January 2018

Total Highly Unlikely Unlikely Likely Highly Likely
8 0 8 0 0

 

Airprox # Score Rating Details Board Comment
2018288 -30 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. 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 object encountered is described as a “Drone” but with no further details. The captain described seeing ‘an object’. The word ‘drone’ was not explicitly used in the report. There is no further description of the object. This was potentially a balloon or another object. The first officer does not appear to have seen the item. Weather: 11mph WNW. Partially Sunny. ATC commentary of the radar at the time was not included in the Airprox report, and no radar data was available to the Flight Safety Board.
2018291 -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. No photographic 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 object encountered is described as a “Drone” but with no further details. Night time with no LEDS reported. It is effectively impossible for a multi-rotor drone to have been operating at this height. Weather: 12mph N. Partially sunny. ATC commentary of the radar at the time was not included in the Airprox report, and no radar data was available to the Flight Safety Board.
2018296 -45 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 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 description is of something unlike a multirotor drone. Location is over the Bristol Channel, 2.66 km from the nearest land (to the South). It is virtually impossible that a drone would be at this location and height. If the drone ascended vertically to this height it would have a loiter time of about six minutes. Adding in a transit of 2.66km each way (5.32km total) would take 4.43 minutes at maximum speed, leaving a loiter time of about one minute. And that is assuming that there was a suitable launch point on the shore. There is also no conceivable reason why a drone pilot would want to risk losing his drone in the sea on such a flight. It is far mor likely that the object sighted was a seabird. Weather 14mph NNE Mainly Sunny. ATC commentary of the radar at the time was not included in the Airprox report, and no radar data was available to the Flight Safety Board.
2018297 -5 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. 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 description of the drone, whilst somewhat vague, does give the impression of a drone (Drones usually feature coloured LEDs). PA18 is a Piper Super Cub. This is quite a slow aircraft – around 65 – 70mph during climb. From the description of completing an orbit around the object, the pilot had it in sight for at least a minute. Weather: 3mph W. Mainly sunny. ATC commentary of the radar at the time was not included in the Airprox report, and no radar data was available to the Flight Safety Board.
2018299 -45 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. 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 location was geo-fenced, which means that at least 80% of drones could not be operated in that area/ at that altitude. Pilots using Heathrow 27R should be briefed to expect to see large birds flying in and out of the London Wetlands Wildlife centre at all heights. The location is within a DJI Geozone which would require authorisation and would limit height to 60m (197ft). 5mph S. Sunny. ATC commentary of the radar the time was not included in the Airprox report, and no radar data was available to the Flight Safety Board.
2018307 -30 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. 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 fact that the two flight deck crew members ‘independently’ reported exactly the same object description is not considered remarkable, as they would have undoubtedly discussed the sighting. No LEDs or other identifying marks mentioned.
A stationary object will appear to be travelling at high speed if you are moving at 150mph. 2mph N. Partially sunny. ATC commentary of the radar at the time was not included in the Airprox report, and no radar data was available to the Flight Safety Board.
2018309 -15 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. 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 description partially matches a multirotor drone. Laddock is at least five miles outside the Newquay ATZ. Pilot originally identified the object as an aircraft, then as a UAV. Probably a Grey Heron. Sunset was 16.27 on this day in Newquay. Weather: Scattered showers, 12mph SE. ATC commentary of the radar at the time was not included in the Airprox report, and no radar data was available to the Flight Safety Board.
2018311 -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. 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 location was geo-fenced, which means that at least 80% of drones could not be operated in that area/ at that altitude. LCN06 is in the choke point between London CTA and Stapleford ATZ. It is Class G airspace, so all types of aircraft pass through this area. It must be assumed that the object was to the South of the reporting aircraft, because they reported seeing a silhouette against the sunlight at 10:25. The report says that the item was “larger than the usual ‘pleasure’ drones”. It is hard to imagine a reason for a commercial drone to be flying at 3000ft (what would they be filming?), it would also require a commercial operator to fly against the terms of their PfCO, the law, and their training. They would be risking their livelihood in terms of their permission and also their equipment. Commercial drone equipment usually has very low flight times, often around 10 minutes, as such it would be impossible to reach and return from 3000ft before the battery was depleted. The board concluded that this was probably a more distant aircraft, possibly a helicopter. (It is very easy to make an inaccurate identification of a silhouette.) Weather: Sunny, 2mph, SSE. ATC commentary of the radar at the time was not included in the Airprox report, and no radar data was available to the Flight Safety Board.