UK Airprox Board UK Airprox Board
  • Assessment Summary Sheet for Aircraft incidents for UKAB Meeting on 21st June 2017

    Total Risk A Risk B Risk C Risk D Risk E
    16 3 2 10 0 1

     

    Airprox

    Aircraft 1

    (Type)

    Aircraft 2

    (Type)

    Airspace

    (Class)

    Cause ICAO Risk
    2017026

    Typhoon(1)

    (HQ Air Ops)

    Typhoon(5)

    (HQ Air Ops)

    London FIR

    (C)

    The Tanker crew allowed Typhoon(1) flight to climb through the level occupied by Typhoon(5).

    Contributory:

    1. Using a join procedure designed for VMC whilst intermittently IMC.

    2. Typhoon(5) pilot had selected all means of electronic conspicuity off, iaw SOPs.

    3. The tanker crew did not effectively control the joining Typhoons.

    B
    2017028

    Typhoon

    (HQ Air Ops)

    WC135

    (Foreign Mil)

    London FIR

    (G)

    The Coningsby controller allowed the Typhoon to climb into conflict with the WC135.

    Contributory: A complex ATC environment distracted the controller, who did not pass Traffic Information to the Typhoon pilot.

    C
    2017029

    A400(A)

    (HQ Air Ops)

    A400(B)

    (Foreign Mil)

    Brize CTR/London FIR

    (D/G)

    The Brize Norton Director vectored the A400(B) into conflict with A400(A).

    Contributory:

    1. Lack of a formal handover resulted in subsequent assumptions and confusion.

    2. The Approach controller’s workload was excessive.

    Recommendation: HQ Air Command reviews ATC tasking with regard to current manning at Brize Norton.

    C
    2017030

    Hawk

    (HQ Air Trg)

    Tecnam P2008

    (Civ Trg)

    London FIR

    (G)

    A conflict in Class G resolved by the Tecnam pilot.

    Contributory:

    1. Late Traffic Information from the Waddington controller to the Hawk pilots.

    2. The controller was distracted by 3 band-boxed frequencies and other traffic.

    C
    2017031

    DA20

    (Civ Comm)

    Hawk

    (HQ Air Ops)

    London FIR

    (C)

    The Hotspur controller vectored the Hawk pilot into conflict with the DA20.

    Contributory:

    1. The Hotspur controller did not provide adequate Traffic Information.

    2. The DA20 pilot’s marshalling plan was not sufficiently robust.

    C
    2017032

    Do228

    (CAT)

    DHC8

    (CAT)

    Solent CTA

    (D)

    The Southampton controller cleared the DHC8 pilot to descend without confirming that the Do228 had left 5000ft.

    Contributory:

    1. The Do228 descended at a much shallower than expected rate of descent, without informing ATC.

    2. The Southampton STCA did not trigger.

    C
    2017036

    C42

    (Civ Trg)

    C525

    (Civ Pte)

    London FIR

    (G)

    A late sighting by the C42 pilot and a non-sighting by the C525 pilot.

    Contributory: The C525 TCAS did not alert.

    A
    2017037

    Skyranger

    (Civ Trg)

    R44

    (Civ Comm)

    London FIR

    (G)

    The R44 pilot flew into conflict with the Skyranger in the visual circuit at Roddige. C
    2017038

    PA38(A)

    (Civ Trg)

    PA38(B)

    (Civ Trg)

    London FIR

    (G)

    A late sighting by PA38(A) pilot and a non-sighting by PA38(B) pilot.

    Contributory: Liverpool ATC routed both pilots via the same VRP without appropriate Traffic Information.

    A
    2017040

    CV22

    (Foreign Mil)

    DA42

    (Civ Trg)

    London FIR

    (G)

    A conflict in Class G resolved by both pilots. E
    2017042

    EC135

    (HEMS)

    Motor Glider

    (Unknown)

    Scottish FIR

    (G)

    A late sighting by the EC135 pilot. B
    2017043

    AW139

    (Civ Comm)

    T600

    (Civ Pte)

    London FIR

    (G)

    A conflict in Class G resolved by both pilots. C
    2017046

    C152

    (Civ Trg)

    PA28

    (Civ Pte)

    London FIR

    (G)

    The PA28 pilot did not integrate with the C152.

    Contributory: The C152 pilot flew a downwind track which was significantly wider than that published in the North Weald ‘Pilot’s Self Briefing Pack’.

    C
    2017053

    C150

    (Civ Trg)

    Typhoon

    (HQ Air Ops)

    London FIR

    (G)

    The Typhoon pilot flew close enough to cause the C150 pilot concern. C
    2017054

    EC135

    (Civ Comm)

    PA28

    (Civ Pte)

    London FIR

    (G)

    A late sighting by both pilots. C
    2017059

    Foxbat

    (Civ Pte)

    PA28

    (Civ Club)

    London FIR

    (G)

    A non-sighting by the PA28 pilot and effectively a non-sighting by the Foxbat pilot. A

     


  • Consolidated Drone/Balloon/Model/Unknown Object Report Sheet for UKAB Meeting on 21st June 2017

    Download below sheet as pdf  

    Total Risk A Risk B Risk C Risk D Risk E
    15 4 6 4 0 1

     

    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

    2017021

    20 Feb 17

    1444

    Apache

    (JHC)

    Drone

    Barmouth Beach

    5243N 00404W

    160ft

    London FIR

    (G)             

    THE DRONE PILOT reports conducting a short photo sortie. As he was lining up for an approach to land he became aware of the sound of an aircraft. This sound was quickly followed by an Apache helicopter coming into view. After 4 seconds of deciding which avoiding action/direction to take, he elected for a rapid climb eastwards to 375ft. He came to this decision due to there being more airspace to work with, whilst still remain within CAA guidelines for drone flying as a hobbyist. He also decided that should the Apache pilot become aware of the drone, he would take avoiding action to the west to avoid the built up area. His initial sighting and climb to 375ft took 19 seconds. He then remained at about this height until he was happy there was not a second aircraft following the same route, as he was aware that 3 were en-route to Valley on detachment. The drone pilot commented on the value of the assistance of an observer, especially in the landing phase.

     

    Reported Separation: 150ft V/75m H

    Reported Risk of Collision: Low

     

    THE APACHE PILOT reports that after conducting the sortie, an Airprox was filed from a UAS operator stating that his aircraft had passed close to his area of operation. Upon checking the NOTAMS there was nothing notified and the crew did not see the UAS.

    The Board commended the drone pilot for his full and frank report and hoped that it might serve as an example to other drone operators, whether professional or hobbyist, that taking part in safety processes such as the UK Airprox Board was an intrinsic part of their being entitled users of UK airspace.

     

    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, so the Board agreed that the incident was therefore best described as a conflict in Class G.

     

    Risk: The Board considered that the drone operator’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
    2017044

    01 Mar 17

    1300

    A319

    (CAT)

    Unk Obj

    5324N 00209W

    5nm NE MCT

    2000ft

    Manchester CTR

    (D)

    THE A319 PILOT reports that he sighted the object between 6 and 5 miles on final approach to RW23R at MAN airport. The object was half a mile left of centreline, and slightly below the 3° glidepath. It was first noticed almost abeam the aircraft. It was white, perhaps cylindrical shaped, with blue ends. Most likely an inflatable item but this is hard to say for sure. The object had a very slow velocity. Evasive action was not required. Manchester tower was notified immediately and the approach was continued with a normal landing. 

     

    Reported Separation: 200ft V/800m H

    Reported Risk of Collision: Low

    Cause: Being an un-tethered and unmanned balloon or unknown object, the Board agreed that it was not under direct control and, given the separation, that the incident was best described as a sighting report.

     

    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 object portrayed a situation where normal procedures and/or safety standards had applied.

    E
    2017056

    10 Apr 17

    1530

    Twin Squirrel

    (Civ Pte)

    Drone

    5118N 00047W

    2nm west of Blackbushe

    2000ft

     

    London FIR

    (G)

    THE TWIN SQUIRREL PILOT reports that he sighted a black tandem rotor drone in the 11 o’clock position at the same level at approximately 100m. Within one second of sighting he performed a rapid roll to the right, the drone passed down the left side of the aircraft within a few feet (20ft to 40ft estimated). Farnborough ATC was informed and the details passed and they continued to warn other traffic of conflict for at least 20 minutes after the event.

     

    Reported Separation: 0ft V/30ft H

    Reported Risk of Collision: High

    Cause: The drone was being flown beyond practical VLOS limits and 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 Twin Squirrel.

     

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

    A
    2017062

    6 Apr 17

    1253

    B777

    (CAT)

    Drone

    5127N 00006W

    13nm E Heathrow

    4000ft

    London TMA

    (A)

    THE B777 PILOT reports in a descending left hand turn to intercept the 27R ILS at Heathrow when he saw a black and silver multi-rotor drone infront of the aircraft at the same level. As he continued the turn the drone passed down the right ride. He reported the incident to ATC and to the Police on landing.

     

    Reported Separation: 0ft V/100m H

    Reported Risk of Collision: Medium

    Cause: The drone was being flown beyond VLOS and 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 B777.

     

    Risk: The Board considered that the pilot’s estimate of separation, allied to his overall account of the incident portrayed a situation where safety had been much reduced below the norm to the extent that safety had not been assured.

    B
    2017069

    18 Apr 17

    1545

    Wildcat

    (RN)

    Drone

    5111N 00248W

    3nm NW Glastonbury

    2000ft

    London FIR

    (G)

    THE WILDCAT PILOT reports that whilst conducting a Partial Test Flight, in level flight at 2000ft, he had to manoeuvre to avoid a UAV at the same height. The UAV passed 10m to the right of the aircraft. An Airprox was transmitted to Yeovilton Approach. 25 minutes later and approximately 1nm to the south of the first encounter, what he believed to be the same UAV passed 20m to the left of the aircraft. The pilot noted that the aircrew were engaged in a track and vibration test flight requiring one pilot to maintain a lookout with the other conducting system management tasks. The aircraft was under a Traffic Service. The right-seat handling pilot spotted the UAV in both encounters. The UAV appeared to be a black/grey coloured ducted-fan quadcopter about 60x60x10cm and either hovering or moving slowly in an undetermined direction.

     

    Reported Separation: 0ft V/10m H

    Reported Risk of Collision: Medium

    Cause: The drone was being flown beyond practical VLOS limits and 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 Wildcat.

     

    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 object portrayed a situation where providence had played a major part in the incident and/or a definite risk of collision had existed.

    A
    2017071

    22 Apr 17

    1113

    PA34

    (Civ Pte)

    Drone

    5045N 00132W

    ENE Bournemouth

    3000ft

    Solent CTA

    (D)

    THE PA34 PILOT reports that he was established on the ILS localiser at approx 11nm from Bournemouth at 3000ft. He noticed what he thought was a bird, slightly right of 12 o’clock and just below the visual horizon. He realised it would pass down the right-hand-side of the aircraft and just below. It quickly approached and he noticed that it did not change shape or alters its trajectory as birds usually do when they fold their wings and duck below an approaching aircraft. He could then see that it was a regular shape, much like a cereal box lying flat on its front surface. As it passed the outboard part of his wing he saw a flash of something red and ‘day-glo’ on its side.

     

    Reported Separation: 50ft V/50m H

    Reported Risk of Collision: Low

    Cause: The Board thought that the unknown object was most likely a drone.  At that level the drone was being flown beyond practical VLOS limits and 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 PA34.

     

    Risk: The Board considered that the pilot’s estimate of separation, allied to his overall account of the incident and his ability/inability to avoid the object portrayed a situation where safety had been much reduced below the norm to the extent that safety had not been assured.

    B
    2017076

    30 Apr 17

    1132

    A319

    (CAT)

    Drone

    5320N 00301W

    7nm W Liverpool

    2300ft

    Liverpool CTR

    (D)

    THE A319 PILOT reports established on the ILS RW09 when a black and orange drone with vertical fins was sighted ahead and slightly to the left. It passed down the left side of the aircraft within 2 seconds of first being seen. The incident was reported to ATC.

     

    Reported Separation: 50ft V/100m 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 A319.

     

    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 object portrayed a situation where safety had been much reduced below the norm to the extent that safety had not been assured.

    B
    2017077

    17 Feb 17

    1625

    A320

    (CAT)

    Drone

    5232N 00149W

    6nm NW of  Birmingham

    1700ft

    Birmingham CTA

    (D)

    THE A320 PILOT reports that the drone was seen during final approach to RW15 at Birmingham, at 6nm. He was flying stabilized on the ILS at 2000ft. The drone was observed slightly right at approximately 300ft below. There was no imminent danger of collision but they reported it to ATC to alert other aircraft.

     

    Reported Separation: 300ft V/0.1nm H

    Reported Risk of Collision: Low

     

    Cause: The drone was being flown on the approach path to Birmingham airport and at that location and altitude was endangering other aircraft. 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 pilot’s estimate of separation, allied to his overall account of the incident and his ability/inability to avoid the object portrayed a situation where although safety had been reduced, there had been no risk of collision.

    C
    2017079

    21 Apr 17

    1130

    C402

    (Civ Pte)

    Drone

    5226N 00143W

    1000m SE Birmingham

    1800ft

    Birmingham CTR

    (D)

    THE C402 PILOT reports that he was transiting Birmingham airspace at approx 1800ft about 500-1000m south-east of the RW33 threshold when the Survey Operator mentioned that he believed a drone had passed down their right hand side, a couple of hundred feet below their altitude and a few tens of metres off the right wing, placing it between them and the airport. It was definitely not a bird. It was bright white, and approximately half a metre square, and looked to him to be a drone. While he did not see the drone personally, the pilot reported the sighting to radar.

     

    Reported Separation: 200-300ft V/20-40m 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 C402.

     

    Risk: The Board considered that the pilot’s estimate of separation, allied to his overall account of the incident and his ability/inability to avoid the object portrayed a situation where safety had been much reduced below the norm to the extent that safety had not been assured.

    B
    2017082

    05 May 17

    1750

    C550

    (Civ Comm)

    Drone

    5133N 00023W

    1nm NE Northolt

    1500ft

    London CTR

    (D)

    THE C550 PILOT reports that shortly after departure from RW07 at Northolt the aircraft came close to a drone which was close to the extended centreline. The drone was around 1.5ft wide and at a height of approximately 1500ft and cleared the aircraft port wing by 10-20m. The incident was immediately reported to the ATC unit.

     

    Reported Separation: 0ft V/10-20m H

    Reported Risk of Collision: High

     

    Cause: The drone was being flown in the vicinity of an airfield departure 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 C550.

     

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

    A
    2017085

    13 Apr 17

    0745

    A319

    (CAT)

    Unk Obj

    5324N 00252W

    Liverpool

    2500ft

    Liverpool CTR

    (D)

    THE A319 PILOT reports that he was being vectored downwind for an ILS at Liverpool when he saw what looked like either a balloon or possibly a drone passing down the left-hand-side of the aircraft at the same altitude.  It was approx 500m away from the left wing-tip. He reported it to ATC.

     

    Reported Separation: 0ft V/500m H

    Reported Risk of Collision: None

    Cause: Being an unknown object, the Board was unable to determine whether it was under direct control and decided that the incident was 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 portrayed a situation where although safety had been compromised, there had been no risk of collision.

    C
    2017092

    22 May 17

    0930

    Squirrel

    (HQ Air Trg)

    Drone

    5244N 00228W

    Telford

    1500ft

    London FIR

    (G)

    THE SQUIRREL PILOT reports that during a left-hand turn a drone was observed passing down the right-hand side of the aircraft at the same level, and with an estimated 100ft lateral separation, heading in the opposite direction. The drone was dark grey or black and appeared to have enclosed rotors.

     

    Reported Separation: 0ft V/100ft H

    Reported Risk of Collision: High

    Cause: Although the drone was being flown at or near the practical VLOS limit, the Board agreed that the incident was 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 safety had been much reduced below the norm to the extent that safety had not been assured.

    B
    2017094

    19 May 17

    1154

    SF340

    (CAT)

    Drone

    5551N 00339W

    11nm SW Edinburgh

    4200ft

    Edinburgh CTA

    (D)

    THE SF340 PILOT reports that he was getting vectors from Edinburgh radar to intercept the ILS LOC RW06 at Edinburgh.  He started a turn to intercept the LOC and all three crew members on the flight deck saw a dark coloured drone pass down the right-hand side of the aircraft. It was perfectly level with them and passed only just beyond the wing-tip, approx 15m from the flight deck and 5m from the wing-tip. It was so close and happened so fast that avoiding action was not possible. He opined that it was only through luck that they did not hit the drone.

     

    Reported Separation: 0ft V/5m H

    Reported Risk of Collision: High

    Cause: The drone was being flown beyond VLOS and 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 SF340.

     

    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 object portrayed a situation where providence had played a major part in the incident and/or a definite risk of collision had existed.

    A
    2017096

    25 May 17

    1131

    A320

    (CAT)

    Drone

    5133N 00050W

    10nm NW Heathrow

    5500ft

    London TMA

    (D)

    The A320 pilot reports that he was in a gentle descent on the downwind leg for an approach to Heathrow.  A black drone was spotted in the 9 o’clock position, at the same height 100-200m away, it passed down the left-hand side of the aircraft.  There was no time for avoiding action.

     

    Reported Separation: 0ft V/150m H

    Reported Risk of Collision: High

    Cause: The drone was being flown beyond practical VLOS limits and 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 pilot’s estimate of separation, allied to his overall account of the incident and his inability to avoid the object portrayed a situation where safety had been much reduced below the norm to the extent that safety had not been assured.

    B
    2017097

    25 May 17

    1149

    B777

    (CAT)

    Drone

    5133N 00053W

    15nm NW Heathrow

    5700ft

    London TMA

    (A)

    THE B777 PILOT reports on approach to Heathrow when ATC advised them of a drone being reported by another aircraft at a position 12nm NW of Heathrow at an altitude of 6000ft. Whilst descending through 5700ft at a position about 15nm northwest of Heathrow, a drone was seen to the right of the aircraft. The pilot noted that other aircraft ahead had been similarly warned.

     

    Reported Separation: 0ft V/300m H

    Reported Risk of Collision: High

    Cause: The drone was being flown beyond VLOS limits and 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 B777.

     

    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 compromised, there had been no risk of collision.

    C