UK Airprox Board UK Airprox Board
  • Assessment Summary Sheet for UKAB Meeting on 24th January 2018

     

    Total Risk A Risk B Risk C Risk D Risk E
    19 1 10 6 1 1

     

    Airprox

    Aircraft 1

    (Type)

    Aircraft 2

    (Type)

    Airspace

    (Class)

    Cause ICAO Risk
    2017190

    C182

    (Civ Club)

    C152

    (Civ Trg)

    Shobdon ATZ

    (G)

    The C152 student pilot mistakenly turned the wrong way downwind and flew into conflict with the C182. C
    2017194

    PA28

    (Civ Trg)

    C172

    (Civ Pte)

    London FIR

    (G)

    A late sighting by both pilots. B
    2017196

    PA28

    (Civ Trg)

    C152

    (Civ Trg)

    Scottish FIR

    (G)

    A late sighting by both pilots. B
    2017200

    ASW27

    (Civ Pte)

    C42

    (Civ Trg)

    London FIR

    (G)

    The C42 pilot flew close enough to the ASW27 to cause its pilot concern.

    Contributory: The ASW27 pilot flew into proximity to the Chilton Park visual circuit without communicating his intentions.

    C
    2017201

    A400M(A)

    (HQ Air Ops)

    A400M(B)

    (HQ Air Ops)

    Brize CTR

    (D)

    The Brize ADC cleared the A400M(B) pilot to take off into conflict with A400M(A).

    Contributory: 1. Brize ADC did not pass sufficient Traffic Information on each aircraft to the other.

    2. The Brize OJTI did not intervene.

    Recommendation: HQ Air Command examine current Military regulations with regard to the status of aircraft operating under IFR in Class D CTRs whose pilots declare ‘visual’ with the airfield.

    C
    2017203

    Juno

    (HQ Air Trg)

    Duo Discus

    (Civ Club)

    London FIR

    (G)

    A late sighting by both pilots. B
    2017205

    PA28(A)

    (Civ Pte)

    PA28(B)

    (Civ Pte)

    London FIR

    (G)

    A conflict in Class G.

    Contributory: Both pilots elected to operate in IMC without a surveillance-based FIS.

    Recommendation: Farnborough ATSU publish in the UK AIP the minimum altitude at which a surveillance-based service will be provided.

    A
    2017206

    EC145

    (NPAS)

    AS350

    (Civ Pte)

    London FIR

    (G)

    The AS350 pilot flew into conflict with the EC145. B
    2017208

    Robin DR350

    (Civ Club)

    Microlight

    (Unknown)

    London FIR

    (G)

    A late sighting by the DR350 pilot and probably a late or non-sighting by the microlight pilot. B
    2017209

    Helton Lark

    (Civ Pte)

    GA8 Airvan

    (Civ Club)

    London FIR

    (G)

    The GA8 pilot flew into conflict with the Lark. C
    2017210

    Saab 2000

    (CAT)

    Typhoon No 2

    (HQ Air Ops)

    Scottish FIR

    (G)

    The Typhoon No 2 pilot inadvertently descended below his coordinated level and into confliction with the Saab 2000.

    Contributory: The Typhoon No 2 pilot was distracted by in-cockpit activity.

    B
    2017212

    Luscombe

    (Civ Club)

    DR400

    (Civ Trg)

    Lashenden ATZ

    (G)

    The DR400 pilot did not integrate effectively with the Luscombe. B
    2017218

    PA28

    (Civ Trg)

    PA38

    (Civ Trg)

    Glasgow CTR

    (D)

    A late sighting by the PA28 pilot and probably a non-sighting by the PA38 pilot. B
    2017220

    ASK21

    (Civ Club)

    PA28

    (Civ Club)

    London FIR

    (G)

    The PA28 pilot flew over an active and promulgated gliding site in the mistaken belief it was inactive and into conflict with the ASK21. B
    2017221

    EC135

    (NPAS)

    Microlight

    (Unknown)

    London FIR

    (G)

    A sighting report. E
    2017224

     PA28

    (Civ Club)

    Flash II Alpha

    (Civ Pte) 

    London FIR

    (G) 

     A late sighting by both pilots.  D
    2017226

    PA27

    (Civ Pte)

    Quik 912

    (Civ Pte)

    London FIR

    (G)

    The Quik pilot departed on the runway already occupied by the back-tracking PA27. B
    2017230

    C42(A)

    (Civ Pte)

    C42(B)

    (Civ Club)

    Compton Abbas ATZ

    (G)

    Neither pilot integrated with the other during the join.

    Contributory: Some of the C42(A) pilot’s transmissions were not received.

    C
    2017233

    RV7

    (Civ Pte)

    Model Glider

    (Civ Pte)

    London FIR

    (G)

    A conflict in Class G resolved by the model aircraft operators. C

     

  • Consolidated Drone/Balloon/Model/Unknown Object Report Sheet for UKAB Meeting on 24th January 2018

    Download below sheet as PDF

     

    Total Risk A Risk B Risk C Risk D Risk E
    7 3 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

    2017270

    24 Nov 17

    1000

    PA31

    (Civ Comm)

    Drone

    5324N 00251W

    4nm north Liverpool Airport

    2000ft

    Liverpool CTR

    (D)

    The PA31 pilot reports heading east and passing 2000ft in the climb when an object was sighted by the P2 at 2 o'clock, same level, at a range of 200m and on an opposite track. On passing 25m laterally, 20ft below the starboard side of the aircraft, the object was identified as a drone, apparently maintaining its altitude and course. There was insufficient time for the handling pilot to visually acquire the object before it passed, so no evasive action was taken. The incident was immediately reported to Liverpool and there were no further sightings of the drone.

     

    Reported Separation: 20ft V/25m H

    Reported Risk of Collision: Medium

    Cause: The drone was being flown above the practical VLOS limit 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 PA31.

     

    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
    2017271

    1 Dec 17

    1005

     

    B787

    (CAT)

    Drone

    5136N 00027W

    10nm N Heathrow

    7500ft

    London TMA

    (A)

    The B787 pilot reports that they were just leaving the BDN hold, the aircraft was in a right-hand turn and descending when the P3 spotted an object coming towards the aircraft, at speed.  It was small and tracked from ahead to beneath the right wing. Neither of the operating pilots saw it.  As it passed beneath the right wing he could see it was a small drone, but because of its size he could not make out anyway identifying features or colours. No avoiding action was necessary because it was obviously going to pass by.

     

    Reported Separation: 500ft V/200m H

    Reported Risk of Collision: Medium

    Cause: The drone was being flown above the practical VLOS limit such that it was endangering other aircraft at that altitude. The Board agreed that the incident was therefore best described as the drone was flown into conflict with the B787.

     

    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 although safety had been reduced, there had been no risk of collision.

    C
    2017273

    10 Dec 17

    1439

    BN2 Islander

    (Civ Comm)

    Drone

    5859N 00255W

    1nm NW Kirkwall

    400ft

    Scottish FIR

    (G)

    The BN2 pilot reports that after take-off from RW32 a right turn was made to remain right of the coast line. After passing 400ft, and before Berstane House, an object to the left caught his attention. It appeared to look like a large drone. The aircraft was already in a turn and no avoiding action was required. ATC were informed.

     

    Reported Separation: NK

    Reported Risk of Collision: Low

    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 BN2.

     

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

    D
    2017279

    8 Oct 17

    1130

    A320

    (CAT)

    Drone

    5123N 00029W

    5.5nm SSW LHR

    6000ft

    London TMA

    (A)

    The A320 pilot reports that he was climbing out of a cloud layer, at about 5700ft, and levelled off at 6000ft. His F/O reported seeing something like a drone just on top of the cloud layer, which passed below the right-hand wing.

     

    Reported Separation: 300ft V/0nm H

    Reported Risk of Collision: Low

    Cause: The drone was being flown above the VLOS limit such that it was endangering other aircraft at that 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, his inability to avoid the drone and the fact he had already climbed through the drone’s level portrayed a situation where providence had played a major part in the incident and/or a definite risk of collision had existed.

    A
    2017281

    19 Nov 17

    1220

     

    A319

    (CAT)

    2 x Drones

    5326N 00257W

    7nm NW Liverpool

    3500ft

    Liverpool CTA

    (D)

    The A319 pilot reports he was positioning right downwind for RW27 at Liverpool at 3500ft when he spotted 2 drones, of the DGI Phantom type, on a bearing of 110° and below him.  Both were white in colour and were not in proximity to his aircraft, so avoiding action was not necessary.

     

    Reported Separation: 1000ft V/300m H

    Reported Risk of Collision: None

    Cause: The drone was being flown above the practical VLOS limit such that it was endangering other aircraft at that altitude. However, in this instance the Board agreed that separation was such that this was considered a sighting report.

     

    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
    2018001

    1 Jan 18

    1140

     

    ASK21

    (Civ Club)

     
    Drone

    5151N 00032W

    WSW Dunstable

    550ft

    London FIR

    (G)

    The ASK21 pilot reports that he was performing a standard circuit at Dunstable.  The weather was grey and overcast with a rain front approaching from the west. A drone was encountered at 550ft just prior to the final turn for approach.  The drone was 20-50m in front of the nose of the glider and a few metres below. It was grey in colour and therefore difficult to see in the overcast weather against a backdrop of Dunstable town.  It passed rapidly to the right of the glider, remaining a few metres below; there was no time to take avoiding action.  Had the drone been on a collision course it was unlikely that the glider would have responded to control inputs rapidly enough to allow avoiding action to be effective.

     

    Reported Separation: 15ft V/20m H

    Reported Risk of Collision: High

    Cause: The drone was being flown in the vicinity of an airfield circuit 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 glider.

     

    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
    2018004

    7 Jan 18

    1330

    B747

    (CAT)

    Drone

    5129N 00053W

    15nm W Heathrow

    5000ft

    London TMA

    (A)

    The B747 pilot reports lined up on a long final for RW09L when the First Officer saw a drone in the 1 o’clock position, moving rapidly along the window as the aircraft flew past it. The rest of the crew and ATC were informed immediately. There was insufficient time to take avoiding action.

     

    Reported Separation: 50ft V/100m H

    Reported Risk of Collision: Medium

    Cause: The drone was being flown above the VLOS limit 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 B747.

     

    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 safety had been much reduced below the norm to the extent that safety had not been assured.

    B