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
Typical cause
http://www.suasnews.com/2014/10/32046/airprox-report-no-2014073/
http://www.airproxboard.org.uk/docs/423/2014073.pdf
Apropos - large bird, like goose, is often faced with airliners. But pilots usually do not see their
Drones are much less dangerous than the hysteria about them, which provokes the wrong decisions and assess the situation.
In fact, in this cause, pilot of the aircraft could not be noted in flight drone sizes with a phantom, because it is almost physically impossible.
It is noticeable from a distance of less than 500 meters, which plane flies in a few seconds. 360 km per hour is 100 meters per second. From this distance it looks like a small speck without any details. A larger drones, such as meters, as large birds, radars can already detect.
Sgt Ric 19 hours ago
You want discuss about delusional and provocative lyrics? i have not. These stupid "anti drone" campaign just bored.
5 miles is a typical class D ring around a towered airport. That's where they're getting that rule. The tower controls the airspace from the ground up to 2500 feet AGL.
You'd better believe there are some individuals at the FAA waiting for an excuse to crack down. Unfortunately I don't think self-policing is going to cut it here.
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.
-
1
-
2
-
3
-
4
of 4 Next