 |
37000 Feet | Browse and search NASA's Aviation Safety Reporting System |
|
Approach controller reported airborne conflict between uav and commercial aircraft being vectored for approach.
| Attributes | |
| ACN | 1592641 |
| Time | |
| Date | 201811 |
| Local Time Of Day | 1201-1800 |
| Place | |
| Locale Reference | ZZZ.TRACON |
| State Reference | US |
| Aircraft 1 | |
| Make Model Name | UAV - Unpiloted Aerial Vehicle |
| Flight Phase | Descent |
| Route In Use | Vectors |
| Flight Plan | IFR |
| Aircraft 2 | |
| Make Model Name | Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer |
| Flight Phase | Final Approach |
| Route In Use | Vectors |
| Flight Plan | IFR |
| Person 1 | |
| Function | Approach |
| Qualification | Air Traffic Control Fully Certified |
| Events | |
| Anomaly | ATC Issue All Types Conflict Airborne Conflict Inflight Event / Encounter VFR In IMC |
Narrative:
Unmanned MQ9s file IFR and depart to the resticted area; and then return; cancel IFR and land. Today low ceilings moved in after they departed; and they had to come back early. They had no plan on what to do if they cannot cancel IFR; and they were flying around looking for a hole in the clouds to get down. They conflicted with the three IFR inbounds that I was vectoring. They also stated if they couldn't get below the clouds; that they would land. Ultimately they did find a hole in the clouds after getting 45 degrees left and right of course; causing a conflict with a northbound aircraft on the localizer at 4000. I then had to vector the MQ9s at this point to follow one of the aircraft. Something needs to be done to alleviate a situation from happening in the future. I have heard that this has happened multiple times. This is adding inherent risk to the NAS that doesn't need to. It just seems that the [drone operators] says we will fly; and if bad weather happens; then we can do whatever we want.
Original NASA ASRS Text
Title: Approach Controller reported airborne conflict between UAV and commercial aircraft being vectored for approach.
Narrative: Unmanned MQ9s file IFR and depart to the resticted area; and then return; cancel IFR and land. Today low ceilings moved in after they departed; and they had to come back early. They had NO plan on what to do if they cannot cancel IFR; and they were flying around looking for a hole in the clouds to get down. They conflicted with the three IFR inbounds that I was vectoring. They also stated if they couldn't get below the clouds; that they would land. Ultimately they did find a hole in the clouds after getting 45 degrees left and right of course; causing a conflict with a northbound aircraft on the localizer at 4000. I then had to vector the MQ9s at this point to follow one of the aircraft. Something needs to be done to alleviate a situation from happening in the future. I have heard that this has happened multiple times. This is adding inherent risk to the NAS that doesn't need to. It just seems that the [drone operators] says we will fly; and if bad weather happens; then we can do whatever we want.
Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site and automatically converted to unabbreviated mixed upper/lowercase text. This report is for informational purposes with no guarantee of accuracy. See NASA's ASRS site for official report.