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
I am sure one of the reasons, if not the main reason for the large distance from airports is the concern about "runaways" or "flyaways". The distance gives the batteries more time to run out before the drone gets too near.
check out http://www.caniflyadrone.com to see where you are in relation to US airstrips before you fly. Includes all class a and b airstrips, as wwellel as maps in the USA
Many modelers/hobbyist believe that the FAA is either out to get them, ignorant about small drones, or overly concerned about safety. All of these belief's are false.
Read any one of the FAA exemption documents granted to commercial operators. You'll see that it's filled with concerns about safety, limitations on how they can operate, rules for pilot training, required aircraft inspections, restrictions on daytime flight, etc.
In other words, the FAA is consistent in their concerns about safety. Whether the drone is to be used by a commercial operator, or by a hobbyist, safety is their #1 concern, as it should be. Safety is what primarily drives their actions.
Some consider the fantastic growth of the drone hobby to be a success. In some ways it is. But there is no denying that a growing number of rogue and uneducated hobby 'pilots' are doing some very stupid things with their aircraft. This is leading to some negative and justifiable reactions by the government and the general public.
Thousands of drones will be given as holiday gifts this season. Many to people that know nothing about the rules or safety issues. Those drones will enter the skies as soon as the batteries are charged.
New and needed regulations are coming soon. I can only imagine the outrage we'll be hearing on these forums once they're announced.
John, aviation charts are in nautical miles so the 4nm distance translates to about 4.6 statute miles. You can try to use the big sky theory of collision avoidance but that has proved to be problematic and actually caused the formation of the FAA in the 50's after two prominent accidents. The lowest standard of midair avoidance now is see and avoid with a VFR flight. With a UAV they probably don't see the manned aircraft and the manned craft almost certainly doesn't see them. It's hard enough to see a full sized plane and it's a busy phase of flight.
Your last line about conscientious UAV pilots is the real key and unfortunately too many aren't. Not willfully but because they don't understand much about the airspace system. The 5 mile rule is a simplification for the ignorant and unfortunately they may outnumber the conscientious.Two months ago I watched an idiot with a DJ flying in packed park right under the base to final turn at our local airport. Not only was he flying over a large number of people with a powered rock but the planes were about a hundred feet above him. All it took was him going a little higher or a plane dragging it in on that turn to cause a problem. There are a lot more of him out there.
@Darrell Geofencing is not reliable enough to be used as a safety measure and in fact could cause more accidents than it saves. It is these GPS features causing the current rash of flyaways.
According to Techenstein, reports of near misses are very overstated. Check out his blog post, "Drone Reports 2014: The Facts and The Fiction". It's on the Internet so it must be true.
Require the manufactures to limit the aircraft to a geofence of about 25 meters and then all the near miss stories will go away. Why would any hobbyist need to go any further? If you want or need greater distances then go to an approved field or obtain a commercial license after proper training and obtaining insurance. It really isn't that hard to implement safety. DJI did it and you can be sure they did it to ensure they didn't eventually loose their market.
It is interesting hearing you guys over the pond talking about the 5mi zone being nonsense and prohibits many RC clubs. My club over here is very close to an international airport (EMA), but we have a written letter of authority to fly at a certain place up to a certain height. EMA know about this and they will never route aircraft near us, along with advising VFR traffic about us. Seems sensible and causes no issues.
From my side I believe the issue isnt the 5mi, 3mi, 400' etc etc rules that are in question here because quite clearly they arent being followed anyway! I would say common sense prevails and you shouldnt fly anywhere near a traffic route END OF STORY. Any other flying you should always "maintain collision avoidance" (guidelines from the CAA) which I think is a good way of putting it, again something we all (maybe) do but these nutters who buy a COTS drone with no experience and think, "wow this is cool, lets go and look at an airport in FPV" are going to end up killing someone.
The problem is not law enforcement of these rules as that would be nearly impossible, police cannot be in every field all the time looking for people, that is daft. The regulation needs to be in the sale of these bits of kit and could be as simple as including an information sheet explaining what is legal and what isnt, 5mi 400' etc.
God help us in January after everyone gets a christmas present they don't know how to use, but fly it anyway.
As many here already know, the FAA will be proposing new UAS rules early next year.
There was a 2 hour senate hearing today on the topic of 'Integrating drones into the U.S. airspace'. I'd advise those interested to watch the replay at the link below. There was one consistent message from everyone at the hearing: Safety comes first.
http://www.c-span.org/video/?323186-1/hearing-drone-regulations
Incidents like the one reported in this post are already happening too often. Senators mentioned that 27 such incidents have been reported by pilots in the last month. Apparently there have been 190 incidents in the past 3 months. Everyone is alarmed by the growing safety risks. Airline pilots are highly alarmed. There's no denying that the situation is forcing the regulators to act.
It's sad that it's come to this point. But the rapid growth of civilian drones sales, combined with bad actors, is causing real air safety issues. Stay tuned for new rules next year.
The community at large was given a chance by the FAA to come up with community based standards. It did in the form of RCAPA which were read by the FAA. The RPAS and RC community accused RCAPA of being scare mongers and set them to ignore choosing instead to believe something magical would happen. The FAA then observed many many poor examples of airmanship from the FPV community and others who claimed professionalism and are now using those as the benchmark of what to regulate against. The FAA have been and still will be glacial, the Australia and the UK will have had regs for more than 10 years before you start properly over there.
If only folks had paid more attention to the dull regs instead of claiming perceived rights they never had.
-
1
-
2
-
3
-
4
of 4 Next