| Airprox # |
Score |
Rating |
Details |
Board Comment |
| 2019082 |
-80 |
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 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 location was geo-fenced, which means that at least 80% of drones could not be operated in that area/ at that altitude. |
Very unlikely to have been a drone. |
| 2019084 |
-20 |
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 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. |
Beechcraft Duchess twin engine four seat. Report mentions rotors within rotor rings and that ‘drone’ was mottled like camouflage. More likely to have been a bird – which also would appear mottled. Reporting a/c not identified on ADS-B. |
| 2019086 |
-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 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. |
Reporting a/c was within the CTA 1500ft to 3500ft. More or less right at VRP – where you would expect to see other a/c. And also immediately South of Stow Maries airfield – which has Great War biplanes and model aircraft. Reporting a/c not identified on ADS-B. Claimed range of 0.25m = 402 metres – which is very difficult. The pilot reported that there was no risk of collision, which means this was not an airprox under the ICAO definition. |
| 2019088 |
-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 object encountered is described as a “Drone” but with no further details. 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. |
The approach to RW27R passes directly over the London Wetland Centre. Pilots should be briefed to expect to see large birds in this area. Geozone restricts drones to no more than 150m. The pilot reported that there was no risk of collision, which means this was not an airprox under the ICAO definition. |
| 2019093 |
-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. |
The approach to RW27L passes directly over the London Wetland Centre. Pilots should be briefed to expect to see large birds in this area. The reported item passed 1000 feet below and 305 metres away. Airliner windows do not allow pilots to see directly down, so the reported object must have been significantly ahead. This is not an airprox under the ICAO definition. 1000ft is the standard minimum vertical spacing between aircraft in controlled airspace. The reporting aircraft was not identified on ADS-B. |
| 2019094 |
-65 |
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 object encountered is described as a “Drone” but with no further details. The location was geo-fenced, which means that at least 80% of drones could not be operated in that area/ at that altitude. |
The report says “Although it wasn’t close enough to hit them”. This is not therefore an airprox under the ICAO definition. |
| 2019103 |
-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 report states that no avoiding action was required. This seems to suggest that there was no risk of collision and this probably wasn’t an airprox under the ICAO definition. |
| 2019114 |
-60 |
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 location was geo-fenced, which means that at least 80% of drones could not be operated in that area/ at that altitude. |
An object that flew past the nose of an aircraft on a left turn out of Gatwick, near Lingfield, would be somewhere in the vicinity of Redhill. The helicopter fleet based at Redhill and operated by EBG Helicopters consists of nine helicopters, which are predominately coloured black or very dark blue with markings. At least one of these, an EC120, has blue markings. It is more likely that the pilot actually saw a manned helicopter. |
