| Airprox # |
Score |
Rating |
Details |
Board Comment |
| 2019048 |
-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. |
Ryanair aircraft are white, blue and yellow. This was more likely to have been a Ryanair aircraft passing overhead several kilometres away. (Due to lack of supplied detail on the reporting aircraft identity, this cannot be checked further.) Surface wind: 3.7mph |
| 2019052 |
-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. |
The reported location was approximately 1 mile South of London Heliport. Orange and black sightseeing helicopters operate from there. The sighting was most likely a manned helcopter, a long way below. Surface wind: 6.2mph |
| 2019054 |
-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. |
Due to lack of supplied detail on the reporting aircraft identity, and the high traffic volumes over London, this aircraft could not be identified. Surface wind: 5.6mph |
| 2019057 |
-45 |
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. The extremely remote location makes encountering a drone highly unlikely.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. |
Surface Wind: 7.4mph East. Overcast. 2.78km from the nearest land. View full report. |
| 2019063 |
-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 9000ft and 12000ft is effectively zero. These heights would be impossible for consumer drones due to the technical limitations of battery energy density / mass. A custom-built drone could possibly achieve this level but they account for less than 3% of the fleet*. 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. |
Due to lack of supplied detail on the reporting aircraft, and the high traffic volumes over London, this aircraft could not be identified. |
| 2019068 |
-25 |
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 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. The description is of something unlike a multirotor drone. |
The description does not match any commercially available drone – particularly the size. This was more likely a bird. Perhaps a Kestrel (62cm-82cm wingspan). |
| 2019069 |
-15 |
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 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. The description partially matches a multirotor drone. |
No drones are rectangular – nor any birds. Latest figure is 84 million breeding pairs of birds in the UK. Possibly 100,000 drones. So about 2000 times more likely to have been a bird. |
| 2019080 |
-40 |
The Board considered it unlikely that the object observed was a drone. |
Not a valid airprox report. |
Given that there was no risk of collision, this is not an Airprox under the ICAO definition. The approach into RW23 crosses the Clyde and therefore it is far more likely that the object observed was a seabird. |
