Screen Reader Navigation

C152

(Civ Trg)

C172

(Civ Trg)

Cumbernauld ATZ

(G)

The C172 pilot did not integrate with the C152 in the visual circuit pattern.

Contributory: 1. Effective communication was not established.

2. R/T congestion was such that the C152 pilot was not able to make a downwind call.

A319

(CAT)

SR22

(Civ Pte)

Leeds/Bradford CTR

(D)

Lees/Bradford ATC did not integrate the SR22 with the A319.

Contributory: 1. The Leeds/Bradford controllers did not agree a plan for the SR22 join.

2. ATC did not pass sufficient Traffic Information on the A319 to the SR22 pilot.

A320(A)

(CAT)

A320(B)

(CAT)

London TMA

(A)

The A320(B) pilot mistook another pilot’s R/T transmission as an ATC clearance and climbed into conflict with A320(A).

Contributory: The A320(B) pilot’s verbose response delayed the controller’s endeavour to maintain separation minima.

C152

(Civ Trg)

Glasair

(Civ Pte)

London FIR

(G)

 Hawk

(HQ Air Ops)

 C172

(Civ Pte)

London FIR

(G) 

 Puma

(MoD ATEC)

Apache

(HQ AAC) 

London FIR

(G) 

AW139

(Civ Comm)

Light Aircraft

(Unknown)

London FIR

(G)

EC135

(Civ Comm)

C152

(Civ Club)

London FIR

(G)

S92

(HEMS)

Light Aircraft

(Unknown)

London FIR

(G)

Murphy Renegade

(Civ Pte)

AW109

(HEMS)

London FIR

(G)

The AW109 pilot flew into conflict with the Murphy Renegade.

Contributory: The AW109 was directly into sun to the Murphy Renegade pilot.

B787

(CAT)

ATR72

(CAT)

Airway M605

(A)

The oncoming controller cleared the B787 into conflict with the ATR72.

Contributory: The oncoming controller took control of the sector without fully assimilating the traffic situation.

Squirrel

(HQ JHC)

Light Aircraft

(Unknown)

London FIR

(G)

A conflict in Class G resolved by the Squirrel pilot.

Contributory: The low cloud base and high terrain caused the aircraft to be funneled together into the same valley feature.

AW169

(Civ Comm)

AW109

(Civ Comm)

London FIR

(G)

Tutor

(HQ Air Trg)

Hawk

(HQ Air Ops)

Topcliffe MATZ/London FIR

(G)

Leeming ATC released the Hawk formation into conflict with the Tutor.

Contributory: 1. The Approach controller’s workload was such that he did not assimilate that the Tutor was in the vicinity of the Hawks’ departure track.

2. The call for release was not adequately communicated between the Supervisor and the Approach controller.

3. The Hawk pilot did not act on Traffic Information, passed under a Traffic Service.

DHC8

(CAT)

ASK13

(Civ Club)

Aberdeen CTA

(D)

The ASK13 pilot probably entered CAS and flew into conflict with the DHC8.

Contributory: The ASK13 pilot was unsure of his location.

Centrair Pegase

(Civ Club)

C172

(Civ Trg)

London FIR

(G)

Wildcat

(Civ Comm)

Paramotor

(Unknown)

London FIR

(G)

Wildcat

(HQ JHC)

Ximango Motor Glider

(Civ Club)

London FIR

(G)

DHC8

(CAT)

C42

(Civ Pte)

Solent CTR/CTA

(D)

7 Jan 18

1133

A319

(CAT)

5131N 00019W

Perivale, London

4800ft

London TMA

(A)

The A319 pilot reports that on climb-out from Heathrow, passing 4800ft a medium-sized, white drone passed directly overhead, with an estimated separation of 20ft. There was no time for the flight path to be altered.  It was reported to ATC and to the police and written up in the tech log for a precautionary inspection.

Reported Separation: 20ft V/0m H

Reported Risk of Collision: High

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

16 Jan 18

1230

A320

(CAT)

5128N 00011E

8nm NE Biggin Hill

2500ft

London CTA

(D)

The A320 pilot reports that they were just establishing on the ILS LOC at Biggin Hill for RW21 and at approx. 2500ft.  Both crew members saw an object in the 11 o’clock position flying around.  They tracked it for a couple of seconds, before identifying it as a drone as it passed to the left-hand-side, about 0.5nm from the aircraft.  They reported it to ATC.

Reported Separation: 0.5nm H

Reported Risk of Collision: High

The Thames Controller reports that they were providing a service to the A320 inbound to Biggin Hill.  Whilst on base leg for the ILS RW21, the pilot reported a drone to the left-hand-side being flown at a distance of 0.5nm from the aircraft.  There was no radar return, but the pilot was happy to continue with the approach.  At that position and level, the drone was well inside CAS.

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 A320.

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.