French Airbus near miss

[tomatwalden]

It's just a matter of time ...

Un Airbus A320 évite de justesse un drone, à l'aéroport de Roissy - L'Express

You can put the article through Google translate, but the summary is ... An airbus coming in to land at Roissy Airport, Paris under autopilot. The co-pilot spotted the drone at 5,500feet in their flightpath. The pilot then disengaged the auto-pilot to take avoiding action. The drone passed just 5 metres under the left wing!

5 METRES! :-O

The drone's owner wasn't found ...

[Peteski]

Crazy fools around everywhere. I presume it must have been a pretty big drone for the pilot to spot it.

[Planehazza]

This has happened at our club recently. It's annoying because he have a strict no FPV rule, but a commercial plane coming in to land at Newcastle has spotted a "drone" at 2'500 feet around our club area. We're now on the radar basically, so one rogue guy could potentially get our, or our neighboring club, in bother...

[Scotvar]

Harry, It only ever takes one to ruin it for the majority. Shame but it's inevitable that the brain bypassed brigade will do something like this. The trouble is, rules and regulations will be put in place and the people who will adhere to them won't be an issue but the same people who are doing the daft things now will still carry on doing daft things. I said it before on an older thread, no matter what you put in place there will always be people who will drive uninsured or when they've had a drink. It'll be the same with FPV. Let's just hope for the majority of us the knee jerk reaction isn't too severe.

Paul

[scallybert]

I wonder if this is seen as a bigger threat than that from lasers ?

After all, a Virgin (IIRC) flight had to turn back after a laser injured a pilot.

One might suggest that lasers are even harder to police, and cause more of a problem.

[jimmyhorns]

With all of these stories I smell bullsh1t.

If you make the assumption that this was a multirotor, and being flown by someone stupid enough to be flying on a flight path at that altitude, then it's not going to be much bigger than an f550.

A f550 with a closing speed of 250 knots (probably about right for the speed at 5500ft - they land at about 140 knots) would be visible and avoidable for almost no time at all, and this is why I simply do not believe the reports.

A f550, side on is almost impossible to see at 300 metres, so lets go with 300m as the distance at which it was sighted.

at 250 knots thats 2 1/2 seconds.

Thats probably just about long enough to work out that there is something getting closer analyse the image, decide on a course of action and then get your finger to the autopilot switch.

[Mark_T]

Birds still do way more damage to aircraft every year than any drone.

Also I was told, no idea if it is accurate, that these days UFO reports by pilots have dropped considerably, they all get reported as drones now ...

[maddog7]

With all of these stories I smell bullsh1t.

If you make the assumption that this was a multirotor, and being flown by someone stupid enough to be flying on a flight path at that altitude, then it's not going to be much bigger than an f550.

A f550 with a closing speed of 250 knots (probably about right for the speed at 5500ft - they land at about 140 knots) would be visible and avoidable for almost no time at all, and this is why I simply do not believe the reports.

A f550, side on is almost impossible to see at 300 metres, so lets go with 300m as the distance at which it was sighted.

at 250 knots thats 2 1/2 seconds.

Thats probably just about long enough to work out that there is something getting closer analyse the image, decide on a course of action and then get your finger to the autopilot switch.

That's exactly what I was thinking. Something about the report in the OP and the one to our club by Newcastle ATC seems a bit odd.

I know a commercial airline pilot, I'm going to give him a call on Monday as ask his opinion.

Cheers
D

[maddog7]

Also for interest, I'll paste below the email from the club in case anyone here has any info or thoughts.

"Dear Member,

Blyth Valley Radio Model Club have had an information request from Radar Analysis Cell after a report of an airprox incident on approach to runway 25 of Newcastle airport.

The pilot of an inbound passenger reported a UAV aircraft at 13.26 Tuesday 16/02/2016 at 2500 ft.

We have replied to the request informing them that all model flying at our club site is done using line of site (LOS). It would therefore be virtually impossible to fly any models to that height using LOS. Furthermore, any member would be breaking BVRMC club rules/ANO’S etc to do so.

We have also pointed out that we are not aware of anymodels capable of doing so owned by club members. If you are aware or have any information regarding this incident please inform us as soon as possible.

Would all members please keep a look out for any unauthorised activity and report it as such. As ourclub is now on the official radar and we don't want any associations with rogue flyers which could affect the use of our site.


Kind regards"

Cheers
D

[Granpappy]

Also for interest, I'll paste below the email from the club in case anyone here has any info or thoughts.

"Dear Member,

Blyth Valley Radio Model Club have had an information request from Radar Analysis Cell after a report of an airprox incident on approach to runway 25 of Newcastle airport.

The pilot of an inbound passenger reported a UAV aircraft at 13.26 Tuesday 16/02/2016 at 2500 ft.

We have replied to the request informing them that all model flying at our club site is done using line of site (LOS). It would therefore be virtually impossible to fly any models to that height using LOS. Furthermore, any member would be breaking BVRMC club rules/ANO’S etc to do so.

We have also pointed out that we are not aware of anymodels capable of doing so owned by club members. If you are aware or have any information regarding this incident please inform us as soon as possible.

Would all members please keep a look out for any unauthorised activity and report it as such. As ourclub is now on the official radar and we don't want any associations with rogue flyers which could affect the use of our site.


Kind regards"

Cheers
D

I think that statement pretty much distances the club from involvement in any rogue flying activity going on around the airport. It would also be handy if any of the club members were flying at the stated time would be prepared to make a statement to the same effect.

Some clubs use a log sheet where people sign in before they fly at the field. I don't know whether your club does this, but as you are now on the radar, a log sheet could prove who was at the site at any given time and discount any club involvement with rogue flying activities if such an occurrence were to happen again. Just a thought.

[moyesboy]

Thats probably just about long enough to work out that there is something getting closer analyse the image, decide on a course of action and then get your finger to the autopilot switch.

There was no need to analyse the image or decide it was getting bigger. Anything that is not moving across the line of vision is an impeding mid air. So the pilot would see something he was not warned about, change direction to avoid it very quickly, then it would shoot past very close and they would understand it was something very small not something big further away, and probably also be able to identify it wasn't a bird.

The pilots of all man carrying aircraft are extremely concerned about UAV's and the way some idiots are operating them. Everything else you encounter in the air is looking where it is going to some degree.

[Zeeflyboy]

With all of these stories I smell bullsh1t.

If you make the assumption that this was a multirotor, and being flown by someone stupid enough to be flying on a flight path at that altitude, then it's not going to be much bigger than an f550.

A f550 with a closing speed of 250 knots (probably about right for the speed at 5500ft - they land at about 140 knots) would be visible and avoidable for almost no time at all, and this is why I simply do not believe the reports.

A f550, side on is almost impossible to see at 300 metres, so lets go with 300m as the distance at which it was sighted.

at 250 knots thats 2 1/2 seconds.

Thats probably just about long enough to work out that there is something getting closer analyse the image, decide on a course of action and then get your finger to the autopilot switch.

Whenever I see these stories there's always someone that comes out with that sort of thing... saying that its impossible to identify the size, speed, relative distance of something, whether it's a drone or not etc etc....

5,500ft into paris they could really be anywhere between 250kts (that's really more towards the high end for that stage of the approach at a supremely busy airport like CDG where traffic will mean ATC speed restrictions get handed out for spacing) or more likely slowing towards 200-220kts depending on ATC instructions. On top of that, even on calm days it's very normal to have 10-15kts wind at that altitude, and it will usually be roughly in the direction of landing. If they were on long finals or intercept heading then you can comfortably knock some more off the closure speed (since most ignorant drone pilots that would do this sort of thing will be flying in a GPS mode which flies relative to groundspeed).

In reality that means the closure speed would be more like 190-220 knots, assuming the drone was static... it could of course be more or less depending on movement of the drone.

Anyway, regardless of finer details like that I can tell you first hand that you have more than enough time to see and identify birds at those sort of speeds, and if it was the stereotypical phantom type drone then the drone probably had nice powerful LED's on it too making it easier to spot.

I'm not saying it did pass just 5m under the wing, nor am I saying that the whole story is completely true. To me it is plausible however, and definitely nothing there screams out to me as being particularly unbelievable... of it all the manoeuvring to avoid is perhaps least likely, but might simply have been lifting a wing to allow it to pass underneath with more clearance.

The pilots of all man carrying aircraft are extremely concerned about UAV's and the way some idiots are operating them. Everything else you encounter in the air is looking where it is going to some degree.

Simply not true... I've never flown with anyone who was "extremely concerned about UAVs". I'm sure there are some out there of course, but that is a massive over statement and generalisation that simply doesn't tie in to my personal experience. Also whether they are looking where they are going or not, I've had my fair share of birds smooshed against the aircraft to know that they can't always see you coming.

Drones are a potential hazard if flown in the wrong place and at the wrong time to be sure, but they don't even feature in to the typical line pilot's train of thought on a given day. There's more important and significant stuff out there (and inside for that matter) to worry about.

[james_2k]

Agreed with the flyboy

[Zeeflyboy]

Oddly enough just came across this article today - quite relevant.

Of course you can argue methodologies, but this is the first in depth analytical look at the risk of small drones that I've seen and from a respected source so it's worth consideration at least.

Do Consumer Drones Endanger the National Airspace? Evidence from Wildlife Strike Data | Mercatus

few points nearly summarised by arstechnica

But an investigation last year by the Academy of Model Aeronautics (AMA) found that of the 764 near-miss incidents with drones recorded by the FAA, only 27 of them—3.5 percent—actually were near misses. The rest were just sightings, and those were often sightings that took place when drone operators were following the rules. The FAA also overcounted, including reports where the pilot said explicitly that there was no near miss and some where the flying object wasn't identified, leading the AMA to accuse the FAA of exaggerating the threat in order to get support for its anti-drone agenda.

researchers estimated that for every 100,000 hours of flight time for drones weighing up to 2 kilograms, there would be 0.00000612 collisions causing damage to aircraft. "Or to put it another way," the pair wrote, "one damaging incident will occur no more than every 1.87 million years of 2kg UAS flight time."

link to arstechnica summary:

Researchers say FAA is really overblowing risk posed by small drones | Ars Technica UK


So that would seem to back up the fact that neither myself nor any of my colleagues that I've flown with over the past 7 years are "extremely concerned" about consumer drones. It simply doesn't register on the threat radar compared to other concerns on a day to day operational basis. I do want to be clear though - drones in the wrong place and being flown irresponsibly are a threat and I am all for laying the smack down on people who operate them in such a way, but the threat is massively overblown and out of all proportion to the reality of the situation. The media shows their agenda to sell papers with drama when they put headlines containing such tripe as "13 deadly near misses in last year"... What exactly is a deadly near miss? And I jest not - I read that in one of our dear national papers a few months ago.

[tomatwalden]

..... The media shows their agenda to sell papers with drama when they put headlines containing such tripe as "13 deadly near misses in last year"... What exactly is a deadly near miss? And I jest not - I read that in one of our dear national papers a few months ago.

People can be very quick to criticise the UK tabloid press, but I for one am glad they exist. ....




... I would otherwise really struggle to get my wood-burner started during the winter months if it wasn't for the ready supply of cheap "kindling" that they provide!