March 2023
| Total | Highly Unlikely | Unlikely | Likely | Highly Likely |
| 7 | 3 | 4 | 0 | 0 |
| Airprox # | Score | Rating | Details | ARC Comment | Original Text |
| 2023014 | -90 | ARC considered it highly unlikely that the object observed was a drone. | This is an eyewitness report from the aircraft flight crew only. There is no corroborating evidence. No photographic evidence. The likelihood of encountering a drone above 1,640ft is small, as DJI products (75% market share*) feature a 1,640ft (500m) hard height limit and Yuneec products (second largest market share with 5%*) feature a hard 400ft (121m) height limit. (Most of the drones in the remaining 20% are toys which would be incapable of reaching this height or racing drones which are flown within a few feet of the ground.) It would also require the drone pilot to be willing to fly the drone illegally above the 400ft legal height limit. The object encountered is described as a “Drone” but with no further details. The wind strength (between 25 and 49km/h at reported level) would make drone operations difficult, and would significantly reduce the range and heights achievable. The location was geo-fenced, which means that at least 80% of drones could not be operated in that area/ at that altitude. | Reporting aircraft seems to be OH-LXF (FIN6RD), approaching Heathrow from the East.
Reported ‘drone’ is G-HWKW. Red Hughes 500 helicopter. The time and location match. The reporting a/c did not say ‘it was between me and the red helicopter’ or make any mention of the red helicopter which was exactly where he was claiming to have seen a drone. G-HWKW, the red Hughes 500 helicopter, is very drone-like in appearance. https://abpic.co.uk/pictures/registration/G-HWKW Video: https://drive.google.com/file/d/11WA-FavEL3tEs6eJPm56Ff4T8kvm18qI/view?usp=drivesdk |
The A320 pilot reports that during final approach for RW27R they had a UAV sighting [whilst] at 2400ft on the right side of the aircraft at approximately 1800- 2200ft. It was reported to Heathrow Tower. Police officers visited the aircraft after occurrence.
Reported Separation: 300ft V/NR H The Heathrow Tower controller reports that the [A320 pilot] reported seeing a drone on final for RW27R. They stated that they were at 7.3 DME, the drone was heading 330° from their location, a few hundred feet below, so they estimate it was at 2000ft. |
| 2023015 | -20 | ARC considered it unlikely that the object observed was a drone. | This is an eyewitness report from the aircraft flight crew only. There is no corroborating evidence. No photographic evidence. The likelihood of encountering a drone above 1,640ft is small, as DJI products (75% market share*) feature a 1,640ft (500m) hard height limit and Yuneec products (second largest market share with 5%*) feature a hard 400ft (121m) height limit. (Most of the drones in the remaining 20% are toys which would be incapable of reaching this height or racing drones which are flown within a few feet of the ground.) It would also require the drone pilot to be willing to fly the drone illegally above the 400ft legal height limit. The description partially matches a multirotor drone. | G-ORBK.
If they saw it twice, with several minutes and, one must assume, several miles in between, then it wasn’t a drone! It was some significantly larger aircraft passing. Assuming the reporting a/c was G-ORBK, then it appears to have been operating in the circuit whilst C152 G-BWNC was flying circuits. So sometimes above, sometimes below, reappearing after a few minutes… G-BWNC has red lining, and some small blue areas. |
The R44 pilot reports that they had been carrying out autorotations when a drone was spotted at the same level as them. It was large, looked like a black figure of eight with red lining on one half and blue on the other. When it was first spotted they thought it was a large balloon. No avoiding action was required. They carried on with another autorotation and when climbing away, they saw it again. The altitude they were climbing through was 2800ft on the QNH. Again, no avoiding action was required. A radio call was made to Wellesbourne Information to report the sighting and raise awareness for other aircraft. They changed location for the rest of the flight.
Reported Separation: 0ft V/ <0.1NM H |
| 2023018 | -5 | ARC considered it unlikely that the object observed was a drone. | This is an eyewitness report from the aircraft flight crew only. There is no corroborating evidence. No photographic evidence. The likelihood of encountering a drone above 400ft is reduced, as DJI products (75% market share*) feature a 400ft (121m) height limit warning and Yuneec products (second largest market share with 5%*) feature a hard 400ft (121m) height limit. (Most of the drones in the remaining 20% are toys which would be incapable of reaching this height or racing drones which are flown within a few feet of the ground.) It would also require the drone pilot to be willing to fly the drone illegally above the 400ft legal height limit. | G-DCAM.
Lots of large birds, swans, Canada Geese etc. live at Brent Reservoir. Many of these are large enough to be easily visible from a passing helicopter – whereas a typical drone would not. Canada Geese are grey/black (the colours mentioned). |
The AS355 pilot reports transiting to Battersea Heliport when they came into close contact with what they believed to be a drone. It was a multi-rotor type, grey/black in colour. It passed below and to the right. They informed RAF Northolt ATC on the radio and, on landing at Battersea, via telephone.
Reported Separation: NK The Northolt Radar controller reports that on initial contact, [AS355 C/S] was instructed to enter the London CTR and transit via Brent to Battersea as there was no other aircraft to affect the transit at the time. Over Brent Reservoir the pilot called to report they had seen a drone in the area. The controller noted the LAT/LONG, asked another military controller to inform TC GS Air that a drone had been reported and to notify SVFR/Thames Radar of the position to inform any other pilots in the area. They believe they also requested Police 251, who was in the Thames Valley area, to have a look in the area to see if the Drone was still there. TC GS Air reported the incident to the Police. They asked the pilot for details of the drone, including size, colour, etc, but they were vague in response. There was no other contact on Radar in that position. No Airprox was called on frequency. |
| 2023019 | -100 | ARC considered it highly unlikely that the object observed was a drone. | This is an eyewitness report from the aircraft flight crew only. There is no corroborating evidence. No photographic evidence. The likelihood of encountering a drone above 3,000ft is very small, as DJI products (75% market share*) feature a 1,640ft (500m) hard height limit and Yuneec products (second largest market share with 5%*) feature a hard 400ft (121m) height limit. (Most of the drones in the remaining 20% are toys which would be incapable of reaching this height or racing drones which are flown within a few feet of the ground.) It would also require the drone pilot to be willing to fly the drone illegally above the 400ft legal height limit. Furthermore, the technical limitations of battery energy density / mass would mean that any drone that was able to reach these heights would have a very short loiter time – less than six minutes at 4000ft. The object encountered is described as a “Drone” but with no further details. Night time with no LEDS reported. The wind strength (between 50 and 72kmh/h at reported level) would make drone operations virtually impossible. The reported location is within a Flight Restriction Zone (FRZ). | LX-LGM (reporting a/c) departed London City at 17:15. This was three minutes before Sunset. At the reported time (17:20) and position, the Dash 8 was heading East, and has D-CHMD (Embraer Phenom 300) directly in front on a reciprocal heading and with a 630 knot closing speed. The Phenom was 18NM away, 3 miles higher (approximately 10 degrees above the horizon, but the Dash 8 was in a climbing attitude so the relative angle would have been less than that.). Given the time of day (after sunset) the Phenom’s navigation lights would have stood out (flashing lights are often associated with drones). The Phenom would have disappeared from view over the top of the Dash 8 windshield very rapidly. | The DHC-8 pilot reports that 2NM prior to SODVU, they had a near miss with a drone. The altitude of the aircraft was 5400ft and the separation from the drone was estimated to be 100ft. The incident was reported to ATC
Reported Separation: 100ftV / 100ft H A NATS Investigation reports that the pilot of [DHC- 8 C/S] reported that they had sighted a drone, about 100ft above them as they were at 5400ft, 2NM before their current position. They were 2.6NM east of SOQQA (4.4NM west of SODVU) at the time of the reported sighting. The Thames controller acknowledged the report and advised the pilot that they would file a report on the incident. Safety Investigations reviewed the radar at the time the pilot reported the sighting, however, no radar contacts were visible. |
| 2023020 | -120 | ARC considered it highly unlikely that the object observed was a drone. | This is an eyewitness report from the aircraft flight crew only. There is no corroborating evidence. No photographic evidence. The likelihood of encountering a drone between 6000ft and 9000ft is infinitesimal, as DJI products (75% market share*) feature a 1,640ft (500m) hard height limit and Yuneec products (second largest market share with 5%*) feature a hard 400ft (121m) height limit. (Most of the drones in the remaining 20% are toys which would be incapable of reaching this height or racing drones which are flown within a few feet of the ground.) It would also require the drone pilot to be willing to fly the drone illegally above the 400ft legal height limit. Furthermore, the technical limitations of battery energy density / mass would mean that any drone that was able to reach these heights would have a very short loiter time – less than two minutes at 6000ft. No consumer drone could reach 9000ft in real world conditions. The description partially matches a multirotor drone. The wind strength (between 25 and 40km/h at ground level) would make drone operations difficult, and would significantly reduce the range and heights achievable. The wind strength (above 72kmh/h at reported level) would make drone operations impossible. | A drone at 6,500 feet is very unlikely. 43kts winds at 5,000ft at that time and location. | The Prefect pilot reports that they had cleared cloud approximately 6NM NW of Cranwell, through a cloud break at 6500ft. Upon sighting a drone within 30m, the QFI took immediate control in order to remain clear. The sighting was reported to Waddington Zone who informed them that they had nothing on radar. The sortie was continued. The drone was described as being black and white and having 3 or 4 straight edges, similar to a quadcopter.
Reported Separation: 0ft V/ 30m |
| 2023022 | -20 | ARC considered it unlikely that the object observed was a drone. | This is an eyewitness report from the aircraft flight crew only. There is no corroborating evidence. No photographic evidence. The likelihood of encountering a drone above 3,000ft is very small, as DJI products (75% market share*) feature a 1,640ft (500m) hard height limit and Yuneec products (second largest market share with 5%*) feature a hard 400ft (121m) height limit. (Most of the drones in the remaining 20% are toys which would be incapable of reaching this height or racing drones which are flown within a few feet of the ground.) It would also require the drone pilot to be willing to fly the drone illegally above the 400ft legal height limit. Furthermore, the technical limitations of battery energy density / mass would mean that any drone that was able to reach these heights would have a very short loiter time – less than six minutes at 4000ft. | The Waddington Radar controller reports that the [Prefect pilot] freecalled across to their frequency inside a busy area of airspace in confliction with multiple other aircraft, not all on the frequency, with one in particular presenting a hazard which the pilot subsequently became visual with.
95% of all drones would be invisible at 500feet range. Never mind counting how many props it had. Grob Prefect cruises at 235kn (270mph). The pilot claims to have ‘kept in sight’ a stationary ‘drone’ 500ft below and to their right, first spotted when abeam. At 270mph the ‘stationary drone’ would have been 400 feet behind in a second. The replay shows what happened. The airspace is congested! As ZM315 heads North at 3,400ft the ‘drone’ (PA28 G-BCRL) on a reciprocal heading passes down their right side, 800ft below and less than 1nm horizontal. The PA28 would have been invisible to the QFI in the left seat. The PA28 is white and dark blue (Student reported white and black.) The QFI and controller would have been concentrating on avoiding G-EPIM, a C172 at the same level, crossing left to right ahead. It is missed by less than half a mile and 100 feet vertical. Video ADS-b replay: https://drive.google.com/file/d/17QeqlATyDhKBJwxoPpJ12VefcRlfcDMO/view?usp=drivesdk |
The Prefect pilot reports that they were heading north up the Trent valley, when the trainee handling pilot witnessed a stationary, 4 propeller drone (white with black stripes approximately 50cm across) abeam to their right at approximately 500ft below the aircraft. The trainee took no avoiding action, but the aircraft passed to the left of the drone and the pilot kept it in sight whilst the attention of the left-hand seat pilot (QFI) was looking for other traffic. The aircraft was under a Traffic Service from Waddington Radar and they had made the pilot aware of two other aircraft operating in vicinity. During the distractions associated with the radio transmissions and identifying this traffic, the drone sighting/Airprox was not passed effectively to the QFI nor onto ATC at the time.
The QFI reported that they had been unaware of the drone sighting at the time of occurrence, due to a busy radio passing other Traffic Information, which both crew were looking to identify, and they missed the trainee’s “drone” comment. They only became aware of the incident during the in-brief process. Reported Separation: 500ft V/500ft H The Waddington Radar controller reports that the [Prefect pilot] freecalled across to their frequency inside a busy area of airspace in confliction with multiple other aircraft, not all on the frequency, with one in particular presenting a hazard which the pilot subsequently became visual with. For the duration of the [time the Prefect pilot] was on frequency they do not recall having to call traffic on non-squawking aircraft and they feel it would be highly unlikely that a drone would present on the sensors. The drone sighting was not reported on frequency and the aircraft proceeded on route without further incident, no other pilots on frequency transiting the general geographical area reported any sightings. |
| 2023023 | -60 | ARC considered it unlikely that the object observed was a drone. | This is an eyewitness report from the aircraft flight crew only. There is no corroborating evidence. No photographic evidence. The likelihood of encountering a drone above 3,000ft is very small, as DJI products (75% market share*) feature a 1,640ft (500m) hard height limit and Yuneec products (second largest market share with 5%*) feature a hard 400ft (121m) height limit. (Most of the drones in the remaining 20% are toys which would be incapable of reaching this height or racing drones which are flown within a few feet of the ground.) It would also require the drone pilot to be willing to fly the drone illegally above the 400ft legal height limit. Furthermore, the technical limitations of battery energy density / mass would mean that any drone that was able to reach these heights would have a very short loiter time – less than six minutes at 4000ft. The description is of something unlike a multirotor drone. The wind strength (between 25 and 49km/h at reported level) would make drone operations difficult, and would significantly reduce the range and heights achievable. | Description is a close match with a balloon, and no match at all with a drone.
How can ‘providence’ play a major part and/or ‘a definite risk of collision’ have existed when the ‘object’ is completely unidentified? |
The A320 pilot reports climbing through 5000ft when the First Officer (PF) exclaimed that there was a bird ahead. They looked and caught sight of a dark coloured object at about the 11 o’clock that passed very quickly down the left side, within 5-10m of the left wing. It did not look like a bird but like a fairly compact ‘package’ that glinted in the sun. It was hard to tell but looked stationary as they flew past, i.e. no relative motion. They both concluded that it was possibly a drone as it seemed to move up and then manoeuvred to the left out of the way. They reported it immediately to London ATC.
Reported Separation: ‘5-10m’ The Gatwick controller reports that they were notified the A320 had passed a drone at 5000ft on the SFD SID. The pilot described it as silver in colour and definitely not a bird. Details were passed to Gatwick Tower to warn following departures. The NATS Ltd Investigation Shortly after departure from Gatwick the pilot of [A320 C/S] reported that they had just passed what they believed to have been a drone. Details were passed to another aircraft in the vicinity and to Gatwick Tower, who alerted following departures. Analysis of the radar by Safety Investigations indicated that there were no associated primary or secondary contacts visible on radar at the approximate time of the event. |