‘Funeral Flypast’ pilot slammed after drone mid-air near-miss and refusal to cooperate with safety probe

Correction 17/7/2026 after a tip, the Vans aircraft was flying past the funeral of teenager Cherish Bean ed

SHEFFIELD — A light aircraft pilot who performed “erratic orbits” and aerobatics over a Sheffield housing estate while emitting pink smoke has sparked a backlash after refusing to cooperate with an official mid-air near-miss investigation.

The incident, which occurred on Thursday 26 March 2026, involved a commercial DJI Matrice 4e drone and a maroon Van’s RV7 light aircraft. According to a newly released report by the UK Airprox Board (UKAB), the two aircraft came within 100 feet of a vertical collision directly over a built-up residential area.

Evasive Action Over the Suburbs

The drone operator, who was capturing a local event at 100 metres (approx. 330 feet) above ground level, reported seeing the light aircraft suddenly dive into the airspace from a southeasterly direction. The RV7 began performing low-altitude, high-energy manoeuvres and tight orbits around a house while trailing pink smoke.

Realising the aircraft was flying erratically and dipping below the drone’s altitude, the remote operator was forced to execute emergency defensive measures, rapidly descending the drone to 30 metres to avert a catastrophic impact. The operator noted that had a collision been imminent, they were prepared to kill the drone’s motors entirely to protect the manned aircraft.

The UKAB commended the drone operator’s meticulous planning and swift tactical response. However, the board concluded that safety had been seriously compromised, officially classifying the encounter as a Category C incident, where safety was degraded.

A Wall of Silence

While the drone operator provided extensive GPS logs and third-party video footage identifying the aircraft, the investigation was severely stonewalled by the pilot of the RV7. Despite repeated requests from air safety investigators to provide a statement, the pilot flatly refused to respond.

The wall of silence has drawn sharp condemnation from aviation safety advocates and the wider flying community, with many calling for tougher enforcement against pilots who evade accountability.

“The pilot, having been formally notified of a serious airprox incident, should be legally compelled to respond,” an aviation safety source commented. “By withholding their account, they have represented the general aviation community incredibly poorly.”

Loopholes and Invisible Aircraft

The UKAB report highlighted several troubling safety failures on the part of the light aircraft. The RV7 was flying without a working transponder or electronic conspicuity (EC) equipment, rendering it entirely invisible to both National Air Traffic Services (NATS) radar replays and the drone’s built-in DJI ADS-B alerting system.

Furthermore, the pilot had failed to file a NOTAM (Notice to Aviation) to warn other airspace users of the unusual low-level activity. While the board noted it was possible the pilot held a Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) exemption to fly lower than the standard 1,000-foot limit over a congested area, they stressed that executing aerobatics without electronic tracking equipment severely limits a pilot’s ability to “see and avoid” other hazards.

Because the RV7 pilot chose not to participate, it remains unknown whether they ever even saw the drone. The UKAB reiterated that during high-energy manoeuvres, the time available to spot a threat against a ground backdrop is drastically reduced, making collision-warning systems invaluable. On this occasion, a disaster was avoided solely because the pilot on the ground gave way.