Newark Drone Near Miss Highlights Airport Detection and Airspace Enforcement
The suspected near-miss between a United Airlines Boeing 737 and an unknown drone near Newark Liberty International Airport brings back another classic aviation safety problem in the USA related to detection and reaction to the unauthorized drones operating in one of the most controlled and supervised areas of airspace in the country.
The incident allegedly happened around 5:20 p.m. ET and according to FAA which investigates the case, the pilot reported to the air traffic control, “We almost hit a drone,” adding that the drone seemed to be round in shape, three feet wide and flying at the distance of about 100 feet under the airplane. According to the airline, the flight from Key West, Florida with 106 passengers and five crew members landed safely at 5:30 p.m. ET without any particular procedure of disembarking of the passengers.
What makes the case interesting is another report of the drone sighting at the same location and at the altitude of 2,000 feet on another United Airlines Express plane operated by GoJet Airlines around the same time. What makes the case intriguing is the fact that the problem could be related to the airspace management around Newark rather than just one pilot’s observation.
The problem with the case is that the airport’s airspace is already a rather congested area with airliners arriving and departing from it. Pilots fly the prescribed routes and controllers manage the traffic leaving literally zero margins for low altitude incursions. The unmanned aircrafts do not necessarily have to collide with anything to be a problem it is enough just to be where they should not.
According to the FAA statistics, the problem is rather recurring than occasional in terms of reports. Roughly 100 drone sightings happen near US airports each month and until mid-March of this year 319 sightings have been reported to the agency. However, the number of actual collisions is quite small and rare. Of those 319 sightings, in eight cases pilots took some evasive action, like descending or making a return maneuver, and there is one case of the drone crash-landing on the runway of San Carlos Airport in California.
The contrast between numerous sightings and relatively rare collisions highlights precisely the very essence of the systems problem. Detection does not mean identification and identification does not mean mitigation. The airport knows that there is something in the air, but to identify what exactly it is and whether it follows the requirements and who operates it is another story.
The FAA rules regarding the airspace boundaries in this case are quite clear. Prior authorization is required for the drones to operate in the controlled airspace near airports and small unmanned aircrafts should not be operated in such a way that it would represent the risk of collision and interfere with the airport traffic pattern. To clarify the issue, FAA guidelines on flying near the airports are provided for those who are interested in it. Also, 14 CFR Part 107 provides the limitations for small UAS.
However, the compliance with the rules does not mean solving the problem in the case of an unauthorized drone found in the approach corridor. According to the FAA, the airports use the detection technologies to monitor drones in their airspace. However, it is not an easy task due to the reasons explained by FAA in its airport guidance document. The detection systems can be based on radar, radio frequency detection, electro-optical sensors or acoustic techniques. However, according to FAA, these systems do not help to understand the intention, and can create their own integration problems, such as electromagnetic interference.
That is why the national framework draws the line between detection and interception. As FAA explains, FAA does not support the use of counter-UAS equipment by the entities other than the federal departments with specific statutory authority. Practically speaking, this leaves the commercial airports and operators in quite a narrow scope of detecting, verifying, coordinating with ATC and law enforcement agencies and returning to the normal course of business.
Part 139 airports are required to develop the UAS response plan in their Airport Certification Manuals. FAA airport UAS detection and response guidebook defines the components of the plan, including the coordination with ATC, TSA, airport operations and law enforcement. For a hub airport, this becomes an increasingly important aspect of the response planning together with the runway inspection and wildlife management, as the unauthorized drones become yet another disruptive element of low altitude airspace.
Newark is not new to the problem. There was a flight delay to and from the airport in 2019 due to the sighting of the drone near Teterboro Airport. Also, the FAA reports contain the recent sightings near LaGuardia and JFK airports. The problem is larger than just one particular airport as more and more drones enter the ranks of commercial, recreational and public use operations, the pressure on the National Airspace System shifts from the prohibition to integration and enforcement.
Though the details of the incident still have to be investigated and the facts verified, it does not change the message of the system. Near the major airports, the reliable integration of the drones not only depends on the rules of the operator, but also on the entire chain of authorization, remote identification, detection, response planning and the enforceable airspace discipline. This is the true story behind one near-miss.
Stephen Wallace – Editor for AMI’s aerospace integration and unmanned mobility coverage, focusing on drone manufacturing, VTOL systems, autonomous networks and air-ground mobility linkages.
