Monthly meeting October 2023

2023042

BE200 (Civ Comm)

C150 (Civ FW)

London FIR (G)

C

2023047

Viking (HQ Air Trg)

PA28 (Civ FW)

London FIR (G)

B

2023057

UAS (Civ UAS)

PA31 (Civ Comm)

London FIR (G)

C

2023058

L159 (HQ Air Ops)

F35 (HQ Air Ops)

D323 (Danger Area)

B

Recommendation: HQ Air Command considers reviewing kill removal procedures within Air-to-Air Training Rules.

2023061

ASK21 (Civ Gld)

AW169 (Civ Comm)

Scottish FIR (G)

C

2023063

C152 (Civ FW)

DA20 (Civ FW)

Redhill ATZ (G)

B

2023064

ASH25 (Civ Gld)

PA28 (Civ FW)

London FIR (G)

C

2023067

Apache (HQ JHC)

Jodel D11 (Civ FW)

London FIR (G)

C

2023068

A320 (CAT)

Hot Air Balloon (Civ Bal)

London TMA (A)

C

2023069

PA28 (Civ FW)

PA30 (Civ FW)

Leicester ATZ (G) / London FIR (G)

C

2023070

Spitfire (Civ Comm)

RV9 (Civ FW)

London FIR (G)

B

2023071

Juno (HQ Air Trg)

C172 (Civ FW)

London FIR (G)

B

2023072

Magni M24 (Civ Helo)

C152 (Civ FW)

London FIR (G)

B

2023073

DA42 (Civ FW)

Motor-glider (Civ Gld)

London FIR (G)

B

2023075

Lange Antares (Civ Gld)

C42 (Civ FW)

London FIR (G)

B

2023077

PA28 (Civ FW)

Arcus (Civ Gld)

London FIR (G)

E

2023079

Prefect (HQ Air Trg)

R44 (Civ Helo)

London FIR (G)

C

2023081

Bristell NG5 (Civ FW)

YAK18T (Civ FW)

London FIR (G)

C

2023082

Paramotor (Civ Hang)

H500 (Civ Helo)

London FIR (G)

C

2023083

M300 (Civ UAS)

Texan II (HQ Air Trg)

Scottish FIR (G)

E

2023092

Vans RV8 (Civ FW)

Libelle (Civ gld)

London FIR (G)

B

1

2023192

25 Jul 23

1902

B787

(CAT)

Drone

5127N 00037W

IVO Windsor

3000ft

London TMA

(A)

The B787 pilot reports that they were on a CPT departure from Heathrow, passing 3000ft in the climb, when they saw a drone. It was apparent that whilst it was very close, the drone would pass below and to their left. The drone was white, with multiple props but no lights.

Reported Separation: 20ft V /20m H

Reported Risk of Collision: High

A NATS Investigation reports that the pilot reported on frequency that they had passed a drone very close on the left-hand side, when passing 3000ft. The TC South-West Deps controller confirmed the information with the pilot and relayed this to Heathrow Tower in order that subsequent departures could be made aware of the sighting.

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

2023195

25 Aug 23

1244

A320

(CAT)

Balloon

5154N 00017W

3NM ENE Luton

FL380

London UIR

(C)

The A320 pilot reports that, at the top of descent point (overhead LTN), a white weather balloon with

red equipment suspended from it, was first observed approximately 2sec before it passed to the left and just above the aircraft.

Reported Separation: 10ft V/ 30ft H

Reported Risk of Collision: Medium

The Swanwick Area controller reports that [the pilot of the A320] reported an Airprox with a Met balloon, passing 20ft down their port-side. No other pilots reported sighting the balloon.

NATS Safety Investigations reports that, at the time of the Airprox, [the A320 pilot] was in contact with the Sector 28/34 controller, who was operating the sectors in a bandboxed configuration.

At 1244:20, the pilot reported, “We just had an Airprox with a weather balloon, passed about twenty feet, just on our port side”. At the time of the report, the A320 was descending through FL379, at 2.8NM on a bearing of 050° from Luton Airport (in Class C airspace), routeing northbound.

Analysis of the radar by Safety Investigations indicated that there were no associated primary or secondary contacts visible on radar, reference the sighting, at the approximate time of the event. Following the pilot’s report, the controller broadcast details of the sighting to other aircraft on frequency in the vicinity, but there were no further reported sightings.

Safety Investigations have not been able to identify any NOTAM’d balloon launches, or any other published activity, which could correlate with this sighting.

In the Board’s opinion the reported altitude or description of the object were sufficient to indicate that it was probably a balloon.

Applicable Contributory Factors: 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.

A

2023207

9 Aug 23

2305

(night)

EC135

(NPAS)

Drone

5334N 00211W

1NM N Middleton

1800ft

London FIR

(G)

The EC135 pilot reports that whilst in transit, passing near junction 19 of the M62, they saw the green and red flashing lights of a drone slightly below their aircraft in the 11 o'clock position. They estimated it to be about 300-500m away at a height of about 1600ft. After taking avoiding action and keeping clear of the drone, they managed to position the aircraft to watch what it was doing. It then became apparent the drone was starting to move south and descend towards a housing estate 1 mile away. The drone was seen to land in a lit back garden where a person was seen controlling it.

When back at base they spoke to Manchester air traffic control by phone. Using [drone detection equipment] they were aware of the drone’s altitude and location. Manchester Airport is conducting its own investigation with Airport Police.

Reported Separation: ~200ft V/~400m H

Reported Risk of Collision: NR

In the Board’s opinion the reported altitude and/or description of the object, combined with drone detection data, 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

2023210

6 Sep 23

1045

Typhoon

(HQ Air)

Balloon

5410N 00108W

5NM E Sutton Bank

FL113

London FIR

(G)

The Typhoon pilot reports that following completion of [their exercise], they conducted a positioning left-hand turn at 11,000ft to a heading of 030°. Prior to rolling out, an object caught their eye, slightly high, right of the aircraft nose and 2-3000ft [away]. Assessing no immediate confliction, they passed approximately 500-1000ft from what appeared to have been a large red balloon. The balloon appeared to have 2 small boxes suspended below it. They reported their position to Swanwick Mil and the location was avoided for the remainder of the sortie.

Reported Separation: “500-1000ft”

Reported Risk of Collision: Low

The Swanwick Military controller reports that they were controlling [a military flight] of three and [a further military] flight of two in the Vale-of-York (VOY) general-handling area. During this time, they were free-called by [the Typhoon pilot] to see if they could provide a service to help deconflict the formations in the VOY. A service was provided, and [the Typhoon pilot] tracked north. [The Typhoon pilot] later passed a message to ask [the controller] if they could mark their previous position as they had seen a ‘balloon or parachute’ with items tethered beneath. The Lat/Long was marked and they spoke with their Supervisor. They tried to get a description of the object from [the Typhoon pilot] before passing this to D&D.

They believe they then passed information of this object to all other [military pilots] in the VOY. There were no further reported interactions with the object for the remainder of general handling sortie. As they had no radar returns from this object, they could not have passed [specific] Traffic Information.

In the Board’s opinion the reported altitude or description of the object were sufficient to indicate that it was probably a balloon.

Applicable Contributory Factors: 4, 5

Risk: The Board considered that the pilot’s overall account of the incident portrayed a situation where normal procedures and/or safety standards had applied.

E

2023212

08 Sep 23

1807

B737

(CAT)

Unk Obj

5330N 00153W

IVO Crowden Derbyshire

4500ft

Manchester CTR

(D)

The B737 pilot reports that when on vectors (heading 360) for ILS RW23R, and passing around 4500ft descending, a red drone was spotted by the F/O at about 100M distance and passing about 100M below their right wing. They note that the distance and altitude were difficult to determine accurately as the object was small and it all happened very quickly. During turnaround, a police officer went to the aircraft and asked for further details.

Reported Separation: 300ft V/100M H

Reported Risk of Collision: NR

The NATS (Manchester) Controller reports that the B737 was vectored for a left base to RW23R. As the aircraft was passing east abeam Glossop they issued a closing turn onto the LLZ. The pilot readback the instruction and informed them that a possible red drone had passed down their right-hand side in their approximate 3 o'clock, range 1NM and 500ft below.

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 although safety had been reduced, there had been no risk of collision.

C

2023220

24 Aug 23

1834

A320

(CAT)

Drone

5128N 00019W

4NM E Heathrow

1400ft

London CTR

(D)

The A320 pilot reports that ATC had advised of reports of a drone at 1400ft and 4NM on final approach to RW27R. They had estimated that it had missed their left-hand side by about 20ft maximum.

Reported Separation: NK V/20ft H

Reported Risk of Collision: NR

The NATS (London Heathrow) Controller reports that when they had been acting as air north arrivals, [another aircraft aircrew] and the [A320 pilot] had reported a drone at 1400ft on the approach to RW27R.

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, 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

2023221

28 Aug 23

1251

B737

(CAT)

Unk Obj

5341N 00126W

1.5NM NE Wakefield

4000ft

Leeds Bradford CTA

(D)

The B737 pilot reports that they were being vectored on an ILS approach into LBA. At approximately 4000ft QNH as they were making a left turn for final intercept onto the ILS, they observed a dark, solid looking object which was assumed to be a drone out of the F/O's window. The object passed from left to right and moved away from them as they were in the left turn, turning away from it. The F/O did not see the object. It was reported to ATC at the time. The object was estimated to be around 50m away at first sighting and around the same level. Risk of impact was stated as low because they were turning away from it but had they been given a right turn, they would have been closer. No further action was taken and the approach was continued to a safe landing.

Reported Separation: 0ft V/ 50m H

Reported Risk of Collision: Low

The LBA controller reports that the B737 was being vectored for an ILS RW32. The pilot reported a man-made object passing down their right-hand side when the aircraft was established on base-leg at altitude 4000ft in the descent. The range of the 'UAS' from the aircraft was unknown. There were no primary returns on the radar screen.

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 th e incident portrayed a situation where although safety had been reduced, there had been no risk of collision.

C