Monthly meeting September 2024

2024048

S92 (Civ Comm)

PA28 (Civ FW)

Aberdeen CTR (D)

C

2024054

PA28 (Civ FW)

DA40 (Civ FW)

Oxford ATZ (G)

B

2024055

R22 (Civ Helo)

TB20 (Civ FW)

London FIR (G)

A

2024057

Viking (HQ Air Trg)

PA28 (Civ FW)

Edinburgh CTR (D)

C

Recommendations:      

1. Edinburgh Airport reviews the naming of their VRPs.

2. Edinburgh Airport publishes the details of the Kirknewton Designated Gliding Area in the UK AIP entry for Edinburgh Airport.                         

2024058

C152 (Civ FW)

L-29 (Civ FW)

London FIR (G)

B

2024059

C172(A) (Civ FW)

C172(B) (Civ FW)

London FIR (G)

C

2024060

Ventus glider (Civ Gld)

Typhoon (HQ Air Ops)

London FIR (G)

E

2024061

Tiger Moth (Civ FW)

Chipmunk (Civ FW)

London FIR (G)

B

2024062

A400M (HQ Air Ops)

Prefect (HQ Air Trg)

London FIR (G)

E

2024065

DG300 (Civ Gld)

PA28 (Civ FW)

London FIR (G)

C

2024067

ASW20 (Civ Gld)

RV14 (Civ FW)

London FIR (G)

B

2024068

P68 (Civ Comm)

BE58 (Civ FW)

London FIR (G)

B

2024069

A109 (Civ Comm)

PA28 (Civ FW)

Denham ATZ (D)

C

2024071

Grob 109 (Civ FW)

Bell 206 (Civ Helo)

London FIR (G)

C

2024072

PA22 (Civ FW)

Chipmunk (Civ FW)

Compton Abbas ATZ (G)

C

2024075

C152 (Civ FW)

C42 (Civ FW)

London FIR (G)

B

2024076

E190 (CAT)

SR22 (Civ FW)

London FIR (G)

C

2024078

ASW28 (Civ Gld)

DA62 (Civ FW)

London FIR (G)

C

2024079

Grob 103 (Civ Gld)

R44 (Civ Helo)

London FIR (G)

B

2024081

Libelle (Civ Gld)

C208 (Civ Comm)

London FIR (G)

C

2024083

Magni (Civ Helo)

RV8 (Civ FW)

London FIR (G)

C

2024085

Prefect (HQ Air Trg)

PA28 (Civ FW)

Cranwell CMATZ (G)

C

1

2024148

13 Jun 24

1503

B737

(CAT)

Unk Obj

5600N 00312W

IVO Edinburgh

2300ft

Edinburgh CTR

(D)

The B737 pilot reports that the aircraft was established on the ILS for RW24 at Edinburgh. At approximately 2300ft both pilots noticed an object, black/silver colour, flash past the left side of the aircraft narrowly missing the left wing. The sighting was too brief to identify what the object was. Both pilots agreed that it did not resemble a bird, more likely a balloon or drone.

Reported Separation: 0ft V/ 20m H.

Reported Risk of Collision: High

The Edinburgh controller reports that the B737 was established on final, and the pilot reported that an object had passed close to them. They were approximately 6NM final.

When questioned about the object, they weren't sure if it was a balloon or a drone. The following aircraft behind were warned by the intermediate controller but no further reports were received.

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

2024149

01 Jul 24

1156

A321

(CAT)

Unk Obj

5153N 00017W

3NM E Luton Airport

1200ft

Luton CTR

(D)

The A320 pilot reports that they had been on final into Luton RW25. At approximately 1200ft AMSL (600ft AGL) they saw a round object, possibly a drone, pass approximately 100-200ft above. The object was approximately the size of a dinner plate. They recall that they were not able to properly identify the object as they had been PF and only briefly noticed it as it passed overhead. The sighting was reported to the tower and the airport safety team was informed.

Reported Separation: 100ft V/NK H

Reported Risk of Collision: High

The Luton Controller reports that the A320 pilot reported a possible drone sighting at 2NM on the ILS, 200ft above from right-to-left with no further details, this would have put the drone at approximately 1300-1500ft altitude.

All subsequent aircraft were warned and there were no further sightings.

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

2024155

01 Jun 24

1408

RV6

(Civ FW)

Drone

5147N 00150W

Calcot Airstrip

100ft

London FIR

(G)

The RV6 pilot reports on approach to land at around 100ft height and 300m from the runway threshold when they spotted a white van parked in a field. The occupant was stood looking down at a drone remote control in their hand. Upon landing they spotted what

looked to be a drone directly in the runway undershoot at a height of around 50ft.

Reported Separation: NR

Reported Risk of Collision: NR

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: 4, 5

Risk: The Board considered that there was insufficient information to make a sound judgement of risk.

D

2024164

14 Jul 24

2203

EC145

(NPAS)

Drone

5130N 00001W

Isle of Dogs

1700ft

London/City CTR

(D)

The EC145 pilot reports that they were en-route to a tasking, transiting westbound through the London City Control Zone at 1700ft at night, at approximately 125kt. A drone was visually detected directly ahead of the helicopter at close range. Evasive action was commenced with a rapid right turn and the drone passed down the left-hand side of the helicopter at the same altitude. Initially, a solid green light was seen, followed shortly by red and green lights as it went past. The front-seat Police officer estimated the minimum separation distance to have been no more than 10-20m. Due to difficulty in visually acquiring the drone, and the higher priority nature of the tasking, they did not attempt to re-acquire it, but informed Heathrow Radar (125.625MHz) of the incident.

Reported Separation: 0m V/10m H

Reported Risk of Collision: High

The Heathrow INT N/S Director reports that [the pilot of the EC145] reported flying in close proximity to a drone over Canary Wharf at 1700ft.

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

2024165

17 Jul 24

0953

A400M

(HQ Air Ops)

Drone

5135N 00137W

Shrivenham

5000ft

London FIR

(G)

The A400M pilot reports that on approach to Fairford, a black UAS was identified and confirmed 40m from the aircraft, stationary in the air on the port side. It was deemed stationary at 5000ft on QNH 1021hPa overhead Shrivenham, in the path of the vectored approach to the ILS. ATC was immediately informed, and the sortie continued safely.

Reported Separation: 40m H

Reported Risk of Collision: High

The Fairford App controller reports that they had 4 aircraft on frequency, all sequenced with 10NM track distance for the ILS. The A400M was No3 in the pattern, on a heading of 090° at 5000ft on Fairford QNH. They passed a descent instruction to 2300ft, but there was no response. The pilot then replied ‘was that for me?’ They passed the instruction again, then the pilot reported an Airprox at 5000ft with a static UAV. They immediately notified the Fairford Co-ord and BZN Sup to note the Lat/Long and report to local Police.

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

B

2024172

26 Jul 24

1332

B737

(CAT)

Drone

5325N 00207W

Bredbury

2500ft

Manchester CTR

(D)

The B737 pilot reports that when established on the ILS RW23R at Manchester at approximately 8 DME they saw very clearly a drone fly past the right side of the aircraft. Within 50ft vertically of their right wing

and 50ft laterally. It was a small to medium sized drone with red/pink lights. It was only visible for less than a second. The pilot reports that they continued to land without further incident [and] immediately reported to Manchester approach ATC.

Reported Separation: 25ft V/10m H

Reported Risk of Collision: High

The Manchester controller reports that whilst operating as Air 1, APP S telephoned to say that the B737 pilot had reported a drone close to their aircraft at 8NM final RW23R ILS.

APP S noted that they would warn the next inbounds.

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

A

2024177

30 Jul 24

1459

A320

(CAT)

Balloon

5245N 00235E

48NM E Norwich

FL230

London UIR

(C)

The A320 pilot reports having sighted a silver weather balloon. No suspended equipment was observed. It was not sighted in time to take any avoiding action due to the small size of the weather balloon. They informed Amsterdam Control of the near-miss.

Reported Separation: “a very near miss”

Reported Risk of Collision: High

Amsterdam Control ATCO reports that [the pilot of the A320] contacted Amsterdam Radar at 1456:22 on the 30th of July. When flying into the MOLIX [FIR boundary] area, Amsterdam Radar cleared [the pilot] for a descent to FL180. At 1500:10, when passing FL224, the pilot reported “we just had a very near miss with a weather balloon”. The controller informed the Supervisor immediately. The Supervisor contacted the London Supervisor to discuss the situation. Both agreed to make a report of the occurrence.

There was no other traffic in the vicinity for the next 15min and the weather balloon was not visible on radar. There was no launch notice of a weather balloon from that period within the Dutch FIR. The investigation was closed due to lack of further information.

UKAB Secretariat: Analysis of the NATS radar replay was undertaken and a primary-only contact was observed, very briefly, to have been within 0.1NM of the reported area of the Airprox in the moments before CPA.

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

2024178

11 Jul 24

0852

A319

(CAT)

Drone

5128N 00026W

Approach to RW27L Heathrow

250ft

London CTR

(D)

The A319 pilot reports that after giving control to the captain at 1000ft, as per company [procedures], they began the pilot monitoring role of scanning instruments and looking outside. Shortly after they handed over control, they noticed something at approximately their 1 o’clock, stationary in the air. It was not moving like any bird they had seen before, and they moved their head around to check it wasn’t a mark on the windscreen. As they got closer, they could clearly see it was a drone that passed a short distance off their right wing. It had a yellow colouring and multiple propellers, but they could not recall exactly how many. This was just as the aircraft called “minimums” so approximately 200ft above ground level. A normal landing was accomplished, and ATC was advised. The police came to meet them to take some details.

Reported Separation:  0ft V/30ft H.

Reported Risk of Collision: High

The Heathrow Aerodrome controller reports that, after landing, the pilot of the A319 reported passing a drone at 200ft on the approach, off the right wing.

This information was passed to the Tower Supervisor and to the subsequent landing traffic, none of whom reported seeing 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, 3, 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.

A

2024182

31 Jul 24

1406

A350

(CAT)

Drone

5128N 00036W

IVO Windsor

1500ft

London CTR

(D)

The A350 pilot reports that on approach over Heathrow they overheard ATC notify other aircraft of drones operating overhead at around 6000ft. On approach at 4.4DME at 1500ft they observed a white drone around 2ft in diameter flying in front of their aircraft from left-to-right. It was estimated to pass their right wing within 100ft. All crew could clearly identify and confirm this was a drone. ATC was immediately notified.

Reported Separation: 100ft H

Reported Risk of Collision: NR

The Heathrow controller reports that [the pilot of the A350] reported a drone at the same level approximately 400ft away, whilst on a 3NM final for RW09L. The Police were informed.

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

A

2024183

28 Jul 24

1200

A321

(CAT)

Drones

5128N 00022W

2.75NM E Heathrow

800ft

London CTR

(D)

The A321 pilot reports that on approach, at about 800ft, the FO initially noticed 2 objects immediately in front of and higher than the aircraft and pointed them out to the Captain who also clearly perceived them. They were clearly identifiable as 2 identical drones in the shape of two ‘3’s flying in a lateral formation perfectly up the approach, about 50ft (max) above the aircraft. The black propellers on the objects were clearly identifiable by both pilots. Both pilots assessed a risk of impact.

Reported Separation: 50ft V/0m H

Reported Risk of Collision: NR

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

A

2024186

31 Jul 24

1626

B737

(CAT)

Unk Obj

5551N 00428W

Glasgow Airport

1650ft

Glasgow CTR

(D)

The B737 pilot reports that a large drone flew beneath [the] left side of the aircraft which had just taken off from Glasgow for [destination airfield]. According to FlightRadar24 playback they had been at an altitude of 1650ft.

Reported Separation: NR

Reported Risk of Collision: NR

The NATS Safety Investigator reports that they have reviewed the appropriate recordings and there is no mention of a drone or of an Airprox being filed to Glasgow ATC. The B737 departed from RW23 and at about 2NM on the climbout was transferred to Scottish control frequency of 124.825MHz. The pilot acknowledged the frequency change and left the Glasgow Tower frequency.

NATS have made a recording of the event but there is no mention of anything on the RT and there are no associated radar returns on the recording. The Investigator confirms that no drone was observed from the tower and ATC had no notification of any drone operating in that area.

There was no other contact (email, telephone etc) from the pilot or [the aircraft operator] to notify Glasgow 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, 5

Risk: The Board considered that there was insufficient information to make a sound judgement of risk.

D

2024190

01 Aug 24

1412

B737

(CAT)

Drone

5324N 00210W

Stockport

1700ft

Manchester CTR

(D)

The B737 pilot reports that during a CAT1 ILS approach to RW23R in Manchester the captain observed a drone to the south of the aircraft flying in

an easterly direction. Due to the stage of flight and high workload it was not possible to determine the altitude of the drone nor the distance from the aircraft. It was observed to be clear of the aircraft and no risk of a drone strike. The approach was continued to a safe landing and the drone sighting reported to ATC when workload permitted.

Reported Separation: could not be determined.

Reported Risk of Collision: None.

The Manchester Tower controller reports that there had been a report of a drone from the B737 pilot at 1414, observed at 4.5NM final, left-hand side, routeing eastwards. They had passed the information to further traffic and there were no further sightings while they were on console.

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

2024191

03 Aug 24

1351

A320

(CAT)

Drone

5110N 00002W

5.5NM ENE Gatwick

1800ft

Gatwick CTR

(D)

The A320 pilot reports that a drone was sighted on the final approach into LGW around 100-200ft above the aircraft. Aircraft was at 1800ft and 5NM out from ILS 26L. The sighting was reported on the Tower frequency straight away. The drone had yellow colouring. They heard over the frequency that [the pilot of] a second [company] aircraft reported a drone at around 2200ft and 5.6NM from ILS 26L. On stand, the Police arrived approximately 5min after arrival. Full details were given to the Police.

Reported Separation: 100-200ft V/ NR H

Reported Risk of Collision: Low

The Gatwick Air Controller reports that [the pilot of the A320] advised that they had been over-flown by a drone when at 5 miles on final. They advised that the drone had passed above them by approximately 200ft. [The Gatwick Air Controller] advised TC FIN.

[The pilot of another aircraft] then called on frequency and advised that they were visual with a drone above them when at 5.6 DME, at 2000ft with the drone at 2200ft QNH.

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

2024193

28 Jul 24

1424

A320

(CAT)

Drone

5134N 00015W

Brent Reservoir

6800ft

London TMA

(A)

The A320 pilot reports that a drone was sighted when downwind for Heathrow, landing westerly from Lambourne arrival. It was seen when at 6800ft, descending in vertical speed at less than 1000ft per minute. The location was subsequently worked out to be around the Brent Reservoir area after a subsequent post-landing check of the flight path and time stamp. It was a white quadcopter style drone and it passed directly beneath them. It was possibly hovering but as they were travelling at 220kts this was impossible to assess. The proximity was hard to gauge, the size of drone was unknown. The sunlight reflected off it and that’s what drew their attention to it. It was possibly less than 200ft below. It was reported to ATC. After parking, police officers attended and took details. The pilot opined that obviously it should not have been that high, it had been clear visual conditions and if they had been descending any more rapidly, they would have had a collision.

Reported Separation: <200ft V

A NATS Investigation reports that the pilot reported the drone as “just underneath” the aircraft at 6800ft. They reported that the drone was white and either stationary, or on a reciprocal track.

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

2024194

31 Jul 24

1345

B787

(CAT)

Unk Obj

5136N 00019W

Heathrow Airport

9000ft

London TMA

(A)

The B787 pilot reports that a drone was sighted approximately 10NM before LAM. They had been approaching 9000ft and it was in front of them and had passed down the left side within 1NM and within 500ft-1000ft. It was bird shaped and had bright blue wings but unable to say size, but it had appeared quite large.

Reported Separation: 500ft-1000ft V/<1NM H

Reported Risk of Collision: NR

The LL INT controller reports that the B787 pilot reported a drone, bright blue, wing shaped 10NM east of LAM at 8000ft. The pilot reported on the RT that the UAS passed down the left-hand side of the aircraft, was bright blue, and wing shaped. The pilot added that the drone was “about a thousand or two thousand feet below and couldn't be sure exactly what it was.”

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 normal procedures and/or safety standards had applied.

E

2024195

02 Aug 24

1300

B787

(CAT)

Unk Obj

5129N 00022W

2.5NM E Heathrow

750ft

London CTR

(D)

The B787 pilot reports once established on the ILS for RW27R and in contact with the Tower they were advised of the presence of a drone in the vicinity at around 4 to 5NM from the threshold. No drone was seen until the aircraft passed approximately 700-800ft when the Senior First Officer (PF) noticed a grey object passing to the right of the aircraft. ATC was notified.

Reported Separation: NR

Reported Risk of Collision: NR

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 there was insufficient information to make a sound judgement of risk.

D

2024199

03 Jul 24

1535

A350

(CAT)

Unk Obj

5139N 00009E

Lambourne VOR

9000ft

London TMA

(A)

The A350 pilot reports that they passed a large red drone, ‘really close’ (couple of tens of metres), overhead Lambourne (LAM) VOR, at 9000ft (FL90).

Reported Separation: ‘really close’

Reported Risk of Collision: High

Swanwick Radar Group Supervisor (Airports) reports that the A350 pilot reported they had sighted a large red drone, at the same level, whilst at FL90.

They informed the Lambourne controller via the Group Supervisor (GS) Midlands and contacted Heathrow police.

A NATS Investigation reports that the pilot of [the A350] reported on the frequency, “I think we passed a drone over Lambourne, it was on our left-hand side, at FL90”. The pilot described the drone as; “difficult to say, but er quite big as I saw it …. and I think it was red.”

The Heathrow intermediate north controller immediately informed the following aircraft approaching LAM of the report, with the GS AIR reporting the encounter to Heathrow Police.

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

B

2024200

21 Jul 24

1242

Learjet 45

(Civ Comm)

Drone

5126N 00011E

IVO Dartford

2000ft

London/City CTA

(D)

The Learjet 45 pilot reports that both crew members spotted a drone whilst being radar-vectored for the ILS for RW21 at Biggin Hill.

They initially thought it may have been a bird however, upon closer proximity, it was clear it was a drone due to its stationary position. They were at 180kt and approximately 2000ft, and it was within 100ft of them at the same level. The drone was red/yellow in colour. They notified Thames Radar of the sighting.

Reported Separation: 0ft V/ 100ft H

Reported Risk of Collision: NR

NATS Safety Investigations’ analysis of the radar 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, 7

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

B