| Airprox # |
Score |
Rating |
Details |
ARC Comment |
| 2019148 |
-70 |
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 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. |
Reporting a/c is B787-9 Dreamliner G-ZBKN, on approach to HRW RW27L. A139 M-SHRM departs London Heliport and is at 1,125ft slightly to the right of dead ahead of B787-9 Dreamliner G-ZBKN at time stated: 9:20. M-SHRM is large white ‘box like’ helicopter of ‘cuboid construction’ (photo: https://www.flickr.com/photos/95512093@N05/46360102792) which would have appeared between the two runways at LHR as stated.
Read ADS-B report. |
| 2019149 |
-120 |
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 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. 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. |
Reporting a/c A319 G-EUOA at approx 10,000ft exits the BIG hold to the NW and makes an unplanned left hand orbit around Mitcham. The object that the pilot (and the pilot in a/c below) spotted was almost certainly B748 D-ABYN crossing across the top of the hold at 35000ft, passing to the right (and 25,000ft above) the reporting a/c. |
| 2019153 |
-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 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 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. |
Reporting a/c B737 G-GDFY is approximately 6nm out from RW14 when B787-9 LN-LNI passes down the left side, 33,000 higher. (LN-LNI is red/ black/ white: https://www.jetphotos.com/photo/8899469) |
| 2019155 |
-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. Night time with no LEDS reported. |
This report is timed at 11:23pm local time, which means it was dark. Darkness would make the pilot’s visual sighting of a drone particularly unreliable. |
| 2019166 |
-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 object encountered is described as a “Drone” but with no further details. |
Reporting a/c C180 G-CIBO was cruising at 1900ft barometric, heading South East. At 13:08 3.4nm ahead of him, RotorSport Cavalon gyrocopter G-IDYL (https://www.flickr.com/photos/15110856@N02/17466867376), was travelling West, and progressed from the reporting a/c’s 1o’clock to 2o’clock position, flying relatively slowly, at 1500ft barometric. G-IDYL is in fact white, but would have been viewed against the bright sky, being to the South of G-CIBO at 13:08Z on a sunny day in mid June, so would have appeared dark.
Read ADS-B report. |
| 2019171 |
-40 |
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 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. |
|
| 2019172 |
-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 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. |
Reporting a/c B747 G-CIVR was at stated approximate position, time, height at 07:30Z (6:30am) on a bright sunny morning, heading North East. A320 G-EZTH crossed his path, heading South South East 5.7nm ahead, 27,000ft higher. The dark shadow side of G-EXTH would have been visible to the B747 crew. |
| 2019173 |
-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 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 description partially matches a multirotor drone. The weather conditions (heavy rain) were unsuitable for drone operations.The wind strength (between 50 and 72kmh/h at reported level) would make drone operations virtually impossible. |
Reporting a/c B737 EI-EKZ had CL35 9H-VCB business jet with winglets 4.6nm off left side, 7000ft higher at the time of the alleged drone sighting. |
| 2019174 |
-40 |
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 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 wind strength (between 25 and 49km/h at reported level) would make drone operations difficult, and would significantly reduce the range and heights achievable. |
|
| 2019185 |
-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 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 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. |
|
| 2019186 |
-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 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. |
|
| 2019189 |
-80 |
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 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 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). |
|
