UK Airprox Board UK Airprox Board
  • Assessment Summary Sheet for UKAB Meeting on 12th September 2018

     

    Total Risk A Risk B Risk C Risk D Risk E
    17 2 4 10 0 1

     

    Airprox         

    Aircraft 1

    (Type)                

    Aircraft 2

    (Type)                

    Airspace

    (Class)                    

    Cause                                             ICAO Risk      
    2018057

    AA5

    (Civ FW)

    PA28

    (Civ FW)

    London FIR

    (G)

    A late sighting by the AA5 pilot and a non-sighting by the PA28 pilot.

    Contributory: The Brize LARS controller did not pass Traffic Information to the AA5 pilot.

    C

    2018080

    Tutor

    (HQ Air Trg)      

    Prefect

    (HQ Air Trg)

    London FIR

    (G)

    The Tutor pilot was concerned by the proximity of the Prefect. E
    2018085

    PA28(A)

    (Civ FW)

    PA28(B)

    (Civ FW)

    London FIR

    (G)

    The PA28(B) pilot flew close enough to the PA28(A) to cause its pilot concern. C
    2018087

    PA28

    (Civ FW)

    C172

    (Civ FW)

    London FIR

    (G)

    A non-sighting by the C172 pilot and effectively a non-sighting by the PA28 pilot. B
    2018088

    Magni

    (Civ Helo)

    C120

    (Civ FW)

    London FIR

    (G)

    The C120 pilot did not integrate with the Magni autogyro.

    Contributory: 1. The Magni pilot did not follow the promulgated circuit ground track. 2. The C120 pilot did not assimilate the Magni pilot’s finals call.

    A
    2018090

    DA42

    (Civ FW)

    PA28

    (Civ FW)

    London FIR

    (G)

    A conflict in Class G resolved by the DA42 pilot.

    Contributory: A long final approach to RW02 North Weald can conflict with the RW03 Stapleford visual circuit.

    Recommendation: That North Weald provide advice to pilots concerning the potential for confliction with the Stapleford visual circuit.

    C
    2018091

    AS365

    (HEMS)

    Microlight

    (Civ FW)

    London FIR

    (G)

    A late sighting by the AS365 pilot. C
    2018092

    PA32

    (Civ FW)

    PA28

    (Civ FW)

    London FIR

    (G)

    The PA28 pilot did not integrate with the PA32 in the visual circuit.

    Recommendation: Tatenhill update their AIP entry to remove ambiguity from the join procedure.

    C
    2018093

    PA28

    (Civ FW)

    C152

    (Civ FW)

    Ha’penny Green ATZ

    (G)

    The PA28 pilot did not integrate with the C152 ahead in the visual circuit pattern.

    Contributory: 1. The C152 pilot deviated well to the right of the centreline on climb-out.

    2. The PA28 pilot did not ascertain the C152 pilot’s intentions when uncertain of his track.

    A
    2018094

    C150

    (Civ FW)

    Helicopter

    (Civ Helo)

    London FIR

    (G)

    A conflict in Class G resolved by the C150 pilot. B
    2018096

    LS7 Glider

    (Civ Gld)

    PA28

    (Civ FW)

    London FIR

    (G)

    A late sighting by the PA28 pilot and effectively a non-sighting by the LS7 pilot. B
    2018098

    Drone

    (Civ Comm)

    Aircraft

    (Civ FW)

    London FIR

    (G)

    A conflict in Class G resolved by the drone operator. C
    2018101

    C130

    (HQ Air Ops)

    S92

    (SAR)

    Scottish FIR

    (G)

    The C130 pilot flew through a TDA unknowingly and into proximity with the S92.

    Contributory: The C130 pilot did not receive the TDA activation broadcast because he was already at low-level.

    Recommendation: D&D transmit on all transmitters and on 121.5MHz

    C
    2018102

    AS350

    (Civ Helo)

    Jodel D112

    (Civ FW)

    London FIR

    (G)

    A late sighting by the AS350 pilot and a non-sighting by the Jodel pilot.

    Contributory: The AS350 pilot’s lookout was degraded by cockpit management tasks.

    B
    2018103

    DA62

    (Civ Comm)

    Beech C90

    (Civ FW)

    London FIR

    (G)

    The Beech C90 pilot flew into conflict with the DA62. C
    2018105

    EC135

    (NPAS)

    DA40

    (Civ FW)

    London FIR

    (G)

    The EC135 pilot was concerned by the proximity of the DA40.

    Contributory: The DA40 pilot was conducting a PFL near an active and promulgated helicopter operating site.

    C
    2018106

    Drone

    (Civ Comm)

    AS355

    (Civ Comm)

    London FIR

    (G)

    A conflict in Class G resolved by the drone operator. E
    2018111

    EC135

    (NPAS)

    PA28

    (Civ FW)

    London FIR

    (G)

    A conflict in Class G resolved by the PA28 pilot.

    Contributory: The Farnborough controller could not provide the requested Traffic Service due to traffic intensity.

    C

     

  • Consolidated Drone/Balloon/Model/Unknown Object Report Sheet for UKAB Meeting on 12 September 2018

    Download below sheet as PDF

     

    Total Risk A Risk B Risk C Risk D Risk E
    13 3 4 6 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

    2018115

    20 May 18

    1525                                   

    A319

    (CAT)

    Drone

    5134N 00015W

    ivo Brent Reservoir

    6000ft                 

    London TMA               

    (A)            

    The A319 pilot reports maintaining level flight on departure when the crew saw a ‘small drone’ pass directly above them.

     

    Reported Separation: 3-600ft V/ 0m H

    Reported Risk of Collision: None

    Cause: The drone was being flown in 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 A319.

     

    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
    2018133

    16 Jun 18          

    2151

    AW169

    (Civ Comm)

    Drone

    5107N 00010W

    Crawley

    1200ft

    London CTR

    (D)

    The AW169 pilot reports returning from a HEMS tasking, operating on NVG, for a Gatwick overhead crossing. He was cleared to cross RW26L threshold when a drone was seen at a similar level. It passed down the right hand side of the aircraft, at or slightly below their level.

     

    Reported Separation: 200ft V/200m H

    Reported Risk of Collision: Low

    Cause: The drone was being flown in the vicinity of an airfield 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 AW169.

     

    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
    2018134

    19 Jun 18

    1114

    A330

    (CAT)

    Drone

    5322N 00213W

    Manchester Airport

    500ft

    Manchester CTR              

    (D)                                   

    The A330 pilot reports that at exactly 1.5 DME on the RW23R ILS at Manchester, all three pilots observed a drone hovering.  It passed slightly above, to the left-hand side of the aircraft, less that 100ft away. It was medium to large, dark coloured and shaped like a balloon. It was reported to ATC and video of the event was captured by a plane-spotter.

     

    Reported Separation: 10ft V/25m H

    Reported Risk of Collision: High

    Having viewed the video, there was a degree of uncertainty with regard to the nature of the object. On balance the Board concluded it was a drone, which appeared to be at a greater separation than that perceived by the A330 pilot.

     

    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 A330.

     

    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
    2018138

    17 Jun 18

    1711

    A319

    (CAT)

    Drone

    5127N 00019W

    4nm E Heathrow

    1300ft

    London CTR

    (D)

    The A319 pilot reports that he was 4DME on final approach to Heathrow RW27L when the crew spotted a drone just below their flight path, on the extended centreline.  The vertical distance was hard to judge, but they estimated 50ft below them, it was close enough to see that it was white, had 4 propellers and had blinking filaments.

     

    Reported Separation: 50ft V/ 0m H

    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 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
    2018144

    27 Jun 18

    1708

    Nanchang CJ6

    (Civ FW)                                        

    Drone

    5112N 00115W

    2nm W Popham

    2200ft

    London FIR

    (G)

    The CJ6 pilot reports in straight and level cruise when he noticed a white stationary drone to the right and below him.

     

    Reported Separation: 200ft V/300ft 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 CJ6.

     

    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
    2018146

    26 Jun 18

    1655

    C404

    (Civ Comm)

    Drone

    5146N 00025E

    8nm SE Stansted

    1800ft

    London FIR

    (G)

    The C404 pilot reports having just been identified under a Radar Control Service, and entering a note in his PLOG, as he climbed towards the Stansted CTA when the rear crew and second pilot reported an orange drone off the right wing. He saw the drone as it had already passed the wing.

     

    Reported Separation: 0ft V/100m H

    Reported Risk of Collision: Medium

    Cause: The drone was being flown at or about the practical VLOS limit but was an entitled user of Class G airspace. 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
    2018148

    1 Jul 18

    1008

    B787

    (CAT)

    Drone

    5139N 00023W

    Bushey

    FL070

    London TMA

    (A)

    The B787 pilot reports north abeam Heathrow when the non-handling plot saw a drone to the left and below at about ¼nm which passed down the left side. The drone had angular ‘arms’ extending from the main body and remained in sight for about 3sec.

     

    Reported Separation: 200ft V/60m H

    Reported Risk of Collision: Low

    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 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
    2018153

    28 Jun 18

    1639

    EMB 145

    (Civ Comm)

    Drone

    5109N 00047W

    Frensham Great Pond VRP

    3900ft

    London TMA

    (A)

    The EMB145 pilot reports that they were being vectored for an ILS for RW06 at Farnborough and were on a southerly heading at about 3500ft.  They saw a yellow drone pass down the left-hand-side of the aircraft, 500ft below. They drone was seen by both the pilot and a passenger.

     

    Reported Separation: 500ftV/500m H

    Reported Risk of Collision: None

     

    The Farnborough Controller reports that the frequency had been very busy with a complex traffic situation.  The EMB145 had been given a delayed descent and wide vectoring to the south of Farnborough.  The pilot reported a drone whilst in the descent.

    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 EMB145.

     

    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
    2018154

    25 Jun 18

    1556

    B787

    (CAT)

    Drone

    5128N 00010W

    Clapham Common

    3200ft

    London CTR

    (D)

    The B787 pilot reports on approach to Heathrow RW27L when a drone-like object was seen to pass just below the right wing, avoiding impact with the engine by an estimated 10ft.

     

    Reported Separation: 10ft V/0m H

    Reported Risk of Collision: High

    Cause: The drone was being flown beyond VLOS limits and on an airfield 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 B787.

     

    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
    2018155

    13 May 18

    1122

    A320

    (CAT)

    Balloons

    5448N 00250W

    8nm S Carlisle

    FL240

    London UIR

    (A)

    The A320 pilot reports that during descent on passing FL250-240 they spotted a large object which appeared to be made up of 3 red oval shapes joined together. They suspected it might be some sort of balloons but couldn’t be sure.  The object appeared stationary.  Each oval was about 6ft across and it passed 300ft below the aircraft.

     

    A NATS Investigation reported that the A320 pilot contacted Talla sector at Prestwick and was given descent to FL200.  At 1123 the pilot reported passing something that looked like three red balloons, the aircraft’s Mode C indicated FL240 in the descent.  There was nothing showing on the radar in the vicinity of the A320 at the time.  Subsequent aircraft passing the area 10 and 14 minutes later did not report the object.  Given that Met balloons are white with a suspended package beneath, the NATS report thought it unlikely to be a Met Balloon.

     

    Reported Separation: 300ftV/ 20m H

    Reported Risk of Collision: None

    Cause: The Board agreed that the object was most likely 3 balloons tied together and therefore the Board agreed that the incident was best described as a conflict in Class A.

     

    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
    2018161

    7 Jul 18

    1310

    B777

    (CAT)

    Drone

    5127N 00007W

    11nm E Heathrow

    4000ft

    London TMA

    (A)

    The B777 pilot reports that on initial contact with Heathrow Director an aircraft ahead reported the sighting of a drone on the approach path to RW27L.  Heathrow Director took action by holding aircraft at 4000ft until passing 11DME to avoid.  Once established on the localiser the Captain saw the drone to his left, about 2-300ft below.  No action was taken because by the time the drone was seen, it had already passed beneath the aircraft.

     

    Reported Separation: 200ftV/ 30mH

    Reported Risk of Collision: Not reported

     

    The Heathrow Director reports that an aircraft had reported seeing a drone at 2700ft on a 13nm final.  Following aircraft were therefore kept at 4500ft to overfly the reported area until clear.  This meant aircraft were high on approach, but the spacing was adjusted to accommodate different speeds to meet the descent profiles.

    Cause: The drone was being flown beyond practical VLOS limits and on an airfield 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 B777.

     

    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
    2018166

    5 Jul 18

    0930

    BE90

    (Civ Comm)

    Unk Obj

    5234N 00135W

    10nm NE Birmingham

    FL160

    Daventry CTA

    (A)

    The BE90 pilot reports he was in the cruise at FL160, about 10nm north of Birmingham when he saw a rectangle or elliptical object pass 500-1000ft below.  He estimated it to be 50-100cm long, although he only saw it for about 2 seconds before it passed underneath the aircraft.  It was either hovering or travelling in the opposite direction, there was no time to take any avoiding action.

     

    Reported Separation: ~750ft V/0m H

    Reported Risk of Collision: Low

    Cause: The Board could not conclude what the object was 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 overall account of the incident portrayed a situation where although safety had been reduced, there had been no risk of collision.

    C
    2018169

    8 Jul 18

    1721

    FA7X

    (Civ Comm)

     
    Drone

    5106N 00046W

    Frensham Pond

    4000ft

    LTMA

    (A)

    The FA7X pilot reports he was under radar vectors for Farnborough at 4000ft when they saw a drone pass down the left side, in extremely close proximity.  The drone was red; they reported it to ATC who advised that there had been numerous reports of drones in that area.

     

    The Farnborough Controller reports that the FA7X was inbound to Farnborough and was about 12nm south at 4000ft when the pilot reported an Airprox with a red drone.

     

    Reported Separation: ~6ft V/15m 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 FA7X.

     

    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