Griffith
 Second Officer
Flight distance : 98537 ft
United States
Offline
|
Here's one you don't see often. This from UK Airprox Board. A drone operator, flying at 350 ft at a hobby field reports near miss from helicopter flying by at lower altitude.
I wonder how this would have been reported if a collision had occurred.
2017063 10 Apr 17 1230
Puma (JHC)
Drone 5200N 00027W NW Maulden 350ft
London FIR
THE DRONE OPERATOR reports that the drone was at approximately 350ft and hovering stationary above the flying field. He heard a loud Helicopter noise which and seemed very close by, so he started to descend immediately. He asked his spotter if he could see the helicopter, he saw it almost immediately appear just above the tree line coming from the west at very low level, the spotter shouted to stop descending as the Helicopter was lower than the drone and on a course to where the drone currently was. He had only been descending for a couple of seconds so he estimates the drone would now be between 250 and 320 feet. The helicopter, which he is confident was a military Merlin type, then flew underneath the drone. It was hard to estimate the separation, but given his drones altitude was approximately 300ft, it would not have been a large margin. The Helicopter then proceeded towards the East at "tree top" level until out of sight. He estimates the time frame from hearing the Helicopter to it being overhead was less than 10 seconds and it was travelling at a very fast speed.
Reported Separation: 150ft V/0m H
Reported Risk of Collision: High
THE PUMA PILOT reports that he was on a training sortie which included a transit through the London heli-lanes. After the sortie, an Airprox was filed from a UAS operator stating his aircraft passed close to the drone’s area of operation. Upon checking the NOTAMS there was nothing notified and the crew did not observe the aforementioned UAS.
Comments: The Board were heartened that that the drone operator submitted the original Airprox report, they acknowledged this displayed a good example of best practice. The Board they looked at the actions of the drone operator, they agreed that the operator had endeavoured to separate his drone from the helicopter to the best of his ability by firstly trying to descent his drone then, when he realised the helicopter would pass beneath his drone, stopping the descent until the helicopter had passed. The Board agreed that both aircraft were entitled to operate in the area and therefore see and avoid was an effective barrier in this situation.
Cause: The drone was entitled to operate at that location and altitude and so the Board agreed that the incident was therefore best described as a conflict in Class G.
Risk: The Board considered that the pilot’s estimate of separation, allied to his overall account of the incident and his ability/inability to avoid the object portrayed a situation where safety had been much reduced below the norm to the extent that safety had not been assured. |
|
lvl.4
First Officer
Core User of DJI
lvl.1
lvl.2
Captain
