UK Airprox Board UK Airprox Board
  • Assessment Summary Sheet for UKAB Meeting on 6th December 2017

     

    Total Risk A Risk B Risk C Risk D Risk E
    10 2 3 4 0 1

     

    Airprox

    Aircraft 1

    (Type)

    Aircraft 2

    (Type)

    Airspace

    (Class)

    Cause ICAO Risk
    2017165

    AC114

    (Civ Trg)

    DH89

    (Civ Comm)

    London FIR

    (G)

    The DH89 pilot flew close enough to the AC114 to cause its pilot concern. C
    2017180

    Robin DR100

    (Civ Pte)

    AS365

    (Civ Pte)

    London FIR

    (G)

    A late sighting by the R100 pilot and a non-sighting by the AS365 pilot. B
    2017182

    Hawk

    (HQ Air Trg)

    PA28

    (Civ Pte)

    Valley ATA

    (G)

    A conflict in Class G resolved by the Hawk pilot.

    Contributory: 1. The PA28 pilot did not contact RAF Valley ATC or Swanwick as advised in the UK AIP.

    2. The Hawk crews did not assimilate the Traffic Information concerning the PA28’s position.

    Recommendation: DAATM review the AIP wording regarding transit of the Valley ATA.

    C
    2017183

    S92

    (HEMS)

    Tucano

    (HQ Air Trg)

    London FIR

    (G)

    The S92 pilot was concerned by the proximity of the Tucano.

    Contributory: The Linton controller did not provide Traffic Information to the S92 pilot.

    E
    2017185

    EC120

    (Civ Pte)

    AS355

    (Civ Comm)

    London FIR

    (G)

    Effectively a non-sighting by both pilots. B
    2017186

    Robin DR400

    (Civ Club)

    Glider

    (Unknown)

    London FIR

    (G)

    The glider pilot flew thorough the visual circuit at a promulgated and active microlight site and into conflict with the DR400. A
    2017188

    EC130

    (Civ Pte)

    Kitfox

    (Civ Pte)

    London FIR

    (G)

    A non-sighting by the EC130 pilot and effectively a non-sighting by the Kitfox pilot. A
    2017192

    SF340

    (CAT)

    F/A-18

    (Foreign Mil)

    Airway Y905

    (E TMZ)

    A conflict in Class E.

    Contributory: The F/A-18 pilot entered Y905 despite Exercise agreement not to do so.

    C
    2017197

    AW109

    (HEMS)

    PA28

    (Civ Trg)

    London FIR

    (G)

    A late sighting by the AW109 pilot and a non-sighting by the PA28 pilot. B
    2017198

     C208

    (Civ Comm)

    Hawk T1

    (MoD ATEC) 

    London FIR

    (G) 

    The Hawk crew turned into conflict with the C208.

    Contributory: The Hawk crew did not assimilate the Traffic Information concerning the C208.


     B
    2017202

    B737

    (CAT)

    AS350

    (Civ Pte)

    Birmingham CTR

    (D)

    Birmingham ATC released the B737 into conflict with the AS350.

    Contributory: Birmingham ATC did not pass timely Traffic Information to the B737 pilot.

    C

     

  • Consolidated Drone/Balloon/Model/Unknown Object Report Sheet for UKAB Meeting on 6th December 2017

      Download below sheet as PDF

    Total Risk A Risk B Risk C Risk D Risk E
    5 4 0 1 0 0

     

    Airprox

    Number

    Date

    Time (UTC)

    Aircraft

    (Operator)

    Object

    Location

    Description

    Altitude

    Airspace

    (Class)

    Pilot/Controller Report

    Reported Separation

    Reported Risk

    Cause/Risk Statement

    ICAO

    Risk

    2017243

    6 Oct 17

    1536

    C560

    (Civ Comm)

    Toy Balloons

    5132N 00002W

    London City

    2300ft

    London CTR

    (D)

    The C560 pilot reports that on passing 2300ft in the climb-out from London City, the PM called ‘watch out!’ and pointed to the 11 o’clock position, after a 2 second delay, the PF saw approx 20 black and yellow party balloons, in a bundle, approx 2-3m diameter approaching the aircraft at the same altitude.  The auto-pilot was disconnected and bank increased, and they levelled off as avoiding action and the bundle passed by approx 10m to the left and 2m above. 

    Cause: Being un-tethered and unmanned balloons, the Board agreed that it was not under direct control and that the incident was therefore best described as a conflict in Class D.

     

    Risk: The Board considered that the pilot’s estimate of separation, allied to his overall account of the incident and his ability to avoid the balloons portrayed a situation where providence had played a major part in the incident and/or a definite risk of collision had existed. Notwithstanding, the Board recognised that the outcome would most likely have been benign even had collision occurred.

    A
    2017254

    25 Oct 17

    1150

    A321

    (CAT)

    Drone

    5128N 00017W

    Kew

    1700ft

    London CTR

    (D)

    The A321 pilot reports on approach to RW27L at Heathrow when the crew saw a 3 or 4 engine white drone pass over the FO’s window at a range of about 5ft. The crew considered that the drone passed close enough that it must have collided with the tail. No tangible evidence of collision could be found after landing by engineering staff and the aircraft was released back into service.

     

    Reported Separation: 5ft V/0m H

    Reported Risk of Collision: High

    Cause: The drone was being flown in the vicinity of an airfield approach path and at the practical VLOS limit such that it was endangering other aircraft at that location and altitude. The Board agreed that the incident was therefore best described as the drone was flown into conflict with the A321.

     

    Risk: The Board considered that the pilot’s estimate of separation, allied to his overall account of the incident and his inability to avoid the drone portrayed a situation where providence had played a major part in the incident and/or a definite risk of collision had existed.

    A
    2017258

    30 Oct 17

    1600

    Chinook

    (JHC)

    Drone

    5329N 00234W

    Leigh Flash VRP

    1200ft

    London FIR

    (G)

    The Chinook pilot reports he was transiting south-bound through the Manchester Low Level Route, passing directly overhead Leigh Flash VRP, when a ‘football size’ drone was observed to pass down the left hand side of the aircraft. It was red in colour, with a round body, and appeared to be static at the time. The pilot reported the occurrence to Manchester ATC.

     

    Reported Separation: 0ft V/100m H

    Reported Risk of Collision: High

    Cause: The drone was entitled to operate at that location and altitude, and was not endangering other aircraft by being flown in proximity to airfield approach paths etc, and so the Board agreed that the incident was therefore best described as a conflict in Class G.

     

    Risk: The Board considered that the pilot’s estimate of separation, allied to his overall account of the incident portrayed a situation where although safety had been reduced, there had been no risk of collision.

    C
    2017264

    4 Nov 17

    1321

    A320

    (CAT)

    Drone

    5323N 00213W

    Manchester

    500ft

    Manchester CTR

    (D)

    The A320 pilot reports that he was on short finals for RW23R at Manchester when a medium sized quadcopter was seen 50ft to the right and 50ft below the aircraft. Neither the pilot nor the FO saw the drone, but an A320 FO travelling as a passenger in the cabin reported it.

    Cause: The drone was being flown in the vicinity of an airfield approach path such that it was endangering other aircraft at that location and altitude. The Board agreed that the incident was therefore best described as the drone was flown into conflict with the A320

     

    Risk: The Board considered that the description of the incident, allied to the overall account of the incident and the pilot’s non-sighting portrayed a situation where providence had played a major part in the incident and/or a definite risk of collision had existed.

    A
    2017267

    17 Nov 17

    1220

    Do328

    (CAT)

    Drone

    5323N 00212W

    4nm NE Manchester Airport

    1400ft

    Manchester CTR

    (D)

    The Do328 pilot reports that he was just inside 4nm and fully established on the Manchester RW23R ILS in VMC on an IFR Flight Plan and carrying out his final configuration of the aircraft to land. He spotted an object, slightly ahead and below, passing the track of the aircraft from right to left. The object remained below and to the left of the aircraft as it passed. There was very little time from first sighting to it passing behind and out of view. It was a drone, white in colour with areas of blue trim. He did not carry out any avoiding action or a go-around. He immediately informed Manchester Tower that they had just encountered a drone.

     

    Reported Separation: 50ft V/20m H

    Reported Risk of Collision: High

    Cause: The drone was being flown in the vicinity of an airfield approach path such that it was endangering other aircraft at that location and altitude. The Board agreed that the incident was therefore best described as the drone was flown into conflict with the Do328.

     

    Risk: The Board considered that the pilot’s description of the incident, allied to his overall account of the incident and his inability to avoid the drone portrayed a situation where providence had played a major part in the incident and/or a definite risk of collision had existed.

     
    A