| Airprox # |
Score |
Rating |
Details |
ARC Comment |
| 2019113 |
-25 |
ARC considered it unlikely that the object observed was a drone. |
Eyewitness report from the aircraft flight crew and drone operator. 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). |
No Comment. |
| 2019115 |
-25 |
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 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. |
No Comment. |
| 2019123 |
-90 |
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 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 wind strength (between 50 and 72kmh/h at reported level) would make drone operations virtually impossible. |
See ADS-B report 2019123. |
| 2019128 |
-25 |
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 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. |
Unfortunately UKAB report does not specify the direction of the sighting. |
| 2019129 |
-65 |
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 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 wind strength (between 50 and 72kmh/h at reported level) would make drone operations virtually impossible. |
No comment. |
| 2019134 |
-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). |
No comment. |
| 2019135 |
-55 |
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 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 wind strength (between 25 and 49km/h at reported level) would make drone operations difficult, and would significantly reduce the range and heights achievable.The reported location is within a Flight Restriction Zone (FRZ). |
The location was directly overhead London Battersea Heliport. The yellow / orange sightseeing helicopters operate from there. |
| 2019145 |
-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 object encountered is described as a “Drone” but with no further details. The reported location is within a Flight Restriction Zone (FRZ). |
No B737 was detected in that general location, at that approximate height, at that approximate time. |
| 2019146 |
-25 |
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 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. |
This is not an airprox under the ICAO definition. It is not possible to see a drone from 1/2 mile away and 500ft above. London Docklands Heliport was directly to the left of the reporting a/c. Almost certainly the sighting will have been a helicopter operating out of London Docklands Heliport. How does UKAB class a half mile and 500ft vertical miss as a medium risk of collision? Nearly every time an aircraft flies a circuit at an aerodrome it is within 500feet and half a mile of other aircraft. UKAB are listing ‘sightings’ as airproxes. |
| 2019147 |
-65 |
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 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 wind strength (between 25 and 40km/h at ground level) would make drone operations difficult, and would significantly reduce the range and heights achievable.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. |
BE76 Beech Duchess light twin has no ADS-B trace. |
