UK Airprox Board UK Airprox Board
  • Assessment Summary Sheet for UKAB Meeting on 10th October 2018

     

    Total Risk A Risk B Risk C Risk D Risk E
    16 2 7  4 0 3

     

    Airprox     


    Aircraft 1

    (Type)

    Aircraft 2

    (Type)

    Airspace

    (Class)

    Cause ICAO Risk

    2018108 

    PA28

    (Civ FW)

    B737

    (CAT)

    Leeds/Bradford CTR

    (D)

    The PA28 student pilot routed to join downwind right hand by mistake and flew into proximity with the B737.

    Contributory: The controller did not detect the PA28 pilot’s deviation from his cleared routeing until close to the departure track.

    C
    2018110

    AW169

    (HEMS)

    Spitfire

    (Civ FW)

    London FIR

    (G)

    A conflict in Class G resolved by the AW169 pilot. B
    2018112

    P&M Aviation Explorer (Trike)

    (Civ FW)

    Spitfire

    (Civ FW)

    London FIR

    (G)

    The Spitfire pilot did not avoid the pattern of traffic at Old Hay and flew into conflict with the microlight. B
    2018118

    Drone

    (RPAS)

    MD902

    (HEMS)

    London/City CTR

    (D)

    The drone operator was concerned by the proximity of the MD902. E
    2018121

    Chinook

    (HQ JHC)

    Spitfire

    (Civ FW)

    London FIR

    (G)

    The Spitfire pilot flew close enough to cause the Chinook pilot concern.

    Contributory:

    1. The VRIAB minimum height limit was not specified in the Aide Memoire.

    2. ATC did not intervene when the Spitfire pilot descended below the promulgated minimum break height.

    3. The Spitfire pilot assumed that the runway was clear when approved for the run and break.

    4. The Spitfire pilot was not aware of the minimum run and break height.

    B
    2018124

    C182

    (Civ FW)

    DA42

    (Civ FW)

    London FIR

    (G)

    A late sighting by both pilots. B
    2018132

    S92

    (SAR)

    PA28

    (Civ FW)

    London FIR

    (G)

    A conflict in Class G resolved by the S92 pilot. C
    2018135

    Cabri G2

    (Civ Helo)

    Jet Provost

    (Civ FW)

    London FIR

    (G)

    A non-sighting by the Jet Provost pilot and a late sighting by the Cabri pilot. B
    2018137

    Paraglider

    (Civ Gld)

    Gazelle

    (Civ Helo)

    London FIR

    (G)

    A conflict in Class G resolved by the paraglider pilot. C
    2018139

    PA28

    (Civ FW)

    Nimbus 3

    (Civ Gld)

    London FIR

    (G)

    A late sighting by both pilots. C
    2018140

    PA28

    (Civ FW)

    Bell 206

    (Civ Helo)

    Dunkeswell ATZ

    (G)

    A conflict in the visual circuit resolved by the PA28 pilot.

    Recommendation: Dunkeswell review their AIP entry regarding pilots notifying a straight-in join.

    B
    2018141

    Foxbat

    (Civ FW)

    Jabiru

    (Civ FW)

    Eshott airfield

    Scottish FIR

    (G)

    The Jabiru pilot did not integrate with the Foxbat, already in the visual circuit. A
    2018142

    Hawk T2

    (HQ Air Trg)

    Unknown

    (Civ FW)

    London FIR

    (G)

    A sighting report. E
    2018143

    AS365

    (HEMS)

    Harvard

    (Civ FW)

    London FIR

    (G)

    The AS365 pilot was concerned by the proximity of the Harvard. E
    2018145

    C208

    (Civ FW)

    KC135

    (Foreign Mil)

    London FIR

    (G)

    A conflict in Class G resolved by the KC135 pilot.

    Contributory:

    1. The C208 pilot did not give way to the KC135.

    2.The C208 pilot did not assimilate the later Traffic Information.

    3. The Swanwick controller didn’t know Hibaldstow was active and consequently did not select an appropriate overlay or assimilate the C208’s 0033 squawk.

    4. The Prestwick and Humberside controllers were not able to contact the Swanwick controller.

    B
    2018147

    C152

    (Civ FW)

    C42

    (Civ FW)

    Clacton airfield

    London FIR

    (G)

    The C42 pilot did not integrate with the C152 ahead in the visual circuit.

    Contributory: Neither pilot assimilated the other’s R/T transmissions.

    A

     

  • Consolidated Drone/Balloon/Model/Unknown Object Report Sheet for UKAB Meeting on 10th Oct 2018

    Download below sheet as PDF

     

    Total Risk A Risk B Risk C Risk D Risk E
    12 5 5 2 0 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

    2018167

    1 Jul 18

    1747      

    G450

    (Civ Comm)

    Drone

    5132N 00035E

    East London

    FL120

    London TMA

    (A)

    The G450 pilot reports that they were heading over London at FL120, when they saw what they were fairly certain was a drone, it was about a metre in size and passed 50ft above them.  The sighting lasted not more than 2 seconds and allowing for human factors including surprise, they were 80% certain it was a drone. They reported it to ATC and pushed the ‘event’ button to record their position and flight parameters.

     

    Reported Separation: 50ftV/20ft H

    Cause: The drone was being flown above the VLOS limit and at an altitude such that it was endangering other aircraft at that location. The Board agreed that the incident was therefore best described as the drone was flown into conflict with the G450.

     

    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
    2018168

    27 Jun 18                 0831        

    EMB550

    (Civ Comm)

    Drone

    5121N 00027W

    4nm N OCK

    FL070

    London TMA

    (A)

    The EMB550 pilot reports leaving FL070 at a point 4nm north of the OCK beacon when the co-pilot (PF) saw an object pass the aircraft on the right which he believed to be a drone. Nothing was seen on TCAS and the Captain (PM) notified Heathrow Director.

     

    Reported Separation: 0ft V/50ft H

    Cause: The drone was being flown above the VLOS limit and at an altitude such that it was endangering other aircraft at that location. The Board agreed that the incident was therefore best described as the drone was flown into conflict with the EMB550.

     

    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
    2018170

    12 Jul 10

    1415

    Chinook

    (JHC)

    Drone

    5111N 00112W

    IVO Popham

    1200ft

    London FIR

    (G)

    The Chinook pilot reports that he was the No 2 in a formation of two aircraft, transiting southwest at 1200ft from the western edge of Basingstoke towards the A303/M3 junction. The crewman initially asked for the current height of the aircraft, before informing the crew that he had seen a drone pass by the starboard side of the aircraft at the same height at a range of about 200m. It was described as a quadcopter with a white body and black legs. Neither of the two pilots saw the UAV.

     

    Reported Separation: 0ft V/200m H

    Reported Risk of Collision: Medium

    Cause: The drone was being flown within VLOS limits and clear of airfield activity. The Board agreed that the incident was therefore best described as a conflict in Class G.

     

    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
    2018171

    07 Jul 18

    1300

    A320

    (CAT)

    Drone

    5127N 00004W

    11nm E Heathrow

    3700ft

    London TMA

    (A)

    The A320 pilot reports that at about 3700ft and 11.5nm on the Heathrow 27L ILS, the FO spotted a black drone.  It passed about 200ft below and 50m laterally down the left-hand side.

     

    Reported Separation: 200ft V/50m H

    Reported Risk of Collision: Medium

     

    The London TCC controller reports that the A320 pilot reported seeing a drone when on 13nm final to RW27L. A subsequent aircraft reported the same drone and following this all other aircraft were kept at 4500ft to overfly the area until it was certain to be clear.

    Cause: The drone was being flown above the VLOS limit and in an airfield approach lane such that it was endangering other aircraft at that location. 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
    2018173

    16 Jul 18

    1325

    DHC8

    (CAT)

    Drone

    5130N 00008E

    3.5nm E London/City

    1400ft

    London/City CTR

    (D)

    The DHC8 pilot reports descending on final approach at London/City when the crew saw a black ‘quadcopter’ drone in the left 11 o’clock which passed down the left side of the aircraft. The drone was reported to ATC by radio.

     

    Reported Separation: 0ft V/50m H

    Reported Risk of Collision: High

    Cause: The drone was being flown at the VLOS limit and in an airfield approach lane such that it was endangering other aircraft at that location. 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 safety had been much reduced below the norm to the extent that safety had not been assured.

    B
    2018175

    12 Jul 18

    1513

    DA42

    (Civ Comm)

    Drone

    5113N 00207W

    2nm WSW Imber Village

    4500ft

    EG D123

    (G)

    The DA42 pilot reports that he was operating within the confines of EG D123, maintaining an altitude of 4500ft. During a steep turn to the left he saw a silver and red ‘quadcopter’ drone pass below and on the left. He informed the controlling authority who informed him they were unaware of any drone activity other than that already notified, coordinated and briefed and from which he was already separated.

     

    Reported Separation: 300ft V/200ft H

    Reported Risk of Collision: Medium

    Cause: The drone was being flown above the VLOS limit and at an altitude such that it was endangering other aircraft at that location. The Board agreed that the incident was therefore best described as the drone was flown into conflict with the DA42.

     

    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
    2018176

    14 Jul 18

    0745

    A321

    (CAT)

    Drone

    5327N 00204W

    10nm Manchester Approach

    3500ft

     

    Manchester TMA

    (A)

    The A321 pilot reports that he was being vectored for an ILS RW23R at Manchester.  At about 10nm finals (in the vicinity of Arnfield Reservoir) at 3500ft, a crew member saw what appeared to be a drone in close proximity.  It was estimated to be within 200ft laterally and at the same altitude.  It was reported to Manchester ATC. The pilot noted that as a drone operator himself, he was aware that some drones have software on them to prevent flying in CAS. He opined that better education, training and regulation on the sales of the drones was needed to minimise the risk.

     

    Reported Separation: 0ft V/200ft H

     

    The Manchester controller reports that the A321 pilot reported seeing a drone to the left of his aircraft.  He reported it as white.  No further sightings were made.

    Cause: The drone was being flown above the VLOS limit and in an airfield approach lane such that it was endangering other aircraft at that location. 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
    2018177

    14 Jul 18

    1007

    A321

    (CAT)

    Unk Obj

    5229N 00147W

    3nm NW Birmingham Airport

    900ft

    Birmingham CTR

    (D)

    The A321 pilot reports that he was on final approach when he saw an object pass directly beneath the aircraft. He thought it was either some sort of balloon or a drone.

     

    Reported Separation: 25ft V/0m H

    Cause: The Board were not able to ascertain whether the object was a balloon or a drone and therefore agreed that the incident was best described as a conflict in Class D.

     

    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
    2018179

    7 Jul 18

    1448

    ATR72

    (CAT)

    Drone

    5558N 00258W

    14nm E Edinburgh

    FL049

    Edinburgh CTA

    (D)

    The ATR72 pilot reports that he was on base leg for an IFR approach to Edinburgh RW24 when the FO saw a drone in the 12 o’clock, initially well below but which appeared to be climbing. It passed down the left side of the aircraft slightly above.

     

    Reported Separation: 200ft V/10m H

    Reported Risk of Collision: Medium

    Cause: The drone was being flown above the VLOS limit such that it was endangering other aircraft at that location. The Board wondered whether there had been opportunity for the ATR72 pilot to avoid the drone but agreed that the incident was best described as the drone was flown into conflict with the ATR42.

     

    Risk: The Board considered that the pilot’s overall account of the incident, given that they had seen the drone at range, portrayed a situation where safety had been much reduced below the norm to the extent that safety had not been assured.

    B
    2018184

    13 Jul 18

    1434

    B787

    (CAT)

    Drone

    5128N 00018W

    Woolwich

    3000ft

     

    London TMA

    (A)

    The B787 pilot reports that he was departing from Heathrow RW09R when he saw a small drone pass down the right-hand-side of the aircraft about 200ft below.  It was spotted too late to take any avoiding action.

     

    Reported Separation: 200ft V

    Reported Risk of Collision: Medium

     

    The London TCC controller reports that the B787 pilot was departing from Heathrow, passing 3000ft climbing to 6000ft, when the pilot reported seeing a drone.

    Cause: The drone was being flown above the VLOS limit and in an airfield departure lane such that it was endangering other aircraft at that location. 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 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
    2018192

    21 Jul 18

    1630

    C152

    (Civ FW)

    Drone

    5256N 00116W

    Trowell services

    2080ft

    London FIR

    (G)

    The C152 pilot reports that he was on a navigational exercise with a student at a height of 2080ft, when a flying object passed to their right at a similar altitude within 15m of them.  He believed it was possibly a drone.

     

    Reported Separation: 0ft V/15m H

     

    Cause: The drone was being flown above the practical VLOS limit such that it was endangering other aircraft at that location. The Board agreed that the incident was therefore best described as the drone was flown into conflict with the C152.

     

    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
    2018193

    22 Jul 18

    1742

    B777

    (CAT)

    Drone

    5128N 00008W

    Nine Elms

    3500ft

    London TMA

    (A)

    The B777 pilot reports that he was on final approach to Heathrow at a range of about 12nm when they encountered a drone just above and to the left of the aircraft. It had previously been reported both on ATIS and by ATC as being at 8 miles and at 3400 feet. Workload was high, approach was into sun and the sighting was at the last moment.

     

    Reported Separation: 100ft V/50m H

    Reported Risk of Collision: Medium

    Cause: The drone was being flown above the VLOS limit and in an airfield approach path such that it was endangering other aircraft at that location. The Board agreed that the incident was therefore best described as the drone was flown into conflict with the B777.

     

    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