| Airprox # |
Score |
Rating |
Details |
Board Comment |
| 2018318 |
-30 |
The Board 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 partially matches a multirotor drone. |
Weather: Passing Clouds 6mph S |
| 2018321 |
-40 |
The Board 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 object encountered is described as a “Drone” but with no further details. |
The board suggested that the blue aircraft may have been a helicopter using London City, or Battersea Heliport. ATC commentary of the radar at the time was not included in the Airprox report, and no radar data was available to the Flight Safety Board. (Whilst a drone will not show on radar, other aircraft will – and it is one of these that may have been misidentified as a drone.) Weather: Low Clouds, 12mph W |
| 2018322 |
-30 |
The Board 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 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. |
For a drone to be in this location it would have to have climbed up through Southend CTR, which is a geo-fenced area. 6000ft is not a credible height for a drone. As the location was very close to Southend Airport, it is far more likely that this was an aircraft operating out of Southend and the red ‘rotors’ were actually the anti-collision beacons. |
| 2018324 |
-30 |
The Board 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. Visible LEDs reported at night time. |
The airprox report lists the distance between the aircraft and the “suspected drone” as 1nm. A drone cannot be seen from 1nm away. The weather on the ground was dense fog at this location and time. This may have been the blue and red lights from emergency services vehicle on the ground reflecting on the fog/ low cloud. With regards to the report of no TCAS alert, the board recalled a previous airprox (airprox number 2017036) which is an example of TCAS not alerting, even when both aircraft were both transponding SSR Mode A & C. The board felt that it should be recorded that a lack of a TCAS alert is therefore not necessarily conclusive proof that no other aircraft was present. ATC commentary of the radar at the time was not included in the airprox report, and radar data was not available to the Flight Safety Board. Weather: Dense Fog, 6mph W. |
| 2018325 |
-90 |
The Board 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 description is of something unlike a multirotor drone. The wind strength (between 15 and 25mph at ground 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. |
This location is in a Geozone limiting drones to 150m (492ft). The EMB135 would be flying at up to 220 knots, if a drone were visible from the cabin it would flash past in a fraction of a second and it would be impossible to identify. The alleged drone was reported as red, the board is not aware of a commercially available red drone. However, the two London Air Ambulance helicopters are both red. The airprox report did not include analysis of the radar data and the data was not available to to the flight safety board. Weather: Sunny 15.5mph E. No log of an EMB135 landing at this time. No ADSB data log showing at EMB135 arriving Northolt within 4 hours of this time. |
| 2019005 |
-40 |
The Board 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 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. |
Weather: Partly sunny, 12.5mph W |
| 2019006 |
-85 |
The Board considered it highly unlikely that the object observed was a drone. |
This is an eyewitness report from a person other than flight crew or drone operator. No photographic evidence. The likelihood of encountering a drone above 12000ft is effectively zero. These heights would be impossible for consumer drones due to the technical limitations of battery energy density / mass. A drone built specifically for the task is not inconceivable, however the likelihood is very small. If possible at all, loiter time at this altitude could only be a few seconds. 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. |
The likelihood of encountering a drone at 19,000ft. is effectively zero. Even if a drone could reach this altitude, for a few seconds, then the likelihood of a passenger spotting and observing a drone from 500m away would require unbelievable chance and extraordinary eyesight, especially as the B737 would have been passing it at more than 250 knots (probably more like 370 knots). To then be able to see the drone turn and descend relative to the 737 does not seem feasible – it would be out of sight behind in a few seconds. The description of the drone lacks any detail other than that it was big. A commercial drone certainly could not reach 19,000ft and there would be no reason for a commercial operator to ascend to this height even if it could. This could only realistically have been another aircraft. ATC commentary of the radar at the time was not included in the Airprox report, and no radar data was available to the Flight Safety Board. The Airprox report made no mention of possible military (manned or unmanned) traffic in the airspace. Weather: Scattered Cloud, 11mph N |
| 2019012 |
-50 |
The Board 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 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 object encountered is described as a “Drone” but with no further details. |
|
