November 2019
| Total | Highly Unlikely | Unlikely | Possible | Likely | Highly Likely |
| 12 | 1 | 11 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Airprox # | Score | Rating | Details | ARC Comment |
| 2019247 | -75 | 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 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 reported location is within a Flight Restriction Zone (FRZ). | Reporting pilot said ‘suspected’. A hovering drone is virtually impossible to see (a recent study by Ryan Wallace of Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University and Oklahoma State University found that the pilot of a (much slower) Cessna didn’t see a hovering drone 70% of the time). Using the Airprox Board’s stated methodology “The Board adopts a pragmatic approach wherein if a pilot can positively identify the object as a drone (e.g. number of rotors, recognition of a particular type) then the reporter’s identification is taken at face-value. If a reporter can only describe the object in generic terms (e.g. a rectangular object) then UKAB classify it as an unknown object” this should be classified as ‘Unknown Object’. The area is within a DJI Geozone which prevents flight above 60m. Location is within an FRZ. |
| 2019249 | -45 | 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. The extremely remote location makes encountering a drone highly unlikely.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 wind strength (between 25 and 49km/h at reported level) would make drone operations difficult, and would significantly reduce the range and heights achievable. | 7km offshore. Reporting a/c was G-EZAF A319 EasyJet on long finals heading 245 degrees. ‘Drone’ will have been spotted in left 10o’clock (South) and will have been G-EZAK A319 EasyJet on downwind leg, heading 65 degrees, 7.17nm away. |
| 2019250 | -10 | 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. | |
| 2019251 | -50 | 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 partially matches 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. | |
| 2019258 | -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. | |
| 2019259 | -30 | 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 wind strength (between 25 and 49km/h at reported level) would make drone operations difficult, and would significantly reduce the range and heights achievable. | |
| 2019260 | -40 | 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 object encountered is described as a “Drone” but with no further details. | UNKNOWN OBJECT. The CL605 being vectored onto final approach was G-RANE. This aircraft made a continuous right turn from downwind to final. It is difficult to understand why the pilot has apparently stated that the aircraft ‘had begun to turn left on to the base leg.’ No suspect traffic showing on ADS-B, but any number of GA aircraft would be transiting through this gap between Luton and Stansted airspace. |
| 2019261 | -50 | 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 partially matches 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. | EMB 170 G-LCYG was 1.5nm North of Romford at 18:30. At 18:37 there was no EMB170 within 30nm of that location. |
| 2019262 | -50 | 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 partially matches 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. | No EMB 175 near that location at the reported time plus or minus 10 mins. |
| 2019266 | -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 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 49km/h at reported level) would make drone operations difficult, and would significantly reduce the range and heights achievable. | No B777 departed LHR 27L on a Compton 3G routing at the stated time plus or minus 10 minutes.
G-STBF departed 27L at 15:07 and turned North. FlightRadar24 data matches our data source: https://www.flightradar24.com/data/aircraft/g-stbf#21ee49ee We have cross checked this with LHR movement logs which show no such departure (the only B777 departing was at G-STBF heading North at 15.07). Extract from the movement logs: SAS505 SK505 SEROD A20N EKCH 1455 223 27R |
| 2019267 | -50 | 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 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 reported location is within a Flight Restriction Zone (FRZ). | Inside Biggin Hill FRZ At 18:18 A320 HB-IJI was about to leave the hold at 7000ft, and SR20 Cirrus N55557 was 3nm ahead in their 11 0’clock, 6000ft below. The SR20 is white – but could appear silver grey against a setting sun. The SR20 has fixed landing gear – that would appear to be ‘landing aids’. |
| 2019275 | -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. | UNKNOWN OBJECT No EMB170 on approach to Manchester RW23 at the stated time plus or minus 10 minutes. |
[/fusion_text][/fusion_builder_column][/fusion_builder_row][/fusion_builder_container]