UK Airprox Board UK Airprox Board
  • Assessment Summary Sheet for UKAB Meeting on 8th November 2017


    Total Risk A Risk B Risk C Risk D Risk E
    18  2  7 6 1 2

     

    Airprox

    Aircraft 1

    (Type)

    Aircraft 2

    (Type)

    Airspace

    (Class)

    Cause ICAO Risk
    2017132

    Wildcat

    (HQ AAC)

    TB10

    (Civ Pte)

    London FIR

    (G)

    The Wildcat pilot flew through the Curry Rivel visual circuit and into conflict with the TB10.

    Contributory: 1. Yeovilton ATC did not inform Merryfield ATC or the Wildcat pilot that the Curry Rivel visual circuit was active. 2. The Curry Rivel airstrip was not included in the Merryfield-Yeovilton transit route procedure.

    C
    2017135

    Merlin(A)

    (Mod ATEC)

    Merlin(B)

    (RN)

    London FIR

    (G)

    The HMS Ocean FLYCO allowed the Merlin(A) pilot to fly into conflict with Merlin(B).

    Contributory: 1. Lack of co-ordination between HOMER and FLYCO. 2. Complexity and intensity of flying operations unexpectedly increased, which led to a breakdown in communication in the ATM team, still working up to full currency prior to operational deployment.

    B
    2017142

    Griffin

    (HQ Air Trg)

    F15

    (Foreign Mil)

    London FIR

    (G)

    The F15 pilot inadvertently flew along the Llanberis Pass and into conflict with the Griffin.

    Recommendation: ACAS review the wording of the regulation covering use of Low Flying System airspace in the vicinity of the Snowdonia MFTA.

    B
    2017143

    Squirrel(A)

    (HQ Air Trg)

    Squirrel(B)

    (HQ Air Trg)

    Chetwynd RLG

    (G)

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

    Contributory: Squirrel(A) pilot mis-identified Squirrel(C) as Squirrel(B).

    A
    2017147

    AW109

    (Civ Comm)

    ASH25

    (Civ Pte)

    London FIR

    (G)

    A late sighting by the AW109 pilot. C
    2017148

    DG-300

    (Civ Pte)

    C17

    (HQ Air Ops)

    London FIR

    (G)

    The DG-300 pilot was concerned by the proximity of the C17. E
    2017155

    C152

    (Civ Trg)

    Chilton DW1

    (Civ Pte)

    Booker ATZ/ London FIR

    (G)

    The C152 pilot was concerned by the proximity of the Chilton. D
    2017156

    Grob 109

    (Civ Trg)

    PA28

    (Civ Trg)

    Lee-on-Solent ATZ

    (G)

    The PA28 pilot climbed into conflict with the Grob 109.

    Contributory: The tug/glider combination drifted towards the PA28 flight path on take-off.

    B
    2017157

     EC135

    (HEMS)

     PA28

    (Civ Trg)

     Scottish FIR

    (G)

     A late sighting by both pilots.  B
    2017158

    C42

    (Civ Trg)

    PA28

    (Civ Pte)

    Elstree ATZ

    (G)

    The PA28 pilot did not integrate with the C42, ahead in the visual circuit.

    Contributory: The PA28 pilot did not assimilate the C42’s position in the visual circuit.

    C
    2017159

    Typhoon

    (HQ Air Ops)

    Quik Microlight

    (Civ Pte)

    London FIR

    (G)

    A conflict in Class G resolved by the Typhoon pilot.

    Contributory: The Swanwick controller could not provide updated Traffic Information.

    C
    2017160

    ASK21

    (HQ Air Trg)

    AS365

    (Civ Pte)

    London FIR

    (G)

    A non-sighting by the AS365 pilot.

    Recommendation: HQ Air Command considers mandating that the RAFGSA only use transponder-equipped tug aircraft.

    A
    2017161

    PC12

    (Civ Comm)

    F16

    (Foreign Mil)

    Shoreham ATZ

    (G)

    The F16 pilot flew through the Shoreham ATZ and into proximity with the PC12. C
    2017162

    C510

    (Civ Comm)

    Puma

    (HQ JHC)

    London FIR

    (G)

    The Oxford controller vectored the C510 into conflict with the Puma.

    Contributory: 1. The Benson controller did not achieve co-ordination agreement with the Puma pilot. 2. Late Traffic Information from both controllers.

    B
    2017166

    A320

    (CAT)

    EV97

    (Civ Pte)

    Edinburgh CTR

    (D)

    The A320 pilot was concerned by the proximity of the EV97. E
    2017169

    FA20

    (Civ Comm)

    PA28

    (Civ Pte)

    London TMA

    (A)

    Biggin ATZ

    (G)

    A conflict in Class G resolved by the FA20 pilot. C
    2017179

    B737

    (Civ Exec)

    Unknown ac

    (Unknown)

    London FIR

    (G)

    A conflict in Class G resolved by the unknown aircraft pilot.

    Contributory: 1. Cambridge radar was not in use due to personnel limitations. 2. Cambridge did not inform the B737 pilot that surveillance radar was not available.

    B
    2017181

    DA40

    (Civ Trg)

    C172

    (Civ Comm)

    Shoreham ATZ

    (G)

    The C172 pilot climbed into conflict with the DA40 downwind.

    Contributory: Lack of Traffic Information from ATC to either pilot.

    B

     

  • Consolidated Drone/Balloon/Model/Unknown Object Report Sheet for UKAB Meeting on 8th November 2017

    Download the below sheet as PDF

    Total Risk A Risk B Risk C Risk D Risk E
    14 2 4 6 2 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

    2017187

    7 Aug 17

    1534

    B757

    (CAT)

    Drone

    5334N 00214W

    5nm N MCT

    5000ft

    Man TMA

    (A)

    The B757 pilot reports that he was right-hand downwind, on the MCT 005 radial at 5nm when a drone passed directly overhead by approx 50ft.  He opined that he had no doubt that a collision would have occurred had the drone been any lower.  MAN ATC were informed.

       

    Reported Separation: 50ft V/0m H

    Reported Risk of Collision: NK

    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 B757.

     

    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
    2017216

    6 Sep 17

    0750

    EMB170

    (CAT)

    Drone

    5136N 00010E

    Hornchurch

    3000ft

    London TMA

    (A)

    The EMB170 pilot reports on departure from London/City on the CLN1A SID at a point between LCN01 & LCN02. Two passengers, seated very near the front of the passenger cabin, saw a white/yellow drone that they described as helicopter-like in shape and about 40/50cm in diameter. They stated that the drone passed within an estimated 30m/100ft horizontally of the aircraft and at the same level. London ATC was advised of a drone Airprox. The cabin crew carried out a discrete damage inspection; nothing was seen on leading edges or engine housings. Systems checks were carried out and a decision made to continue to destination. An engineering visual inspection was carried out on landing with no damage found.

     

    Reported Separation: 0ft V/30m 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 EMB170.

     

    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
    2017217

    6 Sep 17

    1840

     

    EMB190

    (CAT)

    Drone

    5138N 00000W

    NE LCY

    3000ft

    London TMA

    (A)

    The EMB190 pilot reports that he was northeast of London city at 3000ft when he saw a red and black drone pass to the right and 200ft below the aircraft in the opposite direction.  The drone was reported to ATC and the Police; the flight continued as normal.

     

    Reported Separation: 200ft V/0m 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 EMB190.

     

    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
    2017219

    8 Sep 17

    1015

    DH8

    (CAT)

    Drone

    5550N 00428W

    WSW Glasgow

    1040ft

    Glasgow CTR

    (D)

    The DH8 pilot reports that he was on departure from Glasgow, during the acceleration he noticed a small black object moving towards the aircraft.  As it got closer he could see it was a drone; it was black and had an object or device attached below. In the space of about 3 seconds they had narrowly missed it, there was no time to take avoiding action.  At the same time a TCAS indication appeared on the MFD, however there was no TA or RA.

     

    Reported Separation: 100ft V/15m H

    Reported Risk of Collision: High

    Due to the absence of TCAS compatible electronic conspicuity fitted to the drone, the Board thought it extremely unlikely that it caused the TCAS indication, and concluded that it was probably another aircraft above or below the DH8, which would explain the lack of a TA/RA.

     

    Cause: The drone was being flown in the vicinity of an airfield departure lane 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 DH8.

     

    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
    2017222

    6 Sep 17

    1740

    DHC8

    (CAT)

    Drone

    5132N 00001W

    Stratford

    3000ft

    London TMA

    (A)

    The DHC8 pilot reports that he was on departure from London/City, midway between LCW01 and LCN02 on the EKNIV1A SID, when the 3rd pilot, seated in the observer position, saw a ‘DJI Mavic’ type drone. It was pointed out to, and seen by, the Captain and Co-pilot. No avoiding action was required as the drone was below the aircraft. The drone was reported to the Thames Director.

     

    Reported Separation: 100ft V/30-100m H

    Reported Risk of Collision: Low

    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 DHC8.

     

    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
    2017223

    11 Sep 17

    1410

    FA20

    (Civ Comm)

    Drone

    5433N 00121W

    NE Durham Tees Valley

    1460ft

    DTV CTR

    (D)

    The FA20 pilot reports that he was flying a straight-in recovery to Durham Tees Valley, in good VMC. When approx 3.7nm from the airfield and passing 1460ft, the EWO spotted a drone in the 3 o’clock position.  After the internal information call, the FO also then sighted it. The drone was ‘spindly’ in design and relatively large, although its size and scale were difficult to assess in such a fleeting moment.  The Captain, who was flying, did not see the drone and no avoiding action was taken.  The drone was reported to ATC and another aircraft on recovery adjusted its flight path to avoid the area.

     

    Reported Separation: ‘slightly lower’ /100-200m H

    Reported Risk of Collision: Medium

    Cause: The drone was being flown at or 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 FA20.

     

    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
    2017227

    19 Sep 19

    2105

    A321

    (CAT)

    Drone

    5327N 00158W

    Manchester

    3500ft

    Manchester CTR

    (D)

    The A321 pilot reports on left base for RW23R at Manchester, just before localiser capture, when a large black x-shaped drone was seen in close proximity and level with the flight deck. There was no time to avoid the drone, which was reported to Manchester ATC.

     

    Reported Separation: 0ft V/30ft H

    Reported Risk of Collision: NK

    Cause: The drone was being flown in the vicinity of an airfield approach path and beyond practical VLOS limits 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 object portrayed a situation where providence had played a major part in the incident and/or a definite risk of collision had existed.

    A
    2017228

    17 Sep 17

    1730

    A321

    (CAT)

    Unknown

    Object

    5202N 00121W

    Nr Banbury

    FL180

    Daventry CTA

    (A)

    The A321 pilot reports approximately 5 nm north of EMKUK climbing through FL180 on a heading 155°. A white or light grey object was spotted in the aircraft's 1 o'clock at apparently the same level. It flew past and continued into the 5 o'clock position. It was suspected to be a drone.  A TCAS intruder (white empty diamond) appeared briefly in a position equivalent to that of the object, with no height information.  ATC were informed.

     

    The Swanwick controller reports that the A321 was departing from Birmingham when the pilot enquired whether he could see anything on radar in their position.  When the controller confirmed nothing was there, the pilot reported passing a drone.

     

    Reported Separation: NK

    Reported Risk of Collision: Low

    Cause: The Board could not conclude that the object was a drone and, therefore being an unknown object, the Board agreed that the incident was best described as a conflict in Class A.

     

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

    D
    2017229

    30 Aug 17

    1120

    A319

    (CAT)

    Drone

    5315N 00255W

    Helsby/Frodsham

    2500ft

    Liverpool CTR

    (D)

    The A319 pilot reports downwind left hand for the RW27 ILS at Liverpool when the PM saw what he believed to be a drone pass beneath the right side of the aircraft.

     

    Reported Separation: NK

    Reported Risk of Collision: None

    Cause: The drone was being flown in the vicinity of an airfield approach path and beyond practical VLOS limits 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 description of the event was such that there was insufficient information to make a sound judgement of risk.

    D
    2017232

    21 Sep 17

    1230

    Hawk

    (RN)

    Balloon

    5015N 00508W

    1nm SW Truro

    10,000ft

     

    London FIR

    (G)

    The Hawk pilot reports that he was on the climb out to the northeast from RNAS Culdrose when he passed a Balloon. He noticed it in his 10 o'clock at approximately 200m as he passed 10000ft. He suspects it was a MET balloon as it was white and about 2m in diameter with an orange/red cylinder hanging immediately beneath it, although it was a late sighting his flight path was clear and he did not take any avoiding action. He notified Plymouth Military of the sighting. The sortie was completed without incident.

     

    Reported Separation: 0ft V/200m H

    Reported Risk of Collision: Medium

    A met balloon was released from the Camborne Met Office at 1115UTC. Given the prevailing wind and elapsed time it was surmised that this was the balloon sighted. UK AIP ENR 5.3 refers.

    Cause: Being an un-tethered and unmanned balloon, the Board agreed that it was not under direct control and 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
    2017236

    23 Sep 17

    1650

    FA20

    (Civ Comm)

    Drone

    5504N 00127W

    St Mary’s Bait Island

    2000ft

    Newcastle CTA

    (D)

    The FA20 pilot reports that he was in a left bank turn to intercept final to Newcastle RW25 at 8nm (which is just at the coastline) when he saw a drone passing about 300ft to the right and about 100ft below his altitude of 2000ft. He immediately informed ATC about the drone.

     

    Reported Separation: 100ft V/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 location and altitude. The Board agreed that the incident was therefore best described as the drone was flown into conflict with the FA20.

     

    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
    2017239

    5 Oct 17

    1619

    Voyager

    (HQ Air Ops)

    Drone

    5142N 00137W

    Brize Norton

    3400ft

    Brize CTR

    (D)

    London FIR

    (G)

    The Voyager pilot reports recovering to Brize Norton, overhead the BZ NDB and descending to 2800ft when both the Captain and Co-pilot saw what they both thought to be a large bird in the 1 o'clock position at about the same height. As the aircraft flew just south of the BZ and began a left turn onto a vector of 090°, the object was seen to pass down the right side of the aircraft and above. As the object got closer it was noted that it was a drone and not a bird but it passed without incident. The pilot noted that the drone was circular, black or blue in colour and was considered large in size for a drone. The object was immediately reported to Brize Director.

     

    Reported Separation: ~200ft V/~90m 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 Voyager.

     

    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
    2017240

    01 Oct 17

    1603

    A320

    (CAT)

    Drone

    5138N 00005E

    2nm west LAM

    FL90

    London TMA

    (A)

    The A320 pilot reports that he was exiting the LAM hold when he saw a drone. There was no time for avoiding action.

     

    Reported Separation: 300ft V/NK 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 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 although safety had been reduced, there had been no risk of collision.

    C
    2017249

    16 Oct 17

    1655

    A320

    (CAT)

    Drone

    5143N 00032W

    BNN Hold

    FL85

    London TMA

    (A)

    The A320 pilot reports that he noticed what he initially thought was a helicopter heading towards them, he thought it must be 1000ft below them as it looked close. He looked to see if anything was showing on TCAS but there wasn't. He looked back outside and saw it was passing underneath them and off to the right, opposite direction. Due to their speed and the lighting and position of the sun, it was difficult to obtain a detailed description, but it was a drone like rotorcraft, possibly dark in colour with what seemed to be a light on the top of it. He is confident it was a drone and not a balloon, so he reported it to ATC.

     

    Reported Separation: 200ft V/200m 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 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 although safety had been reduced, there had been no risk of collision.

    C