Close call: A passenger plane had a near miss with a drone as it landed at Heathrow on July 22, in the first such incident recorded at Britain’s biggest airport. Above, planes queue to take off at the airport
He reported the sighting and an inquiry was launched by the UK Airprox Board, which investigates all reported near-misses. Investigators, however, were unable to identify it.
It comes amid concern over the threat to aircraft from domestic drones flown by amateurs.
In May the pilot of a 74-seat ATR 72 reported a quadcopter drone within 80ft of his aircraft at about 1,500ft as he was approaching Southend Airport.
The official report into the incident at Heathrow is due to be published on Friday, but Ukab has initially recorded the incident rating as A – the highest of its five categories – in which serious risk of collision has existed.
Airport: The official report into the incident at London Heathrow (pictured) is due to be published on Friday, but the UK Airprox Board has initially recorded the incident rating as A – the highest of its five categories
The revelation comes as it was revealed there was concern over domestic drones flown by amateurs threatening aircraft - especially as they are given as Christmas presents.
Drones cost from just £35 to £3,350 - and sales have jumped from the normal level of around 2,000 a month thanks to extra demand ahead of December 25, according to The Sunday Times.
Electronics retailer Maplin said drones were one of its biggest current sellers, while hundreds of different drones made by at least 15 manufacturers can be purchased from Amazon.
Last month, a conference on unmanned aerial systems in London heard that police were worried about injuries and other problems on Boxing Day when amateur ‘pilots’ try out their new drones.
Drones (file pictured) cost from £35 to £3,350 - and sales have jumped from the normal level of around 2,000 a month thanks to extra pre-Christmas demand. It is unknown what type of drone was involved in the incident
The Airbus A320 is commonly used by European airlines. Earlier this year airline pilots' association Balpa demanded better protection for the public against the risks of drones.
It wants drones, officially known as Remotely Piloted Aircraft Systems (Rpas), which share airspace with passenger and freight airliners, to meet the same safety standards as piloted aircraft.
It includes only being flown by operators with pilot-equivalent training.
Balpa general secretary Jim McAuslan said: ‘The UK should become a "safe drone zone" so we can make the most of the major business and leisure opportunities offered by remotely piloted aircraft, while protecting passengers, pilots and residents.
‘The technology is developing quickly and we could see remote aircraft the same size as a Boeing 737 being operated commercially in our skies within ten years.’
Research carried out by intelligence experts for the University of Birmingham Policy Commission Report published in October warned of the misuse of drones.
The commission called for ‘urgent’ measures to safeguard British airspace to cope with civil and commercial use, which is expected to be more widespread by 2035.
The report said the ‘hazards presented by inadvertent or accidental misuse of Rpas, or the consequences of their malfunctioning are becoming better understood’.
It added that small commercial aircraft, including for taking photographs, are already ‘clearly being flown’ and often in breach of the rules, the commission found.
Comments
At small (no tower) airports the vast majority of flights are coming in VFR and they dump altitude faster than a 3 degree slope. Could someone be a mile out and under 400 feet doing a practice approach? Yes, but that is not common. Should they be under 400 feet 5 miles out? I've never met a flight instructor who thought that was a good idea. How about 2 miles out? Generally you hold altitude as long as possible for your own safety as well as those who may be on the ground. Not to mention the birds which are more common lower to the ground.
Again the point here is 5 miles is way too much. Especially for small airports and helipads.
"Also the 5 mile circular thing around airports is ludicrous and unrelated to actual flight paths.
Planes don't descend (or ascend) below 500 feet in anything like that space, only at the ends of the runway and certainly within a mile of the airport."
This is false. 3 degrees is the standard ILS, VASI, PAPI, PVASI, whatever glidepath. Who's flying an ILS to a small airport during broad daylight in a Cessna 172 or a Bell Jetranger? Anyone doing instrument training. Who bothers to find out if the nearest airport has an ILS or any other types of approaches and where the procedure turns are? Almost nobody. The FAA knows this.
I was asked by the BBC to be interviewed on this incident and voice my opinions but it was my Fathers 80th birthday so couldn`t make the meeting with them before the 6pm bulletin, but I did speak to them on the phone and gave them a few suggestions on how I thought incidents like this could be prevented, such as only selling the parts and not complete units? that may mean that if they have the intelligence to build one they may have the intelligence not to fly within international airports.. But whatever is done its a little too late as there are thousands of units out there and thousands of idiots to match. Technology has replaced the skill to fly and the respect for safety that comes with it. Even the BNUC`s exam that grants UK commercial flyers their licence does not require you to fly manually or even in Atti mode, just a load of switch flicking and then you are granted a licence and it has become apparent on a great number of jobs that I have been on... " How comes you are not having any problems with interference? the last guys said they couldn`t fly because of it and nearly crashed.." In other words they couldn`t fly without GPS which is just asking for trouble especially in built up areas where there are more potential dangers and generally less GPS reception.
Just saying this is boring or impossible is not calming things down.
Brent and John Bond's posts probably show why there needs to be some actual enforceable regulation, training, and licensing for continued operation of model aircraft. Most of us don't have much of a clue on exactly how full size manned aircraft navigate in the NAS.
And as it stands, with the way things are going and the huge influx of new modelers, it's taking the scales of economy to new levels. Back in the day there was a smaller number of rc pilots, and en even smaller number of knuckleheads. Now the tech is so user-(read idiot)friendly that everyone is jumping in with no experience or appreciation for the AMA's guidelines, let alone the FAA.
I dont see how this is any different to launching fireworks or flying a kite at the end of a runway. Why does the "drone" have to be the focus of the story. Surely it should be the turbo mong of a pilot, who should have the balls to come forwards and admit to wrong-doing!
"A typical glideslope is 3 degrees ..."
Not for a Cessna 172 or a Bell 206.
An appropriate exclusion zone for O'Hare is much different than some small town municipal airport. Unfortunately with the FAA we hear things like X nautical miles from ANY airport or heliport with no distinction as to the type and density of traffic. This eliminates a great deal of perfectly usable airspace for model-sized craft because of regulator laziness, not safety.
A small town hospital with a helipad that might be used once a week gets a 5 mile radius no fly zone? We're talking below 400 feet here. I'd like to see the risk analysis that supports that. I'd like to see it for a small city airport. Of course with the FAA there has been no risk analysis even though they said they would do it more than 5 years ago.
Manned airspace distinctions are way too coarse for model aircraft, but regulators tend to think only in manned terms and at manned scales. They can't help themselves, it's all they know. It's why you see silly "copy and paste" manned rules for line-of-sight model aircraft flight. Like requiring meteorological training when you are usually less than 2 minutes from your landing spot. Most children can predict weather conditions that far out.
At this point in time the FAA decision makers seem to understand model aircraft about as well as the typical Phantom pilot understands manned aviation. The point is that regulators also need to get educated.
It should be built in no fly zones around all airports in the drone firmware. That would slow these kinds of reports down. The rule is within 5 miles.
3>mile=900' 4>mile=1200'
Do you still think 1 mile <400agl is a good idea?
More to consider, what runway end are you talking about? LHR has two main runways, both are typically in use, descending for landing on one end and climbing off the other end, that's 4 runway ends you need to be aware of. Chicago Ohare has EIGHT runways! Sorry to be harsh but if the SUAV community wants to stay airborne we need to get educated about the airspace we will be sharing.
-
1
-
2
-
3
of 3 Next