April 2020
| Total | Highly Unlikely | Unlikely | Possible | Likely | Highly Likely |
| 2 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Airprox # | Score | Rating | Details | ARC Comment |
| 2020024 | -40 | 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 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 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). | 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’. |
| 2020028 | -120 | ARC 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. 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 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). | 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 pilot’s description seems to match a silver helium balloon. The wind (19km/h on the ground/ 26km/h at 1000hPA) was coming from the West so a helium balloon would have tracked East as the caravan controller described. |