Monthly meeting March 2024

2023162

Skyranger Nynja (Civ FW)

PA28 (Civ FW)

Compton Abbas ATZ (G)

C

2023167

AW109 (Civ Helo)

DA40 (Civ FW)

London FIR (G)

A

2023168

LS7 (Civ Gld)

DA42 (Civ FW)

London FIR (G)

B

2023170

Texan (HQ Air Trg)

EV97 (Civ FW)

London FIR (G)

C

2023171

Prefect (HQ Air Trg)

AC114 (Civ FW)

London FIR (G)

C

2023172

LS8 (Civ Gld)

PAC 750XL (Civ FW)

London FIR (G)

B

2023174

DJI Mavic (Civ UAS)

Unknown Microlight (Civ FW)

Scottish FIR (G)

D

2023175

H175 (Civ Comm)

F15 (Foreign Mil)

London FIR (G)

E

2023176

DJI M300 (Civ UAS)

AW109 (HEMS)

London FIR (G)

C

2023177

PA28 (Civ FW)

Eurofox (Civ FW)

Thruxton ATZ (G)

C

2023179

Puchacz SZD-50 (Civ Gld)

SR22 (Civ FW)

London FIR (G)

C

2023182

Prefect (HQ Air Trg)

Phenom (HQ Air Trg)

Cranwell ATZ (G)

B

2023184

P68 (Civ Comm)

Unknown Glider (Civ Gld)

London FIR (G)

D

2023185

GA8 Airvan (Civ Comm)

PA28 (Civ FW)

London FIR (G)

C

2023186

C172 (Civ FW)

Spitfire (Civ Comm)

London FIR (G)

A

2023188

EV97(A) (Civ FW)

EV97(B) (Civ FW)

Halton ATZ (G)

C

2023189

Citabria (Civ FW)

DA42 (Civ FW)

London FIR (G)

B

2023196

AW169 (Civ Helo)

Spitfire (Civ Comm)

London FIR (G)

E

2023197

PA28 (Civ FW)

SR22 (Civ FW)

London FIR (G)

C

2023198

PA28 (Civ FW)

EV97 (Civ FW)

London FIR (G)

B

0

2024005

8 Jan 24

1106

B787

(CAT)

Unk Obj

5118N 00029W

0.5NM W OCK

8000ft

London TMA

(A)

The B787 pilot reports approaching the OCK VOR at FL80 and 224kt when an object was spotted visually by the Captain (PM) in the 2 o’clock position, moving rapidly past the right wing, apparently about a wingspan’s distance. The visual impression was of an irregular, small (1-2m across), black (and perhaps red), ‘metallic’, mostly horizontally shaped object.

Reported Separation: NR

Reported Risk of Collision: NR

The London controller reports that that [B787 C/S] had reported a drone encounter in the hold at OCK. The pilot reported the drone to be "fast moving, red and black in colour, and about a wingtip away". At the time the aircraft was maintaining FL80. Nothing was seen on radar that corresponded with the drone report.

The NATS Ltd investigation states as follows:

Description and Investigation: The pilot reported, “We had an unidentified flying object, looks like possibly a drone, fly past our right side about ten, fifteen seconds ago. Or it could have been a large balloon. Hard to tell.”. When asked for further details the pilot stated that they believed the drone was red and black, that it was hard for them to estimate the size but that, “…it was moving pretty rapidly which meant it was pretty close to us, and it went just beneath the right side, I hesitate to say; a wingtip or further length away.”.

Other pertinent information: The Controller immediately informed other aircraft on frequency of the report and telephoned the Airports Group Supervisor (GS Airports) who arranged for an appropriate warning to be entered onto the Heathrow ATIS.

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 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

2024021

5 Feb 24

1700

A320

(CAT)

Drone

5138N 00001E

5NM W LAM

FL70

London TMA

(A)

The A320 pilot reports that at FL70 approximately 5NM west of LAM VOR, a black drone (quadcopter shape) seen passing the left-hand side of aircraft about 200ft below. There had been a low overcast, so the object had contrasted quite clearly against the white background. No evasive action taken as the object had been in view for a matter of seconds. Drone reported to ATC (Heathrow Director) immediately.

Reported Separation: 200ft V/NR H

Reported Risk of Collision: NR

The Controller reports that whilst working as GS AIR LL INT NORTH it had been reported that the A320 had observed a small drone SW of LAM by 3NM at approximately FL68. The controller reports that they had called LL TWR and they advised that they would get the airport police to interview the crew on arrival. LL INT NORTH reported the drone sighting to subsequent inbounds for 30 minutes. No other aircraft reported the drone.

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 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

2024024

14 Feb 24

1250

F35

(HQ Air)

Drone

5244N 00128E

7.5NM ENE Norwich

14,460ft

London FIR

(G)

The F35 pilot reports that at approximately 15,000ft overhead Norwich, the lead aircraft of a 2-ship formation spotted an air-vehicle just left of the nose approximately 500m away. CPA estimated to be less than 100m. The air-vehicle appeared to be a large drone. There was no radar SA from either F35 aircraft, nor from Swanwick Mil.

Reported Separation: 0ft V/100m H

Reported Risk of Collision: High

The RAF Marham Flight Safety Officer reports that a pair of F35 aircraft from RAF Marham were conducting an Operational Conversion Unit first live sortie for a student pilot who was being supervised by an Instructor Pilot in a second aircraft. At 1250:29 at an altitude of 14,460ft at 250kt, the pilot in the lead aircraft sighted an object ahead.  Initially believed to be an unreported aircraft in the far distance due to its relatively small size, it soon became apparent that it was in fact an Unmanned Air System (UAS) approximately 500m ahead and rapidly converging. 

The lack of any confliction warning by ATC (confirmed by Swanwick Mil as undetected by their equipment), combined with the very late visual acquisition of the UAS, resulted in rapidly closing flightpaths. With little time to manoeuvre meaningfully (<5sec from visual pickup to passing the UAS) the lead F35 passed by co-height and 100m lateral distance. The UAS passed down the left-hand side of the aircraft. The second aircraft was in 1.5NM trail, and its pilot also gained visual contact on the UAS, which passed down the right-hand side of their F35.

Review of the onboard video collected from the pilot’s helmet mounted cameras was largely inconclusive but does suggest a quadcopter style drone, with similar silhouette to a “Phantom” series recreational UAS.

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