November 2020

Total	Highly Unlikely	Unlikely	Possible	Likely	Highly Likely
6	2	4	0	0	0

Airprox #	Score	Rating	Details	ARC Comment
2020135	-110	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 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 50 and 72kmh/h at reported level) would make drone operations virtually impossible.The location was geo-fenced, which means that at least 80% of drones could not be operated in that area/ at that altitude.	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’. A drone is very unlikely to be flown at 4500ft as explained in the ‘Details’ column.
2020140	-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 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. 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.	The location is about 1km North of Henstridge aerodrome. An aircraft performing a Standard Overhead Join into the Henstridge circuit would follow the course alleged in this report. Blue and yellow are not the colours of any major drone type. The Dorset and Somerset Air Ambulance (Yellow) was operating in the general vicinity of the reporting a/c at the stated time at a lower height.
2020142	-20	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 description is of something unlike a multirotor drone.	The stated location was over the middle of the Tamar river. Much more likely to have seen a bird here at 300 feet than a model aircraft. Location was within half a mile of a nature reserve.
2020144	-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.
2020148	-100	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 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 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 50 and 72kmh/h at reported level) would make drone operations virtually impossible.	Unknown Object At the time stated, the reporting aircraft GAC111G (OE-FZC) was descending through 2900 feet travelling West and had crossing traffic G-AVWT in the 11 o’clock position at about 5km range. G-AVWT PA28 was heading North at 2100 feet. The C510 crossed 850 feet overhead within 500 metres of the PA28. Nb. A full sized aircraft viewed from 5km would appear about the same size as a drone at 50m.
2020150	-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 description is of something unlike a multirotor drone.	Unknown Object The reporting aircraft G-NEOU made a right turn immediately after taking off. This was completed before reaching 2000 feet. When the aircraft was passing 3000 feet and 3NM it was in a gentle left turn. UKAB location details contradict the pilot’s reported location.