December 2018

Total Highly Unlikely Unlikely Likely Highly Likely
18 8 10 0 0

 

Airprox # Score Rating Details Board Comment
2018236 -45 The Board considered it unlikely that the object observed was a drone. This is an eyewitness report from a person other than flight crew or drone operator. 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. As the aircraft in question is a Chinook we can assume relative velocity of 0-100 mph. The location given is Class G airspace up to 1500 feet.

The description given does not sound like any multirotor drone available on the market (although the description lacks detail (“large, yellow”). It could possibly have been a model aircraft. Possibly an RC glider. An RC glider would be entitled to fly at that location up to 1000 feet. But model aircraft / glider is also unlikely as there is no suitable public land for launching / landing in the given location. The likelihood of meeting two model aircraft / model gliders within a few seconds is extremely remote – so it is far more likely to have been birds – perhaps Canada Geese (approaching 100,000 resident in the UK) or Spoonbills.
2018238 -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. 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 reported object is described as being ‘a large commercial drone’. There is no feasible reason for a commercial drone to be operating at 3400 feet, furthermore if it was a commercial operator they would be working in contravention of the law, the terms of their PfCO and their training. Commercial drones are very expensive. It is unlikely that an operator would risk their livelihood (in terms of their expensive equipment and their permission to operate) by flying at this level. Commercial drones also have relatively short flight times (often under 10 minutes), which makes operating at this altitude impossible. The reporting a/c was conducting an ILS approach to Heathrow 27R: this approach passes overhead the London Wetland Centre, which is famous for visiting migratory wild birds etc.
2018242 -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. 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. Night time with no LEDS reported.The location was geo-fenced, which means that at least 80% of drones could not be operated in that area/ at that altitude. Sunset was at 19:56 on this day, so the reported time of this incident was two hours after sunset. The pilot reports that he was able to see the colour of the drone (white), but didn’t mention its lights. The description of the drone sounds more like a balloon, “A shiny white drone” lacks any detail on size, propulsion system, type (fixed wing or rotary), etc. The pilot reported that the unidentified object was visible for approximately one second. This seems more likely to have been an owl or a balloon, than a drone.
2018244 -75 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. 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. A crew member (who would have only had access to a small passenger window) reported the drone to the captain who then filed the airprox.
2018245 -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. 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. It is noted that the stated location was approximately overhead the London Wetland Centre, which is famous for visiting migratory wild birds etc.
2018250 -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. 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. This report lacks any detail about the unidentified object or the location or altitude of the aircraft at the time of the alleged incident. The report says that the unidentified object passed by very quickly (apparently too quickly to identify). The first officer did not report a risk of collision.
2018251 -70 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 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 location was geo-fenced, which means that at least 80% of drones could not be operated in that area/ at that altitude. The description given by the Tutor pilot (silver metallic object) seems more likely to have been a silver party balloon than a drone.
2018256 -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. 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. St Athan airfield is adjacent to the coast. The possibility that the object encountered was a seagull cannot be ignored.
2018259 -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. 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 15 and 25mph at ground level) would make drone operations difficult, and would significantly reduce the range and heights achievable. According to the airprox report the unidentified object was initially thought to be a balloon. The description of the object sounds nothing like any known drone on the market and the altitude (4,900ft) makes it highly unlikely to be a drone. The 15mph wind at ground level would substantially reduce the flight time and maximum height achievable of a drone. This is more likely to have been a party balloon as initially suggested.
2018261 -115 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. 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 (>25mph at ground level) would make drone operations virtually impossible. The altitude (4000ft) makes the unidentified item very unlikely to have been a drone (whilst technically possible to ascend to 4000ft, and descend again before the battery is depleted the loiter time at this altitude would be very short and the chances of these few moments coinciding with an aircraft passing almost the same location are extremely remote). (Washington University calculated that the chances of a drone airprox with a commercial airliner was once every 1.87 million years of operations). Thirty mph wind speed at ground level would make launching a drone virtually impossible, and would massively reduce the drone’s maximum height.
2018262 -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. 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 location was geo-fenced, which means that at least 80% of drones could not be operated in that area/ at that altitude. This airprox report describes a black and grey drone with navigation lights.
2018263 -75 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. 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 location was geo-fenced, which means that at least 80% of drones could not be operated in that area/ at that altitude. The initial sighting of the reported DJI Phantom was at FL140. The object was then spotted again at FL95 by the co-pilot one hold orbit later. A DJI Phantom (or any other commercially available drone) could not reach the altitudes in question.
2018264 -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. 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. The location was geo-fenced, which means that at least 80% of drones could not be operated in that area/ at that altitude. The ‘white drone’ was observed by a member of the cabin crew 20sec after take-off. The report states that it’s structure was clearly visible from 100ft away. Given that a typical white drone is approximately 33cm in diameter, clearly seeing it’s structure from 100ft away, whilst strapped in to crew seats, looking through the tiny door porthole on climb out at 250kts seems unlikely.
2018265 -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. 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. Object spotted was a B737 crossing ahead.  See full report.
2018270 -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. 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 is of something unlike a multirotor drone. The Grob 120TP Prefect has a cruising speed of 270mph, maximum speed of 282mph and a stall speed of 67mph. The report describes the Prefect effectively flying one and a half orbits in formation with the unknown object. No multirotor drone can fly at speeds anything like this. No fixed wing r/c models could operate at these heights and speeds and perform these manoeuvres.
2018272 -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. 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 is of something unlike a multirotor drone. This airprox report states that a ‘medium size’ drone was encountered at FL073 in the London TMA.
2018275 -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. 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 location was geo-fenced, which means that at least 80% of drones could not be operated in that area/ at that altitude. The airprox report describes a yellow V shaped unidentified object of about 1m diameter. This description sounds more like a radio control model plane, rather than a drone. The altitude (2400ft) would be very unusual for model aircraft operations. Model aircraft do not usually have altitude restrictions or geozone restrictions (this location is in a DJI Geozone Altitude Restriction zone which prevents a drone from operating above 150m (492ft)) but are practically restricted by radio signal range, battery longevity, and eyesight (except in the case of FPV flown aircraft). The reporting a/c was at 7nm final for Heathrow 27L, which is just after overflying the London Wetland Centre, which is famous for visiting migratory wild birds etc.
2018281 -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. 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 location was geo-fenced, which means that at least 80% of drones could not be operated in that area/ at that altitude. The airprox report states that a drone 50cm in diameter, black with a gold top, was encountered at 3800ft.