Monthly meeting May 2024

2023214

ATR42 (CAT)

C206 (Civ Comm)

Scottish FIR (G)

C

2023216

Atlas A400M (HQ Air)

C152 (Civ FW)

London FIR (G)

C

2023217

P68 (Civ Comm)

Europa (Civ FW)

London FIR (G)

C

2023218

PA38(A) (Civ FW)

PA38(B) (Civ FW)

Liverpool CTR (D)

E

2023219

Typhoon (HQ Air /Trg)

DA42 (Civ FW)

ATZ (G)

B

2023222

AS355 (Civ Comm)

F35 (Foreign Mil)

London FIR (G)

C

2023223

ASK21 (Civ FW)

Light aircraft (Unknown)

London FIR (G)

A

2023224

EuroFox (Civ FW)

Vans RV6 (Civ FW)

Norwich CTR (D)

C

2023227

C208 (Civ Comm)

Ikarus (Civ FW)

London FIR (G)

C

2023229

Chinook (HQ JHC)

Light aircraft (Unknown)

London FIR (G)

C

2023230

EuroFox (Civ FW)

SR22 (Civ FW)

Scottish FIR (G)

C

2023232

Phenom (Civ Comm)

L39 (Civ FW)

Warton MATZ (G)

C

2023233

Ventus (Civ Gld)

Hawk (HQ Air/Trg)

London FIR (G)

C

2023234

Chinook (HQ JHC)

Fuji FA200 (Civ FW)

London FIR (G)

C

2023236

ASK21 (Civ Gld)

DA42 (Civ FW)

London FIR (G)

C

Recommendations:

1. Defence to review civilian and military AIP entries to ensure that CMATZ/MATZ hours of operation are specifically defined.

2. Leeming and Topcliffe review their LoA to ensure that authority to grant CMATZ/MATZ penetration is defined whenever either aerodrome is operating.

3. MAA to review MAGROCC holders’ privileges wrt the authority to grant CMATZ/MATZ penetration.

2023237

Paramotor (Civ Hang)

EC145 (HEMS)

London FIR (G)

D

2023238

DR400 (Civ FW)

EV97 (Civ FW)

Gloster ATZ (G)

B

2023239

Arcus (Civ Gld)

SR22 (Civ FW)

London FIR (G)

C

2023243

Hawk (HQ Air/Ops)

Tutor (HQ Air/Trg)

Leeming CMATZ (G)

C

2023248

Texan II(A) (HQ Air/Trg)

Texan II(B) (HQ Air/Trg)

Valley ATZ (G)

C

2023249

Prefect (HQ Air/Trg)

Typhoon (HQ Air/Ops)

London FIR (G)

B

2024046

4 Apr 24

1830

Chinook

(JAC)

Drone

5129N 00005E

Plumstead

1300ft

London CTR

(D)

The Chinook pilot reports that while transiting through the London Heli-lanes in the vicinity of Greenwich at approximately 1300ft AGL, a drone was spotted passing down the right side of the aircraft, approximately 300m away and at the same height. It appeared to be a rotary type and stationary. Details of location were noted and passed to Heathrow Radar at the time of the incident.

Reported Separation: 0ft V/300m H

Reported Risk of Collision: High

The Thames controller reports the Chinook pilot reported an Airprox with a drone some 400m off their left-hand side at a similar altitude. The controller informed the Group Supervisor and LCY TWR and also the oncoming controller to pass the information on to IFR arrivals into LCY.

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.

2024050

8 Apr 24

1511

B737

(CAT)

Unk Obj

5212N 00021W

1.5NM SE BEVLU

FL117

London TMA

(A)

The B737 pilot reports that on passing approximately FL110 the right-hand seat pilot (FO) spotted a drone passing under the wing. Large in size, dark, but reflective.

Reported Separation: 40ft V/40ft H

Reported Risk of Collision: High

The TC Midlands controller reports that the B737 pilot submitted an Airprox report in response to the sighting of a drone whilst approximately 1.5NM south-southwest of reporting point BEVLU. It has been estimated that the UAS was at 11000ft. Safety Investigations reviewed the radar at the time the pilot reported the sighting, however, no radar contacts associated with the drone were visible.

An NATS Investigation reports that the pilot of the B737 reported that either a drone or balloon passed “very close” down the side of the aircraft. The controller alerted the Group Supervisor who attempted to contact the local Police; there were no other relevant aircraft or radar contacts in the vicinity.

In the Board’s opinion the reported altitude and/or imprecise 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 providence had played a major part in the incident and/or a definite risk of collision had existed.

2024053

16 Apr 24

1832

B737

(CAT)

Unk Obj

5348N 00126W

8NM W Sherburn-In-Elmet

FL033

London FIR

(G)

The B737 pilot reports that a non-standard approach was flown via the LBA overhead, before turning onto a heading of 100° due to a couple of large CB cells preventing a standard route. A right-hand pattern was flown which took the aircraft temporarily outside controlled airspace, which is where the drone was spotted. Leeds Radar cleared them for the ILS approach RW32 and it was during the initial turn onto the intercept heading that the drone was sighted.

The drone passed down the right-hand-side of the aircraft roughly 100ft below on a south-to-north trajectory. It was metallic in colour and travelling at low speed. As PM, they reported the sighting immediately to both the Captain and ATC. No evasive action was required and the remainder of the approach was flown without incident.

Reported Separation: 100ft V/2-300m H

Reported Risk of Collision: Low

The Leeds Bradford Controller reports that the pilot had requested a right-hand pattern for the ILS to RW32 due to weather avoidance. The aircraft was approximately 0.5NM outside controlled airspace [and the pilot was] in receipt of a Deconfliction Service. The pilot reported that the approximate altitude of the drone was 3200ft, that it was moving in a northerly direction and was silver in colour. The pilot reported that the drone passed approximately 100ft below the aircraft.

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.

2024056

20 Apr 23

1230

TB20

(Civ FW)

Drone

5143N 00038W

IVO Chesham

2200ft

London FIR

(G)

The TB20 pilot reports that the main purpose of this report was to bring to the authorities’ attention that a drone was flying above 2200ft in the area of HEN and BNN. They first saw the drone in their 11 o’clock, 50ft above them and around 100m away. They took avoiding action by turning right.

Reported Separation: 50ft V/ 50m H

Reported Risk of Collision: High

The Farnborough controller reports that they had no recollection of the incident, which was not reported on the radio at the time.

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.

2024063

12 Apr 24

1301

A350

(CAT)

Drone

5127N 00038W

ivo Windsor

4000ft

London TMA

(A)

The A350 pilot reports that, on passing 4000ft, the PF saw a sun-flash of a moving item which attracted their attention ahead of the aircraft. The item was approximately 0.5NM ahead of the aircraft and at a similar level. The PF identified the item to PNF as a red coloured drone as it remained static. They flew over it by about 500-700ft. The drone was a quadcopter-type and about 1ft square. It would have been entirely unsighted had it not been manoeuvring and caught the sun.

Reported Separation: 500ft V/NR H

Reported Risk of Collision:

The SW Deps controller reports that, at 1301, [the pilot of the A350] reported a sighting of a drone approximately 1ft square and red in colour. This occurred at altitude 4000ft and approximately 5NM east of WOD/5NM west of Heathrow. Heathrow Tower were informed immediately to pass on the information for subsequent departures.

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.

2024066

26 Apr 24

0909

A320

(CAT)

Drone

5528N 00231W

Twiss Green

9000ft

Manchester TMA

(A)

The A320 pilot reports departing from Manchester on a SID when a black quadcopter drone with a flashing red light on top was seen passing in the opposite direction just below the nose of the aircraft. It was difficult to judge the exact separation but was enough not to require avoiding action. ATC informed and ASR filed.

Reported Separation: 100-300ft V/NK H

Reported Risk of Collision: Medium

The Prestwick controller reports the A320 pilot reported seeing a drone around 100ft below them. The drone was reported to be black, with flashing lights and two propellers. The Scottish North Group Supervisor informed Manchester ATC who in turn informed the police and subsequent departures. The flight continued without incident and there were no further drone reports.

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.