ATSB report on loss of separation event involving an Ayres S2R and an unmanned aerial vehicle
Mar 2014 |
Background
In their recent 'Short Investigations Report',1 the ATSB reported on a loss of separation event (LSE) in September 2013, between an Ayres S2R aircraft (VH-WBK) and a Sensefly eBee 178; an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV).
On the day of the event, the operator of VH-WBK was undertaking aerial agricultural operations while the operator of the UAV was conducting an aerial photography survey of a mine site on the neighbouring property.
According to the ATSB report, on arrival at the mine site, the UAV operator heard an aircraft operating on the property neighbouring the UAV launch site. In response the UAV operator reportedly broadcast on the area frequency advising his intention to conduct unmanned aerial photography operations within the area. No response was received from VH-WBK. The UAV operator then requested the mine manager contact the farmer, to advise him of the intended UAV operation, and request he also notify the pilot of VH-WBK. The UAV operator then commenced operations.
It is understood from the ATSB report, the pilot of VH-WBK was informed by the farmer 'there would be an aircraft conducting aerial photography' over the mine site, however he assumed this would be a fixed-wing aircraft operating at or above 500 ft. above ground level (AGL), and on that basis he intended to remain at or below 350 ft. AGL to ensure separation.
Despite the steps put in place by the pilot of VH-WBK and the UAV operator, a LSE ensued with VH-WBK and the UAV coming within an estimated 100m horizontally of each other.
At no time did the pilot of VH-WBK see the UAV, nor did he respond to a further radio call from the operator of the UAV following the LSE.
Comments
As the ATSB correctly note in their report, the LSE highlights the 'challenges associated with having a diverse mix of aircraft operating in the same airspace'. It also serves an important reminder to everyone in the aviation industry, but particularly pilots, that it is never safe to make assumptions about the type of aircraft operating in the same airspace. This is particularly so given the likelihood of commercial UAV use increasing into the future, and given the potential consequences2 arising from inadvertent contact between aircraft and UAVs.
While this LSE presents an interesting example of how emerging technology can affect the aviation industry, it is expected that further examples and developments will continue into the future. Carter Newell will continue to monitor and report on industry wide developments in regards to the use and impact of UAV technology within the Australian and broader aviation industry.
-----
1 ATSB Transport Safety Report, Aviation Short Investigations, AB-2014-024, Final, 19 March 2014.
2 Examples include: Engine ingestion with immediate or resultant damage (i.e. a subsequent accident); Hull damage; Property Damage (loss of UAV and equipment attached thereto); and Damage to persons or property on ground either from an accident, or falling debris.