Monthly meeting July 2024

2024013

PA28(A) (Civ FW)

PA28(B) (Civ FW)

London FIR (G)

B

2024016

R22 (Civ Helo)

DA42 (Civ FW)

Gloster ATZ (G)

C

2024018

Prefect(A) (HQ Air Trg)

Prefect(B) (HQ Air Trg)

Barkston Heath ATZ (G)

C

2024019

EV97 (Civ FW)

T61 (Civ FW)

London FIR (G)

B

2024020

Skyranger (Civ FW)

AW109 (Civ Comm)

London FIR (G)

E

2024023

C150 (Civ FW)

PC24 (Civ Comm)

London FIR (G)

B

2024026

PC21 (MoD ATEC)

DA42 (Civ Comm)

Boscombe ATZ (G)

C

2024031

PA28 (Civ FW)

C152 (Civ FW)

Wellesbourne ATZ (G)

B

2024035

SZD-51 (Civ Gld)

SR22 (Civ FW)

London FIR (G)

B

2024036

PA28 (Civ FW)

RV14 (Civ FW)

London FIR (G)

B

2024037

BK117 (Civ Comm)

Typhoon (HQ Air Ops)

Scottish FIR (G)

C

2024038

A400M (HQ Air Ops)

PA28 (Civ FW)

London FIR (G)

E

2024039

Bell 429 (Civ Comm)

H130 (Civ Helo)

London FIR (G)

A

2024041

C152 (Civ FW)

PA28 (Civ FW)

Leicester ATZ (G)

B

2024042

Standard Cirrus (Civ Gld)

C182 (Civ FW)

London FIR (G)

B

2024043

Nynja (Civ FW)

PA28 (Civ FW)

London FIR (G)

C

2024044

PA28 (Civ FW)

EV97 (Civ FW)

Welshpool ATZ (G)

B

2024045

DR400 (Civ FW)

PA28 (Civ FW)

London FIR (G)

C

2024047

Phenom (HQ Air Trg)

Tutor (HQ Air Trg)

Cranwell MATZ (G)

C

2024049

DJI Phantom (Civ UAS)

AS350 (Civ Helo)

Scottish FIR (G)

E

2024051

King Air (Civ Comm)

C150 (Civ FW)

Gamston ATZ (G)

B

2024052

A320 (CAT)

Sonex (Civ FW)

Bristol CTR (D)

C

0

2024102

25 May 24

1211

ArcusT

(Civ Gld)

Drone

5216N 00056W

1NM south of Althorp

3600ft

London FIR

(G)

The Arcus pilot reports that, whilst thermalling on a cross country task between Althorp and Harleston, the crew spotted two drones approximately 500ft below. As they were at roughly 3000ft they were somewhat surprised to find drones at that height and could only assume that they were attempting to get video footage of them while thermalling. The crew kept a watching brief on the drones which eventually disappeared from their view toward Northampton (New Duston). Neither crew felt that there was a risk of collision while the drones were below but were very aware that had they encountered sink or the drones had climbed higher, there would have been a high risk of collision as the drone operator(s) would have very little indication as to height separation. The drone was described as white with 4 motors.

Reported Separation: 500ft V/0ft 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 although safety had been reduced, there had been no risk of collision.

C

2024103

11 May 24

1035

C42

(Civ FW)

Unk Obj

5144N 00414W

Ffos Las Racecourse

3700ft

London FIR

(G)

The C42 instructor reports conducting a dual navigation and land-away flight from Swansea. On the return flight they saw a cylindrical black/silver object, ‘angled forward approx 45°’, that appeared to be a drone. It passed from the 10 o'clock to 7 o'clock position, same altitude, opposite direction, no conflict, about 10m to port. The object was reported to Swansea Radio and the flight continued as normal.

Reported Separation: 0ft V/10m H

Reported Risk of Collision: High

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, 6

Risk: The Board considered that safety had been much reduced below the norm to the extent that safety had not been assured.

B

2024110

12 May 24

1039

A321

(CAT)

Drone

5205N 00010W

3NM E Biggleswade

6000ft

London TMA

(A)

The A321 pilot reports that, during descent around 5900ft, a drone flew over the top of the aircraft clearing it by about 100ft. It was reported to ATC.

Reported Separation: 100ft V/ 20m H

Reported Risk of Collision: High

The Luton controller reports that [the A321] was being positioned towards downwind-left RW07 at Luton, descending from 6000ft to 5000ft passing 5800ft when the pilot reported a drone at approximately 6000ft. On further questioning, the pilot reported that the object was "shiny" and had been approximately 100ft directly above them. The aircraft landed without further incident and subsequent aircraft were vectored clear of the area. At no point was any unknown return observed on radar in the vicinity.

NATS Safety Investigations reports that the controller informed the pilot that no other sightings had been reported and that they would keep subsequent inbounds clear of the vicinity. There were no further reported sightings.

Analysis of the radar by Safety Investigations indicated that there were no associated primary or secondary contacts associated with the report visible on radar at the approximate time of the event.

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

B

2024116

01 Jun 24

1209

A321

(CAT)

Unk Obj

5108N 00015W

IVO London Gatwick

800ft

Gatwick CTR

(D)

The A321 pilot reports a possible drone sighting encountered on short finals. The drone appeared shiny and was to the right of the aircraft and was at the same altitude, approximately 800ft. No evasive action had been required as it appeared to remain to the right (south) of the centreline. Reported to ATC and interviewed by police.

Reported Separation: 0ft V/<1.0NM

Reported Risk of Collision: Medium

NATS Unit Investigation reports that following the Air Controller clearing [the A321] to land, the aircraft reported a drone on their right-hand side at ‘less than a mile’.

In accordance with published procedures, the Air Controller informed the Tower Supervisor who, in turn, informed both Gatwick Control Centre (GCC) and the Police of the drone report.

Following the transfer of [the A321] to GMC, the Air Controller stated that they had passed Traffic Information to the following 2 landing aircraft, both of whom reported no contact; with GCC also confirming that the Drone Detection Equipment had not detected any contact relating to the pilot’s report, it was decided that no further Traffic Information needed to be passed to subsequent aircraft and normal operations had been resumed.

No change of drone state was issued by GCC, and the police interviewed the pilot of [the A321]; no additional information was forthcoming in this regard.

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

C

2024118

3 Jun 24

1606

A320

(CAT)

Unk Obj

5118N 00013W

10NM W BIG

FL090

London TMA

(A)

The A320 pilot reports that they were outbound on heading 275° from BIG. When approximately 2.5NM west of BIG a potential drone flew overhead the left side of the aircraft. They were at 9000ft. Normal flight continued with radar vectors and no change to their flight path. They reported the incident to ATC.

Reported Separation: NR

Reported Risk of Collision: NR

A NATS Investigation reports that the pilot reported that the drone flew over the left-hand side of the cockpit, only a few feet away from the top of the aircraft. The controller alerted the Group Supervisor Airports and passed information on the sighting to following aircraft.

The A320 pilot submitted an Airprox report in response to the sighting of drone whilst approximately 9.9NM on a bearing of 262° from BIG. It has been estimated that the UAS was at FL90. Safety Investigations reviewed the radar at the time the pilot reported the sighting, however, no radar contacts associated with the drone were visible.

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, 6

Risk: The Board considered that providence had played a major part in the incident and/or a definite risk of collision had existed.

A

2024123

16 Jun 24

1412

Pioneer 300

(Civ FW)

Drone

5202N 00049W

1NM W Milton Keynes

3400ft

London FIR

(G)

The Pioneer 300 pilot reports that a drone appeared off their wing from below their aircraft to come alongside the starboard wing. The drone appeared to have been expertly controlled and was hovering when passed. It was in reasonably close proximity to HMP Woodville but seemed too high for a drugs-drop. More likely, the drone operator had tracked [the Pioneer 300] with the intention of coming alongside from below for a photo opportunity. They contacted Luton Radar to notify of a drone operating in the area and Luton filed the Airprox.

Reported Separation: 0ft V/ 30ft H

Reported Risk of Collision: High

The Luton Controller reports that [the pilot of the Pioneer 300] was in receipt of a Basic Service when they reported being in close proximity with a drone in the vicinity of HMP Woodhill, some 8NM north-east of WCO. They asked [the pilot] if they would like to make it an Airprox report and they stated they would. They stated the drone was operating at approximately altitude 3000ft, 50ft away, and was in the vicinity of the prison. They advised the Group Supervisor, and they, in turn, advised D&D and the Watch Supervisor.

NATS Safety Investigations reviewed the radar at the time the pilot of [the Pioneer 300] reported the sighting, however, no radar contacts associated with the drone 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: 1, 2, 4, 7

Risk: The Board considered that providence had played a major part in the incident and/or a definite risk of collision had existed.

B

2024127

11 Jun 24

1949

B737

(CAT)

Balloon

5249N 00202W

3NM E Stafford

FL180

Daventry CTA

(A)

The B737 pilot reports that, during a climb between FL170 and FL200 on course to position WELIN, they observed an object in the 11-12 o’clock position and

closing. They prompted the F/O who confirmed their observation. The object passed so closely that they could determine that it was a white weather balloon with electronics attached. They informed ATC and they replied that they had noted the coordinates. The rest of the flight continued normally.

Reported Separation: 0ft V/ 20m H

Reported Risk of Collision: High

NATS London Area controller reports that [the pilot of the B737] checked-in on DTY South passing FL180 in the climb-out. They reported narrowly missing a weather balloon at FL180 near STAFA. Group Supervisor North advised.

Factual information:

A NOTAM for the release of a meteorological balloon approximately 15NM to the northeast of the B737:

H3474/24 NOTAMN

Q)EGTT/QWLLW/IV/NBO/W /000/999/5301N00145W002

A) EGTT B) 2406100800 C) 2406141300

D) 0800-1300 E) MET BALLOON RELEASES WI 1NM RADIUS: 530058N 0014431W (ASHBOURNE). THIS ACTIVITY WILL NOT BE WHOLLY CONTAINED WI LATERAL DIMENSION AS NOTIFIED. ASSOCIATED EQUIPMENT WILL SUBSEQUENTLY DESCEND BY PARACHUTE. FOR INFO 01142 131050. AR-2023-1101/AU5. F) SFC G) UNL

NATS Safety Investigations reports that the pilot of [the B737] submitted an Airprox report in response to the sighting of a weather balloon whilst approximately 8.4NM south-east of position STAFA, whilst climbing through FL181. It has been estimated that the weather balloon was at FL180. Safety Investigations reviewed the radar for the time the pilot of [the B737] reported the sighting, however, no radar contacts associated with the reported weather balloon were visible.

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 providence had played a major part in the incident and/or a definite risk of collision had existed.

A

2024133

19 Jun 24

1538

Voyager

(HQ Air Ops)

Drone

5143N 00146W

Fairford Park

2200ft

Brize Norton CTR

(D)

The Voyager pilot reports at 6.5NM from touchdown on an NDB 07 approach when the crew spotted a grey drone pass above, heading in the opposite direction. The drone was close enough for the crew to see LED lights. The crew immediately made a report to ATC over the radio and the approach and landing was completed without further incident.

Reported Separation: 100ft V/0m H

Reported Risk of Collision: High

The Brize Norton ATC Supervisor reports that the approach controller informed them of the incident as it happened. They rang Fairford to see if they had approved a drone, as it was over their ATZ, but they confirmed that they had no knowledge of any drone activity.

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

B

2024135

15 Jun 24

1505

B737

(CAT)

Drone

5557N 00426W

5NM N Glasgow

3500ft

Glasgow CTR

(D)

The B737 pilot reports that during the first turn on departure from RW05 at Glasgow, they observed what they believed to be a quadcopter-type drone to the left and below the aircraft. The potential drone was several hundred feet below the aircraft, and this increased as they were climbing, and they were unable to accurately say what the distance was horizontally. They informed Scottish Control that they thought that they had seen a drone and the police met the aircraft when they arrived back at Glasgow. They informed the pilot that no other pilot had reported seeing a drone after they had departed.

Reported Separation: 300ft V/ 200m H

Reported Risk of Collision: Low

A NATS Safety Investigation reports that the B737 pilot reported a quadcopter drone 100ft off their left-hand side when they were passing 3500ft on departure from Glasgow. The Group Supervisor, Glasgow ATC and the Police were informed. The pilot reported “I'm fairly certain we just passed a quadcopter-like drone on our left side about one hundred feet or so below us as we started the left turn”. The pilot did not report the event as an Airprox on frequency, and NATS Safety Investigations were informed via UKAB. Analysis of the radar by Safety Investigations indicated that there were no associated primary or secondary contacts associated with the drone report, visible on radar at the approximate time of the event.

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

C