BBC News, 1
May 2013
 |
| The aircraft had been flying at 4,000ft when the incident happened |
The Airbus
A320 was making its final approach to Glasgow Airport on 2 December when an
object passed about 300ft underneath it.
The pilot
of the aircraft said the risk of collision with the object, which did not show
up on radar, had been "high".
A report by the UK Airprox Board said investigators were unable to establish what the
object had been.
The A320
was flying with its landing lights on, in clear conditions and at an altitude
of about 4,000ft above the Baillieston area of Glasgow, when the pilot and
non-flying pilot of the aircraft saw an object "loom ahead" at a
range of about 100m.
Cockpit
transcript
The Airprox
report included a transcript of the conversation that took place between the
aircraft and the controller at 12:55:
A320:
"Glasgow Approach [A320 C/S]"
EGPF:
"[A320 C/S] pass your message"
A320:
"Er yeah we just had something pass underneath us quite close [1255:30]
and nothing on TCAS have you got anything on in our area"
EGPF:
"Er negative er we've got nothing on er radar and we're n- not talking to
any traffic either"
A320:
"Er not quite sure what it was but it definitely er quite large [1255:40]
and it's blue and yellow"
EGPF:
"OK that's understood er do you have a an estimate for the height"
A320:
"Maybe er [1255:50] yeah we were probably about erm four hundred to five
hundred feet above it so it's probably about three and a half thousand
feet."
The object
passed directly beneath the aircraft before either of the crew members had time
to take avoiding action or had "really registered it", although they
both agreed that it appeared to have been blue and yellow or silver in colour
with a small frontal area, but that it was "bigger than a balloon".
The pilot
asked the controller at Glasgow Airport if he was "talking to anything in
the area" as he had "got quite close" to a blue and yellow
aircraft, travelling in the opposite direction, which had passed just below
him.
The
controller stated that he was not talking to anyone else in that area and that
nothing was seen on radar.
Search
action was taken with no result and the A320 pilot stated his intention to file
a report to Airprox, which investigates near misses.
Air traffic
control said they had no trace of any other objects in the area at the time of
the incident, although the radar at Prestwick did spot an "unidentified
track history" 1.3 nautical miles east of the A320's position 28 seconds
earlier.
Once the
aircraft had landed, the pilot told the Glasgow Aerodrome Controller: "We
seemed to only miss it by a couple of hundred feet, it went directly beneath
us. Wherever we were when we called it in it was within about 10 seconds.
Couldn't tell what direction it was going but it went right underneath
us."
When asked
if he thought it may have been a "glider or something like that" the
pilot replied: "Well maybe a microlight. It just looked too big for a
balloon."
The Airprox
report concluded: "Investigation of the available surveillance sources was
unable to trace any activity matching that described by the A320 pilot.
Additionally there was no other information to indicate the presence or
otherwise of activity in the area."
The report
said the Airprox board had been of the opinion that the object was unlikely to
have been a fixed wing aircraft, helicopter or hot air balloon, given that it
had not shown up on radar.
It was also
thought that a meteorological balloon would be radar significant and unlikely
to be released in the area.
A glider
could not be discounted, the report said, but it was unlikely that one would be
operating in the area because of the constrained airspace and the lack of
thermal activity because of the low temperature.
Similarly,
the board believed that a hang-glider or para-motor would be radar significant
and that conditions precluded them, as they did para-gliders or parascenders.
The report
stated: "Members were unable to reach a conclusion as to a likely
candidate for the conflicting aircraft and it was therefore felt that the board
had insufficient information to determine a Cause or Risk".
Related Articles:
Related Articles:
No comments:
Post a Comment