March 2019

Total Highly Unlikely Unlikely Likely Highly Likely
7 2 5 0 0

 

Airprox # Score Rating Details Board Comment
2019023 -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. 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 location was geo-fenced, which means that at least 80% of drones could not be operated in that area/ at that altitude. This location is within a DJI Geozone – altitude is restricted to 150m (492ft). The approach to RW27L passes directly over the London Wetland Centre. Pilots should be briefed to expect to see large birds in this area. 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. The location reported does not match the altitude reported – to be on approach to RW27L the aircraft would be at approximately 1,500ft at this location. If the aircraft was at 3,300ft it would be approximately 9km further West on a 3 degree glide slope. This is confirmed by ADS-B data of aircraft on approach to RW27L. Due to these discrepancies with the airprox report no meaningful investigation can be undertaken. Weather: Sunny 8.7 WNW.
2019025 -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 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. There is a geozone height restriction of 150m (492ft) in this location. Assuming the aicraft was travelling at approximately 180 knots (92.6m/s) on approach, the reported 5 second encounter would have covered approximately 463 metres. This would have required the pilot to spot the drone (reported as “0.5-1m long and 0.3-0.5m wide and appeared to be hovering”) from around 500 metres away. Oklahoma State University’s ‘Pilot Visual Detection of Small Unmanned Aircraft Systems (sUAS)
Equipped with Strobe Lighting’ study showed that, even when a pilot is briefed and looking for a drone, they were only able to see it in 7.7% of cases (when travelling at half this speed), and only from approximately 161 metres away. 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. Weather: Passing Clouds, 4mph N.
2019027 -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. No photographic 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. View full report
2019029 -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. It is very unlikely for a drone to be operating at 5,000ft. Tricopters (which are triangular in shape) are extremely rare. Tricopters that can fly to 5,000ft even more so. 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. Weather: Cool, 9.3mph SW
2019030 -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 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. Location is within a DJI Geozone which limits the altitude to 150m (492ft). Drones with “5 or 6 rotors” are usually commercial drones built with those extra motors for redundancy and extra load carrying capacity. There is no reason for a commercial drone to be operating at 3,800ft (in contravention of the law, a commercial operators PfCO, their training, etc). Commercial drones usually have especially short battery life and could not reach 3,800ft. 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. Weather: Partly Sunny, 13mph SW. Probably a distant sighting of an aircraft following Romeo departure from Northolt.
2019031 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.Visible LEDs reported at night time. View full report
2019033 -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 coordinates provided (55.9, -4.35 (5554N 00421W)) on the airprox report are “rounded up”. An aircraft on approach to Glasgow Airport would never be at the coordinates provided. ADS-B data confirms that the true coordinates for this aircraft when it was at 1200ft were 55.917892, -4.34709. This location is within a Geozone which prevents drones flying above 60m (196ft). ATC commentary of the radar at the time was not included in the Airprox report, and radar data was not available to the Flight Safety Board. Weather: Partly Sunny, 11mph SSW.