UK Airprox Board UK Airprox Board
  • Assessment Summary Sheet for UKAB Meeting on 25th April 2018

     

    Total Risk A Risk B Risk C Risk D Risk E
    17 2 6 6 0 3

     

    Airprox

    Aircraft 1

    (Type)

    Aircraft 2

    (Type)

    Airspace

    (Class)

    Cause ICAO Risk
    2017280

    DHC1

    (Civ Pte)

    C172

    (Civ Trg)

    London FIR

    (G)

    A late sighting by the DHC1 pilot and probably a non-sighting by the C172 pilot. B
    2018002

    Prefect

    (HQ Air Trg)

    King Air

    (HQ Air Trg)                

    Cranwell MATZ

    (G)

    The King Air pilot flew into conflict with the Prefect. B
    2018005

    Pegasus Quantum

    (Civ Pte)

    C130

    (HQ Air Ops)

    London FIR

    (G)

    The C130 pilots did not adequately avoid the pattern of traffic at Brown Shutters Farm and flew into conflict with the Pegasus Quantum.

    Contributory: The airspace, terrain and built-up areas around Brown Shutters Farm funnels military low-flying aircraft into its vicinity.

    Recommendations: 1. HQ Air Command reviews the education of military pilots wrt the avoidance of minor airfields. 2. MAA reviews the wording of RA2307 to reflect The Rules of the Air Regulations 2015 and SERA wording.

    B
    2018006

    DA42

    (Civ Trg)

    ASK8

    (Civ Club)

    Lee-on-Solent ATZ

    (G)

    A conflict in the visual circuit resolved by the DA42 pilot.

    Contributory: 1. The DA42 pilot was not aware the ASK8 pilot was going to cross the centreline. 2. The ASK8 pilot crossed the runway centreline in front of DA42 on final approach.

    Recommendation: Lee-on-Solent include information in their AIP entry to highlight the possibility of glider traffic crossing the centreline and the existence of a glider landing strip on the north-western side of the main runway.

    C
    2018007

    Ikarus C42

    (Civ Pte)

    CTSW

    (Civ Pte)

    London FIR

    (G)

    The CTSW pilot flew close enough to cause concern to the C42 pilot.

    Contributory: The CTSW pilot mistook the C42 for another C42 with which he had arranged to formate.

    C
    2018010

    Merlin

    (RN)

    Wildcat

    (RN)

    Merryfield ATZ

    (G)

    The Wildcat instructor allowed the student to fly into conflict with the Merlin.

    Contributory: 1. The student pilot mis-identified the taxiway as the runway. 2. The runway was not lit in accordance with the Merryfield DAM. 3. Without suitable equipment, the Merryfield controllers were not able to act as an effective barrier.

    Recommendation: Merryfield controllers are equipped to detect the position of traffic in the visual circuit at night.

    C
    2018011

    Drone

    (Police)

    F15

    (Foreign Mil)

    London FIR

    (G)

    A sighting report. E
    2018012

    4 x Paraglider

    (Civ Pte)

    Hawk T1

    (RN)

    London FIR

    (G)

    Effectively a non-sighting by the Hawk pilot.

    Contributory: The Hawk pilot did not know that the Bratton Camp paragliding site was active.

    Recommendation: The Avon Hang Gliding & Paragliding Club and SPTA Ops refresh their LoA to cover usage of the Bratton launch site and how that information is conveyed.

    A
    2018013

    Puchacz

    (Civ Club)

    Light Aircraft

    (Unknown)

    London FIR

    (G)

    The light aircraft pilot flew overhead a promulgated and active glider site, below the maximum winch launch height, and into conflict with the Puchacz. B
    2018014

    C152

    (Civ Trg)

    C182

    (Civ Pte)

    London FIR

    (G)

    A late sighting by the C152 pilot and a non-sighting by the C182 pilot. A
    2018015

    Typhoon

    (Civ Comm)

    EC135

    (NPAS)

    London FIR

    (G)

    A conflict in Class G. E
    2018016

    Tucano(A)

    (HQ Air Trg)

    Tucano(B)

    (HQ Air Trg)

    Linton ATZ

    (G)

    The Tucano(A) pilot flew into conflict with Tucano(B).

    Contributory: The Tucano(A) pilot misunderstood the Traffic Information pertaining to Tucano(B).

    B
    2018017

     Viking

    (HQ Air Trg)

     DG1000

    (Civ Club)

     London FIR

    (G)

    The Viking pilot flew into conflict with the DG1000.   C
    2018018

    C525

    (Civ Pte)

    C152

    (Civ Pte)

    London TMA/FIR

    (A/G)

    The Biggin controller allowed the C525 to depart into conflict with the C152. C
    2018019

    C17

    (HQ Air Ops)

    C182

    (Civ Pte)

    Brize CTR

    (D)

    The Brize controller vectored the C17 into conflict with the C182.

    Contributory: The C182 pilot descended into the Brize CTR without clearance.

    C
    2018022

    DR400/glider

    (HQ Air Trg)

    PA38

    (Civ Trg)

    London FIR

    (G)

    A late sighting by both pilots.

    Recommendation: HQ Air Command review the radio procedures for CGS operations from Syerston.

    B
    2018023

    SF25

    (Civ Club)

    Apache

    (HQ JHC)

    London FIR

    (G)

    The Apache pilot did not adequately avoid the pattern of traffic at Enstone and flew into conflict with the SF25.

    Recommendation: MAA reviews the wording of RA2307 to reflect The Rules of the Air Regulations 2015 and SERA wording.

    C
    2018024

    AW101

    (Civ Comm)

    Light Aircraft

    (Unknown)

    London FIR

    (G)

    The AW101 pilot was concerned by the proximity of the unknown light aircraft. E

     

  • Consolidated Drone/Balloon/Model/Unknown Object Report Sheet for UKAB Meeting on 25th April 2018

    Download below sheet as PDF

     

    Total Risk A Risk B Risk C Risk D Risk E
    6 2 1 2 1 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

    2018041

    26 Mar 18                                                           

    0930  

    DA2000

    (Civ Comm)                                                       

    Drone

    5137N 00012W

    9nm ENE Northolt               

    2600ft

    London TMA

    (A)

    The DA2000 pilot reports on final vector to intercept the RW25 localiser when the PM called ‘bird!’ after sighting what looked like a black bird in the 11 o’clock, passing left to right, slightly above and crossing their path. The PF looked up and identified the ‘bird’ as a black quadrotor drone with a flashing blue strobe light. There was no time to take avoiding action. The incident was reported to the police.

     

    Reported Separation: 10 to 100ft V/10m H

    Reported Risk of Collision: High

    Cause: The drone was being flown beyond practical VLOS limits such that it was endangering other aircraft at that altitude and position. The Board agreed that the incident was therefore best described as the drone was flown into conflict with the DA2000.

     

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

    A
    2018042

    25 Mar 18

    1800      

    A321

    (CAT)

    Drone

    5312N 00159W

    10nm SE Manchester

    FL080

    Manchester TMA

    (A)

    The A321 pilot reports that he was level at FL080 when he saw a drone moving slowly below and to the left of the aircraft.  The drone was a black quadcopter with strobe lights.  No avoiding action was taken.

     

    Reported Separation: 250ftV/100m H

    Reported Risk of Collision: Medium

    Cause: The drone was being flown beyond practical VLOS limits such that it was endangering other aircraft at that altitude and position. 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 overall account of the incident portrayed a situation where although safety had been reduced, there had been no risk of collision.

    C
    2018043

    1 Apr 18

    1806

    B747

    (CAT)

    Drone

    5129N 00004W

    16nm E Heathrow

    4300ft

    London TMA

    (A)

    The B747 pilot reports on an intercept heading for the LHR localiser RW27R. PM in the right seat noticed what appeared to be a drone below them in the 3 o’clock position. The drone was not an immediate threat but the sighting was reported on R/T so that other aircraft in trail could be warned. The pilot also later spoke with Heathrow police to report the event.

     

    Reported Separation: 500ft V/500m H

    Reported Risk of Collision: Medium

    Cause: The drone was being flown beyond practical VLOS limits such that it was endangering other aircraft at that altitude and position. The Board agreed that the incident was therefore best described as the drone was flown into conflict with the B747.

     

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

    C
    2018044

    25 Mar 18

    1434

    E190

    (Civ Comm)

    Drone

    5115N 00038W

    4nm SE Farnborough

    3400ft

    London FIR

    G

    The E190 pilot reports that he had departed from Farnborough on a radar heading of 220°, there were several TCAS contacts on the screen, all indicating below.  Whilst searching for traffic in the 10 o’clock position the Captain saw a drone or model aircraft at the same altitude passing down the left-hand side. No avoiding action was possible. The drone was a flying wing shape and bright green and red.

     

    Reported Separation: 0ft V/12-15m H

    Reported Risk of Collision: High

    Cause: The drone was being flown beyond practical VLOS limits such that it was endangering other aircraft at that altitude and position. The Board agreed that the incident was therefore best described as the drone was flown into conflict with the E190.

     

    Risk: The Board considered that the pilot’s overall account of the incident portrayed a situation where providence had played a major part in the incident and a definite risk of collision had existed.

    A
    2018047

    1 Feb 18

    1810

    Night

     

    A321

    (CAT)

    Unk Obj

    5306N 00150W

    22nm SE Manchester

    FL100

    Manchester TMA

    (A)

    The A321 pilot reports descending through FL100 at night in VMC when his eye was caught by a greyish thin-profiled ‘something’ which passed by very close at the same level down the left-hand side at great speed. His initial reaction was that he had seen an internal reflection in his glasses or the windshield but it was immediately apparent that the First Officer and another person on the flight deck had also seen it. None of them had a clear view because it was in the landing-light beam for a split second. The pilot noted that having seen balloons in flight before, this object did not fit that profile.

    Cause: The Board decided there was insufficient information to determine a cause.

     

    Risk: The Board considered that the pilot’s overall account of the incident portrayed a situation where there was insufficient information to make a sound judgement of risk.

    D
    2018048

    5 Apr 18

    1335

    S92

    (SAR)

    Drone

    5034N 00455W

    Padstow

    70ft

    London FIR

    (G)

    The S92 pilot reports that they were conducting wet winch training in the vicinity of the coastline.  They had a winchman on the wire in the surf, when they saw a small drone, just outside the rotor disc, in the 10 o’clock position.  The drone remained in close proximity while the winchman was recovered and then flew away towards the shore.

     

    Reported Separation: 20ft V/ 30-50ft H

     

    Cause: ANO 2016 Article 240 states that ‘A person must not recklessly or negligently act in a manner likely to endanger an aircraft, or any person in an aircraft.’ Additionally, Article 95 states that drones should not be flown within 50m of any person, vessel, vehicle, or structure.  Therefore, the Board agreed that the incident was best described as the drone was flown into conflict with the S92.

     

    Risk: The Board considered that the pilot’s 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