UK Airprox Board UK Airprox Board
  • Assessment Summary Sheet for UKAB Meeting on 18th July 2018

     

    Total Risk A Risk B Risk C Risk D Risk E
    16 2 4 7 1 2

     

    Airprox

    Aircraft 1

    (Type)

    Aircraft 2

    (Type)

    Airspace

    (Class)

    Cause ICAO Risk
    2018020

    Hawk

    (HQ Air Ops)

    C152

    (Civ FW)

    London FIR

    (G)

    The Hawk pilot was concerned by the proximity of the C152.

    Contributory: The C152 instructor was not in contact with Waddington LARS whilst routing close to EG R313.

    Recommendation: A NOTAM is issued to remind airspace users of the advantage of contacting Waddington LARS when operating in the vicinity of EG R313.

    C
    2018049

    S92

    (Civ Comm)

    JS41

    (CAT)

    Scottish FIR

    (G)

    The S92 pilot was concerned by the proximity of the JS41. E
    2018050

    Tornado x 2

    (HQ Air Ops)

    B757

    (CAT)

    London FIR / Airway

    (C/A)

    A level bust by the B757 pilot.

    Contributory: 1. The B757 pilot misheard the Prestwick controller’s R/T transmission as a clearance to climb. 2: The B757 pilot did not read-back his perceived climb clearance.

    C
    2018058

    Chinook

    (HQ JHC)

    AWG 29

    (Civ Gld)

    London FIR

    (G)

    Inaction by both pilots.

    Contributory: 1. The Chinook pilot did not act on Traffic Information. 2. The glider pilot delayed his avoiding action in order to maintain thermal lift in challenging conditions.

    C
    2018062

    LS4

    (Civ Gld)

    Citation CJ4

    (Civ Exec)

    London FIR

    (G)

    The LS4 pilot was concerned by the proximity of the Citation. C
    2018064

    PA28

    (Civ FW)

    DR400

    (Civ FW)

    London FIR

    (G)

    A late sighting by the PA28 pilot and probably a non-sighting by the DR400 pilot.

    Contributory: The DR400 pilot flew through the Earls Colne overhead close to the altitude of traffic joining for an overhead join.

    Recommendation: The CAA re-emphasise the provisions of a Basic Service.

    B
    2018065

    Chinook

    (HQ Air Ops)

    PA28

    (Civ FW)

    London FIR

    (G)

    The PA28 pilot flew into conflict with the Chinook. C
    2018066

    C172

    (Civ FW)

    C525

    (Civ Exec)

    London FIR

    (G)

    A conflict in Class G resolved by both pilots. B
    2018068

    AS365

    (HEMS)

    CAP232

    (Civ FW)

    London FIR

    (G)

    A sighting report. E
    2018069

    eBee SQ UAS

    (Civ Comm)

    BE55

    (Civ FW)

    London FIR

    (G)

    A conflict in Class G resolved by the drone pilot.

    Recommendation: 1. Drone Assist should display all minor airfields more obviously. 2. The CAA re-emphasise that drone operators are required to have access to a current VFR chart before commencing operations.

    C
    2018072

    Typhoon

    (HQ Air Ops)

    Unknown Aircraft

    (Unknown)

    London FIR

    (G)

    The pilot of the unknown aircraft flew into conflict with the Typhoon.

    Contributory: The pilot of the unknown aircraft flew into a NOTAM’d area.

    B
    2018074

    EV97

    (Civ FW)

    PA28

    (Civ FW)

    London FIR

    (G)

    The PA28 pilot did not integrate with the EV97 downwind. B
    2018077

    PA28

    (Civ FW)

    R22

    (Civ Helo)

    London FIR

    (G)

    Effectively a non-sighting by both pilots. A
    2018079

    PIK–20

    (Civ Gld)

    C550

    (Civ Exec)

    London FIR

    (G)

    A conflict in Class G resolved by the C550 pilot. C
    2018082

    Parachutists

    (HQ Air Trg)

    SR22

    (Civ FW)

    EG D129

    (G)

    The SR22 pilot flew through EG D129 whilst it was active and with parachuting taking place.

    Contributory: The SR22 pilot was distracted.

    D
    2018083

    C42

    (Civ FW)

    AS350

    (Civ Comm)

    London FIR

    (G)

    The AS350 pilot did not see the C42 as he overtook it.

    Contributory: The AS350 TCAS did not indicate the C42 in proximity.

    A

     

  • Consolidated Drone/Balloon/Model/Unknown Object Report Sheet for UKAB Meeting on 18th July 2018

    Download below sheet as PDF

     

    Total Risk A Risk B Risk C Risk D Risk E
    13 4 4 4 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

    2018114

    28 May 18

    1848        

    A319

    (CAT)

    Drone

    5125N 00022W

    3nm SE Heathrow

    2500ft

    London CTR

    (D)

    The A319 pilot reports departing LHR RW09, passing 2500ft on a weather avoidance heading of 130°, a large drone passed 10m above the left wing.  It was about 70cm in diameter, white with yellow markings.  There was no time to taking any avoiding action and there was a very high risk of collision.

     

    Reported Separation: 10m V/0m 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 A319.

     

    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
    2018116

    13 May 18

    1559

    C56X

    (Civ Comm)

    Drone

    5113N 00036W

    8nm ESE Farnborough

    2400ft

    London FIR

    (G)

    The C56X pilot reports that whilst being vectored by Farnborough in uncontrolled airspace, a drone appeared about 100-200ft below and 200m off the left wing.  The drone was orange but it’s size was difficult to estimate because there was no size reference to judge it against. They reported it to ATC, who in turn reported it to the Surrey police.

     

    Reported Separation: 100-200ftV/200m H

     

    The Farnborough Approach Controller reports that he had vectored the C56X onto a downwind heading for an ILS approach to RW24.  The aircraft was descending to 2400ft when the pilot reported that he had seen a drone very close to him and about 200ft below. 

    Cause: The drone was being flown at the practical VLOS limit and 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 C56X.

     

    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
    2018117

    28 May 18

    1825

    DHC8

    (CAT)

    Drone

    5250N 00129W

    6nm W EMA

    2000ft

    EMA CTR

    (D)

    The DHC8 pilot reports established on the ILS for RW09 at EMA, at about 175kts. It was a beautiful summer evening, no clouds, light wind, and the sun behind them. He noticed what he thought at first was a bird, but it’s flight path was too straight and level. As they got closer he recognised it as a drone. It’s rough heading was west, travelling slowly at around 50kts, it did not change altitude or heading as it passed down the left side of the aircraft. The distance was hard to judge, but it was close enough for him to see that it was a quadcopter drone as they passed. It did not present an immediate collision risk and no avoiding action was taken. He reported the occurrence to ATC in the belief that someone might be filming at Donnington Park race track and had lost control of their drone.

     

    Reported Separation: 500ft V/200m H

    Reported Risk of Collision: None

    Cause: The drone was being flown at the practical VLOS limit and in proximity to the runway approach path 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 DHC8.

     

    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
    2018119

    2 Jun 18

    1700

    Van’s RV8

    (Civ FW)

    Drone

    5119N 00046W

    VRP M3 J4

    1850ft

    London FIR

    (G)

    The RV8 pilot reports that both he and the passenger saw a grey and white drone at the same time. It appeared to be of twin ducted-fan design. No avoiding action was possible as the small size and colour scheme, combined with its position just below the horizon, rendered it almost impossible to see in time at their closure speed.

     

    Reported Separation: 10ft V/45m H

    Reported Risk of Collision: Medium

    Cause: The drone was being flown at 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 RV8.

     

    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
    2018120

    11 Jun 18

    1245

    PA31

    (Civ Comm)

    Drone

    5132N 00026W

    1nm W Northolt

    350ft

    London CTZ

    (D)

    The PA31 pilot reports that he was on final approach to Northolt when he saw what he thought initially was a helium balloon floating up toward the aircraft.  He lost sight of it under the nose and looked down at the wing root and identified it as a small white drone of the lightweight hobbyist type, it was about 20ft below the aircraft as he passed over it.  He reported that he had no doubt that it was being deliberately flown under the flight path in an attempt to collide with an aircraft. 

     

    Reported Separation: 25ft V/0m H

     

    The Northolt Tower controller reports that the PA31 was on finals to RW07 at a range of 1nm and had been cleared to land when he reported that a drone had just passed close by, down his right-hand-side.  The controller acknowledged and waited for the PA31 to land, and when taxying the pilot passed further details. He reported that the drone had passed close to his right wing and that it was possibly launched from a park situated on his right-hand-side. The local police and the RAF police were informed.

    Cause: The drone was being flown in an airfield approach 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 PA31.

     

    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
    2018122

    3 Jun 18

    1406

    A321

    (CAT)

    Drone

    5320N 00106W

    10nm SW Doncaster Airport

    15500ft

    L603

    (A)

    The A321 pilot reports that he was passing 15500ft in the climb when he saw a drone pass very close down the left-hand-side of the aircraft.  It was within 100ft and at the same level as it passed. 

     

    Reported Separation: 0ft V/100ft H

    Reported Risk of Collision: Low

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

    B
    2018125

    6 Jun 18

    0931

    Saab 2000

    (CAT)

    Drone

    5133N 00006E

    14nm SE BPK VOR

    4200ft

    London TMA

    (A)

    The Saab 2000 pilot reports conducting the Brookmans Park 5U SID from London/City when a drone was seen to pass ‘below on the starboard wing’.

     

    Reported Separation: 100ft V/NK H

    Reported Risk of Collision: NK

    Cause: The drone was being flown beyond 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 Saab 2000.

     

    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
    2018126

    10 May 18

    1050

    A380

    (CAT)

    Drone

    5128N 00009W

    12nm E Heathrow

    4000ft

    London TMA

    (A)

    The A380 pilot reports that he was at 4000ft turning onto a vectored ILS approach to Heathrow when a drone was seen slightly to the left and below the aircraft. It passed below, although vertical separation was difficult to judge because the size of the drone was unknown. There was no time to take avoiding action.

     

    Reported Separation: 500ft V/0m 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 A380.

     

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

    D
    2018127

    3 Jun 18

    1605

    B737

    (CAT)

    Drone

    5319N 00224W

    3nm W Manchester Airport

    2000ft

    Manchester CTR

    (D)

    The B737 pilot reports conducting a SONEX 1Y SID, in a right turn, when the F/O (PF) saw a drone below and to the right of the aircraft. The pilot noted that an event was being held at Tatton Park, which was immediately below the aircraft at the time of the Airprox.

     

    Reported Separation: 200ft V/ 250m H

    Reported Risk of Collision: Medium

    Cause: The drone was being flown beyond practical VLOS limits and in a promulgated departure path 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 B737.

     

    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
    2018128

    14 Jun 18

    1835

    A320

    (CAT)

    Drone

    5136N 00020W

    9nm NE Heathrow

    6000ft

    London TMA

    (A)

    The A320 pilot reports that he was inbound to Heathrow, passing 6000ft when he spotted a drone in front of his aircraft.  Its flight path was assessed as close, but because collision was unlikely no avoiding action was taken. The drone passed down the right-hand-side.  It was reported to ATC and to the police.

     

    Reported Separation: 500ft V/100m H

    Reported Risk of Collision: Medium

     

    The Heathrow controller reports that the A320 was in the Harrow area, at about 6000ft when the pilot reported a white or grey drone in his vicinity.

    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 A320.

     

    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
    2018129

    14 Jun 18

    1900

    B767

    (CAT)

    Drone

    5128N 00020W

    4nm E LHR

    1200ft

    London CTR

    (D)

    The B767 pilot reports that a drone was encountered whilst at 4nm on the approach to RW27L. The incident was reported to LHR Tower.

     

    Reported Separation:  0ft V/ 30ft H

    Reported Risk of Collision: Low

    Cause: The drone was being flown in a promulgated arrival path 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 B767.

     

    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
    2018130

    15 Jun 18

    1755

    A320

    (CAT)

    Drone

    5127N 00009W

    12nm E Heathrow

    3400ft

    London TMA

    (A)

    The A320 pilot reports that he was at 12.5nm final for RW27L at LHR, a drone appeared on the right-hand side approximately 100-200ft from the aircraft.  It was red and black in colour and reported to LHR Tower, they advised other aircraft of the situation.  Avoiding action was not required as it was seen whilst passing.

     

    Reported Separation: 0ft V/100-200ft 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 A320.

     

    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
    2018131

    17 Jun 18

    1705

    A320

    (CAT)

    Drone

    5127N 00021W

    3nm E Heathrow

    900ft

    London CTR

    (D)

    The A320 pilot reports that the previous aircraft had reported a drone sighting which was reported by Tower.  At 1000ft the PM (FO) clearly saw a drone pass close down the right-hand side of the aircraft.  It was a small white drone with 4 rotors that resembled a DJI phantom.  A report was passed to Tower.

     

    Reported Separation: 40ft V/30m H

    Reported Risk of Collision: Medium

    Cause: The drone was being flown in the vicinity of an airfield approach 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 A320.

     

    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