the aircraft at 1800 feet agl, abeam Haywards Heath. It has been estimated that the UAS was at altitude 2000 feet. Safety Investigations reviewed the radar at the time the pilot of [Chinook C/S] reported the sighting, however, no radar contacts were visible.

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, 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

2023126

17 Jun 23

1133

B737

(CAT)

Unk Obj

5245N 00136W

2NM SW Swadlincote

3300ft

East Midlands CTA

(D)

The B737 pilot reports that an Airprox occurred with a drone at 3300ft during their turn to 360°. The drone passed around 50m to their right-hand-side, right-to-left. The drone comprised 2 parts. The main drone was white and appeared to be dragging a camera behind it. ATC was notified in-flight and, as requested, a phone call was made to the tower on the ground to pass on further details.

The East Midlands controller reports that, in response to the pilot reporting the drone, they asked what direction the drone had been flying. The response was ‘southeast’. At no time did the controller observe anything on the radar that appeared to be moving that gave any indication that it was a possible drone. The pilot was vectored onto the ILS and subsequent traffic was routed further to the west to ensure that they were clear of any possible interaction with the drone.

The East Midlands Airport Unit Investigation concluded that the radar returns, whilst present, could have been indicative of normal weather clutter seen on a daily basis. There was nothing on the radar which might have indicated to the controller that an unauthorised drone was present. Correct ATC actions were followed throughout.

Reported Separation: 0m V/ 50m H

Reported Risk of Collision: High

In the Board’s opinion the reported altitude and/or description of the object, combined with the absence of any indication of a drone’s presence from drone detection data, were such that they were unable to determine the nature of the unknown object.

Applicable Contributory Factors: 4, 6

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

2023136

21 Jun 23

1800

Envoy IV

(HQ Air Ops)

Drone

5140N 00249W

17NM N Bristol

FL097

London FIR

(G)

The Envoy pilot reports that at FL97, inbound to Bristol airport, when 17NM on the 353° radial (hdg 173°), a drone was sighted at the same level and passed at what appeared to be approximately 10m down the left-hand side. The co-pilot spotted the drone first, followed by the Captain shortly afterwards. The drone was a quadcopter type, silver/white with red flashes and reported to Bristol Radar immediately.

Reported Separation: 10m H

Reported Risk of Collision: Medium

The Bristol controller reports that at approximately 1800, the pilot of the F900 reported that "a drone" had just passed close to the aircraft at 9700ft. The object was reported to be red and silver in colour and was either a drone or a weather balloon. The object was reported to be approximately 30ft away from the aircraft. The pilot indicated that they would like to file an Airprox. No other aircraft reported observing the object in the vicinity within the next 30min.

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: 1,2,4,7

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.

A